I’ve often wondered about the actual religious beliefs of some of our preacher friends like Pat Robertson and Benny Hinn. I think they are all Atheists — and scam artists. I’d love to hook them up to a lie detector and ask if they believe in god.But I wonder now about the general population of believers. How many of them only THINK they believe (or wish it to be true), but if you pin them down they really don’t.So this one is for those believers on the blog, and then for us all to trounce on them.Theists:1) Do you really believe in Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the woman from man’s rib stuff? Really?2) Do you really believe an all-knowing God put the tree of knowledge in the G/E, then got so pissed off that Eve ate the apple that god put in front of her (knowing she would eat it, since God is omnicient)that he doomed all humanity with original sin, creating Hell for his beloved children? Really?3) Do you really believe that all-knowing and all-loving God then murdered the entire planet in the flood except Noah and his family (including the daughters who raped him), who had 1.5 billion animals on this hand-made boat for 40 days? Really? How did the penguins get there? how did they get back? Really?4) One last question — Is there anything in the Bible you DON’T believe?
Generations of ServiceMurderer Dies in PrisonSomething OldSomething NewSo Help Me Nobody -- Court affirmationsSix Myths about MMOHSeparation of Church and State, A RebuttalSchool Prayer FAQsSchool Prayer Decision (Madalyn Murray O’Hair)Spirits, Souls, and ClonesSponsor the ShowSusan B. AnthonyTestimony to US Civil Rights CommissionTexas State PageThe 10C's V. NeutralityThe Atheist: Madalyn's BiographyThe Battle is JoinedThe Battle of PhiladelphiaRushdie Missing from Book FairRock of Ages and the Age of RocksRobert OwenMythicist PrizeNativity - The origins of the Birth of JesusNazareth, Faith, and the Dark OptionNo More Ham -- A look at several Black Atheist LeadersNoahs Flood -- DebateOdd InquiriesOn WeddingsOther Gods that Look a LOT Like JesusPledge of AllegiancePledge of Allegiance - Dave's LetterPre-Christian Christmas Stories with Other GodsRaising Children Without GodRed Herring Rushdie IRed Herring Rushdie IIReligion Tax Office OpenedRoadside CrossesRobert G. Ingersoll The Black Atheists of The Harlem RenaissanceThe Cons of Charitable ChoiceTo Bash or Not to BashTom Cruise Pushes for FBI Funding for ScientologyTop Ten Atheist MythsVolunteers NeededWas Jesus a Jew?Was Jesus InventedWatch the Words!Wedding VowsWhat is the object of life? by Grant AllenWhat is Wrong with a Few Harmless Prayers?What to ask Preachers and MissionariesWhere Jesus Never WalkedWhite House Expands Faith-Based InitiativesWho are the freethinkers?Why I am an Infidel: Luther BurbankWhy is Religiosity so Hard to CureWhy the Truth About Nazareth is ImportantTill Death Do Us Part?Thomas Alva Edison: An Introduction by Frank Zindler Thomas Alva Edison: 1911 Columbian InterviewThe Creator BillThe DisappearanceThe Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and The IlluminatiThe Final Taboo: Electing AtheistsThe Good Old DaysThe Hon. Atheist Governor: Culbert L. Olson.The Inconsistency of TheismThe Kiwi QuestionThe Logic of Death by George J. Holyoake The Myth of Nazareth, Does it Really Matter?The Question of Atheists HospitalsThe Roots of AtheismThe School Prayer DecisionThe Science of CreationismThe Wild World of CreationismTheopolitics of the Rushdie CaseThomas Alva Edison 1910 NYT InterviewWinning an Unwinnable DebateChristianity, Its Nature and Influence on Civilisation by Charles Watts Christians in UniformCircuit Court Rules for "Aphorisms"Congress Rushes to preserve Clergy Tax BreaksContradictions in the BibleConvencion en espanolConvention 2010 ScheduleCourt Probing Parsonage TaxCowardice of the WestCreation Science and the FACT of EvolutionCreationism: Reversing ScienceCreator Bill TextDave's Favorite Biblical InconsistenciesDebate: Is Creationism Science (Zindler / Gish)Did Jesus Exist?Edwin C. Walker: American AtheistErnestine Rose: A Troublesome FemaleCharles WattsCase is Solved12 Further Fictions from the NTA Declaration of Mental Independence, by Robert Owen Abner KneelandAgainst the 10 Commandments in PublicAgnosticism: The Basis for AtheismAims and PrinciplesAlabamaAmerican Atheists Legal PhilosophyAn Atheist's Guide to MohammedanismAtheism by O'HairAtheism: Madalyn Murray O'Hair 1962 speechAtheist Director Wins Creche CaseAtheist MusiciansAtheist StationAtheist WeddingsBiblical ContradictionsBigotry Worst Against AtheistsEthics Without GodsFCC Religion HoaxMoslem Violence in BrittainInterview: Douglas AdamsJames Lick Jesus MythKeep Politics Out Of The Pulpit or Lose Tax-Exempt Status: Opinion Kentucky Homeland Security LawsuitKersey GravesLessons from The Satanic VersesmaMA Church Dismayed over DisplayMaculate Deception: The "Science" of CreationsimMangasar Magurditch Mangasarian Mary Faker Eddy -- Christian ScienceMOMormonismInaccurate Founding Father QuotesHurricane Katrina Boosts FBIGod on OUR MoneyFree WillFrom the Mouths of CreationistsFundamentalismFunerals - Dying an AtheistGeorge J. Holyoake - The last man in England tried for Atheism George J. Holyoake by Madalyn Murray O'HairGod in OUR PledgeGrant Allen How Jesus Got a LifeHang the Commandments -- All 30 of ThemHubert Henry Harrison: The Black Socrates aboutlawatheismFaith of the Founding Fathersreligionpoliticsyouth & familymilitarymediaLibraryeventsStoreJoin & Supportorphans
I think that there is a sense among many people that religious faith is something positive so they cling to it even if they have little real faith in it. In other words, people belive in belief for its own sake.
What we need to do is show these people that it is ok to abandon their belief and that religious faith is not the positive force that we have all been conditioned to believe that it is.
3E8, for what it’s worth, I’ll take Spanders’ “moderate” belief system over a hard core atheist’s inflexible belief system any day. But then, you’d probably consider me a moderate atheist.
People need to live their lives. We’re all raised with certain preconceptions, and the world blasts conflicting messages at us 24/7, and we’re all just plain busy. These days more than ever. That’s the state of the world. It takes time and concentration just to decide who the hell you’re going to vote for once a year, much less challenge what your core beliefs are. Most people don’t have time for that.
To say that people “don’t care” or “don’t take their religious values seriously”, and that’s why they’re not already atheists, is unfair. Most people just believe what they need to believe to get through the day. Yes, a select few use their religious beliefs as a weapon to judge or hurt others, and those I have nothing but disdain for. But the others … not so much.
Because all Christians, all theists, aren’t painted with the same brush, any more than all atheists are. The person who is raised to believe in God/Jesus, and does, but who also believes in separation of church and state, the right to abortion, and gay marriage … that person deserves my respect, not my pity or disdain. And I give that respect freely.
To judge a Christian in any way simply for not being an atheist seems close-minded and a bit hypocritical. Judge actions, and judge judgment, but how is it fair to judge the core belief of somebody who is fair-minded and reasonable? Disagree, fine — but to judge makes us no better than the neocons and theocons out there.
To some extent, I disagree. If somebody’s faith makes them a positive person who impacts the world in a positive way, then who are we to take that away from them? Who is to say that everybody can handle a world without God?
All I care about is whether or not religion is institutionalized, and whether or not those institutions impact my right to exercise my purely humanistic beliefs. One man’s God may just be a literalized form of humanism, after all, and that’s fine with me. As long we all respect each other’s beliefs and don’t try to tell each other what to do.
gagglefrak,
I love you.
Let me re-phrase that. I have a deep respect for what you’ve written, but since I don’t actually know you it’s incorrect for me to say I love you.
Thanks for your response Spanders,
I do have a faith… The faith I have is that monotheim will be less of an influence in my public life going forward……
who knows……maybe the justice department will not hire people with degrees from Oral and Jerry University….
A certain kind of person becomes an atheist despite all the discrimination, hatred, shunning, and missed opportunities involved. We are the ones who are unafraid to think the forbidden thoughts or go against the groupthink. We are willing, or perhaps compelled, to commit to the consequences of logic and observation, unlike those who…
“just believe what they need to believe to get through the day.”
The biblical literalists make themselves believe (or at least pretend to believe) out of fear-driven determination and willpower.
The supposed “moderates” work hard to figure out ways to dance around inconveniences such as the ancient texts or logical conflicts. Their motive is to reduce the cognitive dissonance while maintaining the material and social benefits of membership in their religion.
Then you have the closet athesists/agnostics who, as Dawkins writes, “believe in belief.” That is, they know religion is baloney, but they support it because they figure it’s a mostly positive force nonetheless. They are driven by at least 2 motives: (1) a fear that without religion, humans would revert to an inherently evil nature and (2) a misdirected desire to make the world a better place by harnessing the manipulative power of religion. Both of these motives are little more than the acceptance of religious marketing.
We should recognize that these 4 categories of people have completely different needs motivating their behavior (belief). For us, it is a comittment to reason and observation. That’s why we always argue in these terms. That’s also why our arguments sometimes fall on deaf ears.
Telling the terrified fundamentalist to reason won’t work if it doesn’t reduce his fear of death. Telling the dependency-addled moderate to leave the cult won’t work if you don’t have an better alternative for him to join. Telling the closet atheist to quit enabling the destructive mind-virus won’t work until he believes in the likelihood of non-coerced human virtue or the possibility that even moderate religion leads to more suffering than it relieves through charity.
Man ok i’m just going to give it to you simple the way I have come to understand it.
I’m a Christian and I try everyday to understand God more, but I know I will not understand Him fully until I get to Heaven or He returns. As for you questions well I try to believe but it is freaking hard. You want one take this.
Ok yes its in the bible 2 Kings 2 well in the chapter two guys cross a river by seperating it, they one guy rides a chariot into heaven, then the other guy seperates the river again on his way back, makes dirty water clean by throwing salt in it, then gets made fun of by a bunch of kid and he curses them and they get mauled by 2 bears.
Ok now I havent seen anything like that, so how do I really believe that well I just do, I guess its not the strongest faith but my father and grandfather say that we are Irish and I believe that but with only a little faith, yea the name is irish, they can trace it but myself well i’ve never been there. Am i irish sure. But i’ll just as easily believe what the Bible say when it says that the same power given to Jesus is given to us because I have seen it.
My life has been constant experiences where when I have trusted in God He has done thing the world deemed impossiable.
I believe because I have never been given a reason not to and I for sure have been shown solid evidence that I myself could never reject. So I have given my life because of it.
Now let me ask you one question, ok. With the website and stuff are you trying to help people that you feel have been trick into believing in God? Because it seems like allot of people here are trying to convince others that something they dont believe in really dosent exist.
I tell people about God because no matter how you argue it I experience Him everyday and I know He is true as much as I know I am writing this right now. He brings me Joy and Salvation (i know we dont like to talk about Salvation) but i believe so i’m irish right? well I want others to know so I can help them.
Well Have a great day.
Gagglefrak
I disagree with you totally. I do judge harshly those who are religious as having immature and unsophisticated intellects. The difference between an atheist judging a religious person and a religious person judging an atheist is that we have all of the evidence working in our favour and they have nothing but unsupportable faith.
Why does religious faith deserve any respect? Even if a person is inspired to do good deeds through their faith the fact is that there is no good deed which cant be performed without religious faith. Would you honestly respect an adult who believed in Santa Claus or faeries at the bottom of their garden? I think not and so it is the same with religious faith.
Comment from: carole [Member]
Questions for the Atheists:
1.)Do you believe nothing exploded and created us? Really??
No. If you are referring to the Big Bang theory (which does NOT say that “nothing” exploded, by the way), I find it more plausible an explanation of the origin of the universe than the one supplied by Christians, simply because there’s actually some evidence to support the theory, but I certainly don’t believe it. Belief in that theory is not a prerequisite to being an atheist.
2.)Do you believe an amoral process created us with the irritating sense of right and wrong?
I don’t believe that our sense of right and wrong was “installed” as part of any creation process. It developed over time as mankind developed socially and culturally. There’s plenty of evidence today to support that conclusion. In some societies, mandatory clitorectomies are the norm; in others it is considered an outrage. Many examples of this nature exist that prove that there is no “moral absolute”. And I do mean “prove”; this is so crystal clear that I can’t believe anyone debates it anymore.
3.)Do you believe that there is no reason for our existance? Really???
There may or may not be a specific reason for our existence. I don’t know. But turning to Christianity doesn’t answer that question either. Not a single Christian I have ever talked to nor a reading of the bible has provided me with any answer to this question. What puzzles me greatly (and I really mean this) is why anyone, theist or not, seems to think there HAS to be a reason. Why? There’s absolutely nothing that makes me come to that conclusion. I don’t need to believe there’s a reason; why do so many people seem to need that? It escapes me entirely.
You misspelled “existence”, by the way.
4.)Do you believe everything Darwin wrote??
Absolutely not. I don’t know anyone who does. Science is a fluid, dynamic process in which theories evolve as new and more accurate data becomes available. The only people I have met who claim they have all the answers and that those answers come from a book written thousands of years ago, and who completely refuse to update their theory as new evidence to the contrary is placed before them, are Christians.
adamjhearn:
You said: I believe because I have never been given a reason not to and I for sure have been shown solid evidence that I myself could never reject. So I have given my life because of it.
Exactly what “solid evidence” would that be, if you please?
Personally, I think that comparison is insulting to somebody who happens to believe in a god. They’re not mental patients. There are reasons why they believe what they believe, if only because they were raised to believe. And telling them that they’re idiots isn’t going to persuade them to change their thinking on the matter.
Calling a theist “immature” simply because of what they believe — instead of on the basis of their actions — is plain arrogant. If your end goal is to prove your own superiority and supposed “intellect” then that kind of attitude will win you a gold medal. Unfortunately, it will change nothing. People can’t be shamed into changing their beliefs — they need to be convinced. And they’re not going to be convinced by somebody who condescends or clearly despises them.
If you can’t help but think of a theist as “immature”, then consider how you would treat a child who didn’t believe the same things you did. Would you berate them? Would you call them an idiot? Or would you talk to them using words and ideas that are familiar to them, and try to make them understand?
Just being an atheist doesn’t automatically make somebody a rocket scientist. In my world, part of being a “sophisticated intellect” is practicing not only logic, but also tolerance and patience. A truly enlightened and intelligent person knows how to teach by example, thereby inspiring others to emulate them. Attempting to convert the masses away from theism through ridicule will only serve to perpetuate Atheism’s status as a minority belief system.
A reminder of American Atheist’s mission statement:
Seems to me if we’re going to expect tolerance and understanding from theists, we should be willing to offer the same — at least to those theists who don’t judge us or mean us any harm.
It’s essential Christians realize there really are no positive morals in the Bible. Hucksters who stand to gain financially perpetuate that fallacy in the bad book. For example there are Christians who are willing to kill abortion doctors to prevent abortions. Problem is no where in the bad book does their god denounce abortion. In fact, when you consider there are more still births than there are abortions you have to conclude the Biblical god is the #1 abortion artist on the planet. Taken a step further you have to ask how many pregnant women died in the “great flood”, how many innocent children? How many pregnant women and babes died when god destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah. When god instructed the Israelites to wipe out the Midianites (Numbers 31)and keep all the virgin girls for themselves how many pregnant women had to die with their babies inside? And consider the Israelites kept 32 thousand virgin girls! If 32 thousand virgin girls were kept how many people were butchered? The Midianites were only one group of people slaughtered by the Israelites so it should be apparent the Jews preceded and set the pattern for what the Christian Nazis were to do to them over a couple millenia down the road. There is no morality in the Bible.
Consider also the old and new testaments consistantly denegrate half of humanity, WOMEN. All women are second class citizens at best in the bad book.
Then in Genesis 9:21-27 you will see the berserk story of old man Noah getting drunk on wine and having one of his three sons, Ham, accidentally walk into the tent while Noah was naked! Well what the hell? Ham goes out and informs his two brothers, Shem and Ja-peth, that the old man was drunk and naked so they stretch a blanket between them and walk backwards into the tent to cover their shy naturalist wino dad! Well, Noah is pissed, probably embarrased, and mad at Ham for catching him in the act of, well what ever. Noah, in a rage condems all of Hams decendants to slavery for the rest of forever! The catch here is the three sons repopulated the Earth after the “great flood” so obviously one third of humanity at that moment were condemmed to servitude. There is no morality in the bad book.
In Hosea 9:14-16 god directly performs abortions galore.
Then in Luke 19-27 Jesus orders that those who won’t bow down directly to him should be executed in front of him. Where is this morality I keep hearing about?
Stand up, take responsibility for your actions, reject the ancient malarky that is passed off as wisdom by people like Jimmy Swaggert, Peter Popoff, and Robert Tillton. Yes the Pope has to go in the same kettle. These guys are scum of the earth selling a guilt trip. Too bad about the god of the new testament losing his only son. Maybe if he would have had a bunch of daughters the world wouldn’t be in the shape it is today.
God isn’t going to float down to end war so paradise could blossom here and now. God has laid it all out in the bad book there will always be war, rumors of war and mock war. There is no god, just a figment of imagination from hate filled ignorant misogynist men who were afraid of the dark. The petty love for a fictional friend in the bad book is outweighed by all the hatred. No thanx.
Gagglefrak,
I disagree and agree with you.
Over the internet, I find no problem with embarrassing and shaming ‘believers’ into seeing how crazy and unpremised their belief system is. When folks read and read and read and can’t find ANYONE with a SHRED of evidence in favor of their views, they have a better tendency to abondon those views and keep looking. This is good.
On the other hand, when it comes to personal discourse and debates with close associates/family/friends, I think a degree of tact and care is important for gently reaching a mutual understanding. I do, after all, have to work/live with them.
If I didn’t think I was right, I wouldn’t be spreading the word. I’m proud of my views and honestly pity victims of broken thought systems.
One other thing, I’m 100% on board with Alexatheist not respecting people for having the ‘courage’ to believe in anything that is not supported by evidence. I respect Spander’s honesty and his RIGHT to believe, but I simply cannot respect WHAT he believes.
3E8, I guess I don’t quite understand why you’d proselytize atheism one way online and another in person. Or why it’s necessary to character a theist as having a “crazy” belief system. Starting from that stance, and saying that you can’t respect what somebody believes, immediately puts you behind the eight ball in the battle to “convert” them to atheism. Even in a conventional war, the best soldiers are those who are smart enough to respect the soldiers on the other side of the line.
Don’t get me wrong — I think organized religion is crazy and mostly destructive. But that’s not the same thing as somebody believing in God for their own personal reasons. Churches as a unit have been responsible for most of the crimes of Christianity, not individuals. It’s a fine distinction, but a crucial one. Because of that kind of distinction, if a group of Atheists decided to blow up a church tomorrow, I could in good conscience detach myself from them. Because my beliefs and their actions are not the same thing.
My reason for going on this tangent in the first place is because I felt Spanders gave a very honest and respectable answer to Dave’s questions about the Bible … and he was pretty much shit on for being “wishy washy”. And that kind of attitude gets the cause nowhere — it just alienates Spanders, makes atheists look like inflexible bullies, and almost dares Spanders to keep believing in God. He met us halfway, and we patted him on the head, then spit in his face. Bad form.
I think all the veterans on this blog treat Spanders with respect irrespective of his beliefs. Theist or not, he’s a good dude that I’d have a beer with anyday.
A good portion of my dearest friends are theists. I do love them so.
Here’s a link to a news story that goes to the subject of this thread. It appears some do actually believe what they say they do – even if it means their child will die for it.
I hope the parents of this child are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
http://wapurl.co.uk/?5FFE9JF
DVan,
This is another example of xtian brainwashing. IMO, the parents (and their religion) are responsible for having indoctrinated their kids with false information in regards to the benefits of modern science (medicine in this case) however, Oregon law allows minors 14 and older to decide for themselves whether to accept medical treatment.
Respecting a religious person for who they are is in no way the same as giving their beliefs any respect. I like Spanders very much as a person but I could never extend this same respect to his beliefs.
Alexatheist, when you put it that way, I have no problem agreeing with you. But it contradicts what you said before. And I quote …
“I disagree with you totally. I do judge harshly those who are religious as having immature and unsophisticated intellects.”
“Would you honestly respect an adult who believed in Santa Claus or faeries at the bottom of their garden? I think not and so it is the same with religious faith.”
Neither of those statements makes it sound like you’re respecting a religious person for “who they are”. Both make it pretty clear that you consider people like Spanders to be intellectually unsophisticated, with naive and childish beliefs.
A person IS their beliefs. Their beliefs are what define them, and you can’t separate the two just to pay somebody a compliment. To say that you like Spanders as a person, but disrespect his beliefs seems disingenuous. You can disagree with his beliefs, and you can even disrespect the institutions that sow those beliefs … but if you disrespect somebody’s beliefs, then you disrespect them. That’s just the way it works.
JustinW:
This article by Hugh Ross adequately represents my opinion:
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/flood.shtml
alatham:
Assuming you?re referring to sin, who said anything about ignoring it now?
I disagree. The law (and its prescribed punishments) given to Moses in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy was part of the covenant that was explicitly between God and the Israelites. Last I checked, we?re not party to that covenant?but outside of the sacrificial rites that were meant only for the Jews (in the Mosaic law), that in no way diminishes or negates what otherwise constitutes sin today. Sin, regardless of how it is punished, will always have a consequence, ergo morality is absolute.
alexatheist:
I didn?t say that. My original response was referring to the punishment for adultery outside of the context of God?s covenant with the Israelites. As I alluded to alatham above, adultery is still every bit as much a sin today, but we?re not bound under the same covenant with God as the Israelites were as to how it is to be punished.
No. Homosexuality is still a sin. Leviticus 18:22 is quite clear on that. Maybe Jesus was silent on the matter because he thought Moses had done an adequate job relaying that point from God to the Israelites and didn?t feel the need to repeat it.
jcc,
You did: “That was the law given specifically to the Israelites for a specific time.”
Ergo, since the context has now changed, the Bible is unclear whether or not we should still follow that particular directive.
So, who’s determining which directives still apply to present-day societies?
There’s one problem though: Punishment also falls under the umbrella of morality because punishment is an action and it can either be moral or immoral.
In order for a punishment to be just, the morality of the punishment must balance with the immorality of the sin.
Since the magnitude of the punishment has apparently changed, that means that either the magnitude of the sin has changed, OR the scale of justice balances differently than it used to.
And if the magnitude of sin is changing, then we again run into the problem of determining how to interpret the Bible in the present.
jcc,
Let me clear up the first part of my last post. I am referring to the punishment that is proscribed in the case of the sin, not sin directly. I’m not asking who determines what constitutes sin, I’m asking who determines what the punishment should be today for sins?
JCC,
Do you see the contradiction in the two statements you posted earlier:
Ah, cherry picking. I spent years cherry picking verses from the Bible. The whole Old Covenant-New Covenant thing. I really feel for those who work so hard at making the Bible “work.” Glad I’m out of that game. Anybody know what I’m talking about?
alatham:
Hmmm. The only context that has changed is that there?s no longer a need for the sacrificial rituals for the atonement of sins. Adultery is still adultery. Murder is still murder. As Paul pointed out, Christ?s coming freed us from that system?the sacrifice has been made?and the vast majority of Mosaic Law in the OT had to do with the how, when, where and why of the sacrifices.
I disagree. Ultimately, there is no degree of sin in God?s eyes?it?s all behavior that falls short of the mark. The heart of the matter here is whether or not we acknowledge sin for what it is, not the degrees to which we go to punish it. Yes, punishment must have a moral component, but that is only a problem for societies who choose to acknowledge what is objectively immoral behaviors.
Again, that?s the prerogative of a free society which has acknowledged what is and isn?t objectively moral. The solution to that problem comes in a particular order, and the order matters.
RunDogRun,
I know EXACTLY what you’re talking about. It’s amazing the level of denial that these apologists undergo to make it all ‘make sense’ in their heads. No wonder so many of them go nuts trying!