Those who counsel pastors say Christian culture, especially Southern evangelicalism, creates the perfect environment for depression. Pastors suffer in silence, unwilling or unable to seek help or even talk about it. Sometimes they leave the ministry. Occasionally the result is the unthinkable.
Experts say clergy suicide is a rare outcome to a common problem.
But Baptists in the Carolinas are soul searching after a spate of suicides and suicide attempts by pastors. In addition to the September suicide of David Treadway, two others in North Carolina attempted suicide, and three in South Carolina succeeded, all in the last four years.
The article goes on to say that it has no hard stats as to whether or not suicide or depression is higher in the clergy, but I can speculate.
One thing I keep telling Christians is to read their Bible, because I know that the more they read it, the more likely they are to become atheists. I would suspect that someone who has trained their whole life to be a pastor, whose livelihood is preaching, would get pretty depressed when he realized that it was all a scam.
But suicide is not an answer. There’s nothing after you die (if I am wrong, and you kill yourself, you’re going to Hell), and there is a LOT you can do here and now. So here are a few suggestions for pastors who have realized that their religion is a scam.
1) Tell your family first. Get their support — you will need it, and they will probably give it.
2) Stay in your job and keep preaching while you train for another vocation. Find something that truly makes you happy, without sacrificing your morality. Don’t think of yourself as being above manual labor or farming.
3) While staying on as a preacher, preach only the messages you can stomach. Try to sleep well at night.
4) When your training is complete, tell your congregation honestly that you have come to a logical realization and quit. Try to give them time to replace you, but don’t let the church hold your life up too long. Preachers are hard to find these days.
Don’t think of this as a ‘crisis of faith.’ This is a good thing! Your brain is helping you! This is a logical realization of facts, not a crisis of any kind. Suicide helps nobody. This world needs “former pastors’ who have seen the light of reason.
So Dave, why, after reading the Bible cover-to-cover, was my Christian faith only affirmed? I wonder, have you read the entire Bible?
…and exactly how does reading the Bible expose Christianity as a “sham?” Please refresh my memory as to which book, chapter and verse that information is found?
Remind me again of how you know that for certain?
…and what is the source of that morality?
Never mind the fact that your “facts” are as relative as your own code of “morality.”
Tell me again why I should abandon a well founded hope and abundantly purposed life for absolute nihilism? Explain how that’s “reasonable?” And speaking of reason, isn’t it the antithesis of logical thinking to use a concept as the basis of your philosophy that cannot be empirically proven to exist?
And one more thing… what about all those atheists who commit suicide because of the utter lack of hope your religion provided them?
You are correct that basing a life on something that cannot be empirically proven to exist is illogical – that is why so many people do not waste their time with the concept of a deity.
Taking that to the next step would inform us that snakes do not talk, millions of animals do not fit on one ship, virgins do not bear children, people do not walk on water, and people do not raise from the dead – in other words the Bible in its entirety exposes itself as simply a collection of fables and myths and not something to base an actual life on.
Additionally, the Bible is a terribly immoral tome. The god of the Bible orders genocides and murders, which in and of itself is bad enough, but many of the other laws and practices either specifically prescribed or passively condoned by the Bible (slavery and misogyny) do not help its case as a source of morality.
Atheism does not by necessity equate to nihilism, although there may be some atheistic nihilists just as there are nihilists that are Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, etc.
I would hope that nobody feels the need to commit suicide – life is a beautiful thing.
Non sequitur. One cannot be a Christian and a nihilist simultaneously and remain internally consistent in both world views. To hold any precepts of nihilism would, by definition, contradict and thereby negate the concept of Christianity, and vise-versa
After reading their bible through and through many times the only way a believer can stay a believer is become a “cherry picker”. Disregarding the distressing parts of the bible is the only way to keep from rushing out and carrying out the commands of god: Kill gays, kill disobedient children, kill blasphemers, kill etc…..
Why, little mouse, it’s your gullibility factor.
Those of us less gullible can see it for what it is.
Because the energy of consciousness doesn’t survive?
Humanity.
Is Dave a moral relativist?
Who’s the nihilist? Who’s an ‘absolute nihilist’? Why do you bandy terms about that have no meaning?
You speak of Dog, little mouse?
& again, the little mouse farts, & supposes his flatulence passes for true wind.
You have no fact to back up that bald assertion.
Same old, same old… jcc really needs to move on.. – history denier..
jcc says -…and exactly how does reading the Bible expose Christianity as a “sham?” Please refresh my memory as to which book, chapter and verse that information is found?
Not in a book, chapter, or verse.. The whole damn thing is a contradiction.. I’d suggest Dawkins new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, The Evidence for Evolution.. I’m in the middle of reading it now.. Good stuff..
Um, what history did I deny?
Please do yourself a favor and learn to use blockquotes.
Have you read the whole thing?
May I assume that he presents the results of an experiment in which he’s finally created an entirely new, morphologically distinct species via natural selection? If so, I’ll gladly buy a copy and read it.
@JCC
Psychologists like myself can provide a long list of reasons why you might read your copy of the Bible and not see the contradictions and immorality what others see in it. I will exclude the explanations which involve genetic or acquired intellectual and cognitive deficits and list a sample of the psychological ones, sometimes called “cognitive biases”. You will find a reasonably good list of these here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias
Legal rules of evidence and the scientific method were both invented to help counter these normal but unfortunate failings of the human brain. Cognitive and social psychology are disciplines which study it. The older the brain, the more authoritarian and conservative the personality, the more likely it is that a person will be the victim of such biases.
The most common cognitive bias is the brain’s tendency to instantly forget material which is contrary to a point of view with strong emotional appeal for the listener or reader. The stronger someone’s emotional investment in a particular belief or point of view the harder it is for them to recall evidence which contradicts it, even if they have just heard or read it.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to read, consider, seek, attend to, learn and recall only those aspects of one’s environmental input which supports familiar beliefs, especially those which the brain has tagged with strong emotions.
For example, in spite of having read your Bible you cannot give a list of instances which contradict the view which you ascribe to your particular version of “god”. The Christian literature trade has published thousands of books and articles which attempt to justify these contradictions and discrepancies yet you can recall none of them. Somehow your brain failed to note them and prepare them for storage and later recall.
Disconfirmation bias is the opposite of this: the tendency to avoid, discard, dismiss, not attend to and forget those items which do not support one’s emotionally held beliefs and ideas.
For example, you insist that atheists are all unhappy and deeply hopeless nihilists when you must have read thousands of postings by now which disconfirm this notion. Your brain has not registered the fact that very few atheists espouse the nihilist philosphy and that there is no evidence that atheists are any less happy than deeply religious people, even those who have similar beliefs to yours.
There are a number of other mind filters which operate to shield a person from noticing of examining material which disconfirms their emotionally held ideas. Some involve the person in some very active mental processing with the aim of avoiding uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.
These forms of cognitive “mind blindness” are the mental equivalents of the process which results in humans being unable to “see” the holes in the vision left by the optic nerve entering the retina. The brain fills in those holes in the visual field with material which humans perceive to be real. It takes some careful engineering before someone can register that they really cannot see things in these areas of their vision.
Although you seem to be completely unaware that you are failing to see or remember things after reading your Bible or the postings of people on this site your these things are obvious to your readers.
Psychologists are also aware that moral development happens regardless, and often in spite, of religious beliefs. It is a normal part of the brain and social maturation process. The normally functioning mature brain has “mirror neurons” which allow us to figuratively put ourselves in another person’s position and feel what they might feel. Habitual criminals generally have deficient mirror neurons.
The most immoral people are not atheists but people who are either immature or have faulty brains. When these immature or faulty brains are paired with religion the results are horrific: the anti-semetic Third Reich (Hitler and his hench people were following the rabidly anti-Jewish teachings of both Catholicism and Luther), Muslim suicide bombers, Christian “witch” killings, genital mutilation, devout prayer junkies who let their children die horrible and prolonged deaths rather than seek appropriate medical help.
Thanks Rosita, for a particularly insightful & analytical post. While most of us here fancy ourselves armchair psychologists (myself included), it’s nice to have 1 who actually knows what she’s doing.
Do please stick around.
Rosita, thank you for your post.. Question, is there a range of “mind blindness?” Say, if you were to graph the severity of “mind blindness” would you get a bell curve? I’d go out on a limb, a strong limb, to say that it shows a bell curve and a wide range to which people are “mind blind” with extremes on both ends and the majority of people somewhere in the middle. My guess is jcc is somewhere on one of the ends, depending on how you label the graph..(I’d put “prone to mind blindness” on the right side…)
“@”Rosita:
My copy of the Bible? Are you asserting that only my personal copy of the Bible contains these “contradictions” and “immoralit[ies]?” May I ask, have you read the entire Bible?—and if so, did you also make the effort to study it in its proper historical and cultural contexts? And could you please provide me a list of these so-called “contradictions” and “immoralities?”
Are you asserting, after never having met me or spoken to me, that I suffer from a so-called “genetic or acquired intellectual and cognitive deficit?” And, may I ask, are you aware of your own “cognitive biases?”
Forgive me if I find a publically editable, irrefutably liberal, “encyclopedia” to be a somewhat less than objective and thereby accurate source of information…
Invented? Does that mean someone, somewhere, holds a patent or copyright on them?
Really? So, is the corollary of that: “the younger, immature and inexperienced, the brain; the more morally unrestrained and naïvely liberal the personality; the less likely it is that a ‘person’ will be the victim of such ‘biases?’” Could you please elaborate on this distinction between the “brain” and the “person?”
So, are you saying that only “older, authoritarian, conservative ‘brains’” are susceptible to making emotional investments in beliefs or points of view? For example, are you, by virtue of your “profession,” immune to such phenomenon?
Well, since you’ve never met, spoken, or communicated with me before, would you provide me with such a list? (oh, and by the way, periods, generally precede closing quotes).
I can’t? Are you psychic? Have you actually asked me about this before?
Wow! This is amazing!—you think you know so much about me despite us never having met, or conversed.
Could you please point out where I’ve said that about all atheists? Clearly, you’re new to this blog and haven’t read the acrimony the atheists here have, not only for Christians, but for other atheists as well.
I never said that. I believe my exact words were, “why I should abandon a well founded hope and abundantly purposed life for absolute nihilism?”
Really? Did you learn that from Wikipedia as well?
There! You did it again!—you made another allusion that the brain is distinct from humans—could you elaborate on that, too?
Really? All I gotta do is hold up both my index fingers, look at the left one while I slowly move the right one until it “disappears”—is that what you consider to be “careful engineering?”
Really? That’s funny, because I’ve been accused of combing this blog, obsessively cataloging every detail that atheists post.
You don’t say?… So, how’d you suppose that evolved?
Oh, so are you saying that only theists can be immoral because they’re immature or have faulty brains?—And if the concept of morality is fluid, how do all atheists ever agree on what is moral?
Ok, so what happened in the case of atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong?
May I ask, are you a real “doctor” or merely a psychology dilettante? If you’re the former, and you actually council patients, are you as sloppy in your “analysis” of them as you were of me?—if so, both you and your patients are in my prayers.
jcc says – Really? That’s funny, because I’ve been accused of combing this blog, obsessively cataloging every detail that atheists post.
Yeah, looking for statements to cherry-pick to refute. However, since you agree with what the bible says you have a hard time reading it with a critical eye…
Shodan06:
If you use “blockquotes” your posts will be much easier to read.
Cherry-pick? I get berated by the likes of Obeah for exhaustively responding to as much of Doug’s, or anyone else’s, inanity that’s worth responding to, and I still get accused of “cherry-picking?”
That assertion assumes that I’ve never read it with a “critical eye.”
Shodan06:
You still haven’t answered the questions: What history have I denied?
and:
Have you read the entire Bible?
& little mouse denies the bootprint on his back, & squeaks loudly “‘Twas only a feather that tickled!” than a sole that squashed.
‘Tis to be expected, from 1 who thinks that Rush Bimbo is a keen thinker & analyst, & Faux Noise an actual news medium, though.
@Jcc
Are you asserting that only my personal copy of the Bible contains these “contradictions” and “immoralit[ies]?”
Different versions of the Bible translate things differently, some being more honest and scholarly than others. The King James version, for example, is among the most unreliable of English translations, being rivalled for inaccuracy only by the English translation of the Latin Vulgate.
May I ask, have you read the entire Bible?—and if so, did you also make the effort to study it in its proper historical and cultural contexts?
Yes, I have read the entire Bible. I studied for the Methodist ministry so I am well aware of the background culture and history of the times, including numerous academic disputes about these factors. It was this reading and these studies which played a large part in causing me to abandon my Christian beliefs as logically untenable and morally indefensible.
This probably had as much to do with my personality as it did to the academic material to which I was exposed. I have always had a disdain for intellectual dishonesty and a tendency to relentlessly follow a line of reasoning or research even if it leads in a direction which makes me feel uncomfortable – and much of it did just that. In the end I would rather know as much of the truth as is possible than hide in a comfortable delusion.
And could you please provide me a list of these so-called “contradictions” and “immoralities?”
I am sure that you are perfectly capable of findng lists of these things on the internet. They exist on both atheist and Christian sites. Here are links to some Christian sites dealing with these things.
http://www.kingdavid8.com/Contradictions/Home.html http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html
While the “explanations” may make sense to someone who desperately wants to continue to believe in their version of the Yahweh god they make little sense to someone without this emotional agenda. All too often they require that the reader believe something even more difficult or unlikely than the original objection. In the end they fail to answer the most worrisome of the objections/
Here are some links to the other side of the story.
http://www.goatstar.org/bible-contradictions/
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible2.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm
Here is the Jewish version.
http://www.borndigital.com/tcont.htm
I will exclude the explanations which involve genetic or acquired intellectual and cognitive deficits.
Are you asserting, after never having met me or spoken to me, that I suffer from a so-called “genetic or acquired intellectual and cognitive deficit?”
No. That is why these things were excluded. Why do you think that you read that insult into the text when it wasn’t there?
And, may I ask, are you aware of your own “cognitive biases?”
Hopefully more than most people. Becoming aware of these things is part of every good clinician’s training. As I am human, I cannot be aware of all of them. This is why I made a professional habit of subjecting myself to peer review and peer supervision.
Forgive me if I find a publically editable, irrefutably liberal, “encyclopedia” to be a somewhat less than objective and thereby accurate source of information.
Regardless of the bias which makes you dismiss any Wiki entry out of hand, the particular list I referred you to happens to be a good one. I would not have quoted it if it were not so. It is more accessible and easier to understand than lists provided by or for psychologists or students of logic.
Legal rules of evidence and the scientific method were both invented
Invented? Does that mean someone, somewhere, holds a patent or copyright on them?
As you must be quite well aware, unless you really are as stupid as you thought I was implying, most human inventions with social implications are not patented. What do you gain here from trying to appear silly?
Languages are one example of this. Languages were invented to meet a social need and have evolved and continue to evolve without need for the intervention of a deity.
Linguists can show that languages came into being in different ways and at different times in different places in the world. Of course, this does not support the Biblical claim that they were all invented at the same time as a consequence of the Yahweh god’s petty rage at tribes people who were building a tower aimed at reaching the heavens. If this god were consistent then our languages should now be completely incomprehensible since we have far exceeeded the primitive efforts of the Babel Builders. We have built huge towering skyscapers, visited the moon and even sent probes beyond our solar system. Consistency, however, is not a feature of the books of the Christian Bible, no matter what the translation.
The older the brain, the more authoritarian and conservative the personality, the more likely it is that a person will be the victim of such biases.
So, is the corollary of that: “the younger, immature and inexperienced, the brain; the more morally unrestrained and naïvely liberal the personality; the less likely it is that a ‘person’ will be the victim of such ‘biases?’”
It’s one of those U-shaped curves. The brain works best at around age 19 and works less well the further one gets from that in either direction. Fortunately we old geyers are able to compensate for our lack of mental agility by the acquired knowledge, wisdom and experience which we have gained over the years. Unfortunately there will come a time when even that will not be enough to compete with younger generations. That is life.
For example, in spite of having read your Bible you cannot give a list of instances which contradict the view which you ascribe to your particular version of “god”.
Well, since you’ve never met, spoken, or communicated with me before, would you provide me with such a list?
It is reasonable deduction to make since you keep asking for such a list instead of simply asking which Biblical contradictions and immoral behaviours people on this forum find most troubling.
(oh, and by the way, periods, generally precede closing quotes).
Grammatical conventions change from decade to decade and country to country. I was not reared in the USA. You happen to be correct that the current convention for apostophe use in the USA is to include a period before the closing the quotation marks, even when they are used to enclose a word of disputed meaning rather than a spoken sentence which includes its own punctuation.
But how petty of you to note this. It detracts from your argument by making you appear to be a small-minded person with no sense of what is really important in a discussion. Why do you feel the need to present yourself in such an abnoxious light?
The Christian literature trade has published thousands of books and articles which attempt to justify these contradictions and discrepancies yet you can recall none of them.
I can’t? Are you psychic? Have you actually asked me about this before?
If you can, in fact, recall these things then there is no logical reason for you to behave as if they do not exist, is there? Why did you pretend that you have no knowledge of them? Is this a deliberate attempt to deceive? On what grounds do you consider such dishonesty to be justified?
Wow! This is amazing!—you think you know so much about me despite us never having met, or conversed.
I can only respond to the person I have “met” during your written offerings here. That person does not come across as a very nice individual. Are you deliberately trying to be offensive or is this something that you are not aware of and therefore cannot help? Unfortunately for your religion, you are a not a good advertisement for the best that Christianity has to offer.
Could you please point out where I’ve said that about all atheists?
You made a sweeping generalization that certainly implied that all atheists must hold this world view. If you do not believe that then why make such an inclusive statement?
I never said that. I believe my exact words were, “why I should abandon a well founded hope and abundantly purposed life for absolute nihilism?”
Which supports my point, not yours. The statement clearly implies that you believe that absolute nihilism is the _only_ possible alternative to the sense of purpose you currently feel.
.. there is no evidence that atheists are any less happy than deeply religious people
Really? Did you learn that from Wikipedia as well?
There is a wealth of sociological research which supports this. It is more than possible that some of it may have ended up in Wikipedia by now.
It has certainly been my experience, as it is with every mental health professional, that religious people are often among the most disturbed and unhappy patients. This is complicated by the problem that their religious faith insists that this is possible only if there is something religiously wrong with the person experiencing the distress. This “blame the victim” stance is insidiously evil. The supposed superior happiness and joy of religious people is a myth disseminated among religious people because it is what their doctrines say _must_ be so.
you made another allusion that the brain is distinct from humans—could you elaborate on that,?
There is no scientific support for the notion that the brain is distinct from the human who possesses it. However, what the verbal and conscious part of the brain thinks is going on is frequently different from what is actually going on.
Moreoever, there are competing awarenessess in the brain. What we think of as “us” is frequently only the part of the brain which does the verbalizing.
People with split brains (either genetic or acquired) have two separate and frequently disagreeing consciousnesses in their heads. The left (non-language dominant) brain is the seat of negative emotions and responsible for our ability to feel others pain. There are documented cases where the right brain has reacted extremely aggressively towards people it can see in its visual field (the left one) and even towards its other half. In one case the right brain picked up an axe and swung it in the direction of another person. In another case the right brain frequently tried to strangle its owner. If the surly right brain commits a murder is the unaware left brain responsible? If the vicious right brain kills its owner is the left brain guilty of suicide or a victim of homocide?
Similar problems exist in those who experience fugue states, (which can be caused by brain tumors) and have serial personalities and separate identiies which continue for years but have no knowledge of the other, People with multiple personality disordes (usually resulting from severe childhood trauma) can have as many as 30 separate identies in their brain. Do you think that they each have a separate soul?
It takes some careful engineering before someone can register that they really cannot see things in these areas of their vision.
All I gotta do is hold up both my index fingers, look at the left one while I slowly move the right one until it “disappears”—is that what you consider to be “careful engineering?”
Yes. You do not register this blind spot until you engage in this unusual behavior. Once you stop it you are effectively blind again. You cannot see what is, or is not, in this spot no matter how hard you concentrate.
you seem to be completely unaware that you are failing to see or remember things after reading your Bible or the postings of people on this site your these things are obvious to your readers.
Really? That’s funny, because I’ve been accused of combing this blog, obsessively cataloging every detail that atheists post.
These events are not incompatible. It’s called selective attention. It limits what you can see and how you can interpret what you see. It is as if you were wearing mud covered glasses with distorted lenses.
Psychologists are also aware that moral development happens regardless, and often in spite, of religious beliefs.
You don’t say?… So, how’d you suppose that evolved?
The same way languages evolved: experience, experimentation, trial and error, much discussion and the collected wisdom and concensus of the ages.
Oh, so are you saying that only theists can be immoral because they’re immature or have faulty brains?—And if the concept of morality is fluid, how do all atheists ever agree on what is moral?
What I am saying is that atheismis almost entirely orthogonal to morality. When there is a correlation it tends to favor the atheist, not the religious person. For example, prison populations have the same percentage of professed Christians as exists in the normal population but a much lower percentate of atheists. The implication is that atheists are, on average, more moral than most Christians, at least in regards to those things which civilized nations consider to be criminal activities.
International studies of major crimes, such as murder, and indices of societal health, such as numbers of abortions, teen pregnancies, suicides and so on, consistently show that the more religious the nation and the more religious the neighborhood within a nation, the higher the indices of major crime, poor societal heatlh and the lower the performance on international measures of educational achievement, especially in mathematics, science and critical thinking. That is, something about religious environments is conducive to criminal behavior and social ill-health.
When these immature or faulty brains are paired with religion the results are horrific
Ok, so what happened in the case of atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong?
Individuals may differ from the norm but do not do so in significant enough numbers to affect the overall trend. There is an overwhelming tendency for religious people and those who live in religiously saturated environments to be less moral and less mentally and socially healthy than those who are not religious and live in secular societies.
May I ask, are you a real “doctor” or merely a psychology dilettante? If you’re the former, and you actually council patients, are you as sloppy in your “analysis” of them as you were of me?—if so, both you and your patients are in my prayers.
During my professional career I was licensed to practise clinical, counselling and neuro-psychology. Since I retired some years your prayers would be pointless even if such things were effective.
Of course, I realize that you really have no concern whatever for my well-being or that of my patients. The paragraph is a loosely disguised insult which does little to support your contentions about the power of your god to effect human behaviour for the better. Shame on you.
We are done here. I have better things to do with my time than try to educate someone who is selectively deaf and blind as well as deliberately or unconsciously very rude. It is no credit to you that I have a high regard for many of my former fellow Believers who are doing their best to behave honorably from within their unchallenged framework.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
jcc the history you deny is that of the earth and our species.. Yes, I read the bible during the first 15 years of my life I was forced to go to sunday school and church and even at that young age I could see what was wrong with it… this is my first and only blog… forgive me for not being “blog savvy,” I don’t know how to use block quotes….
Rosita,
Thank you for your responses to jcc. They were wonderful! You called him on many of his tricks and deceits quite well. I love you…and I’m pretty certain most of my alter personalities would love you too. Thanks also for mentioning multiple personality disorder. It isn’t always recognized.
I hope that you’ll stick around here even if you’re “done” with jcc. Your input would be a boon to this blog. Welcome,and please, hang around!
Rosita:
So, you found the teachings of Christ and his sacrifice to be “logically untenable and morally indefensible?”
and yet, despite all it’s intellectual failings and internal inconsistencies, you continue to espouse atheism?
But by believing in an intellectually indefensible philosophy like atheism, you are hiding in a comfortable delusion.
Really? Your tone earlier suggested you didn’t believe I was aware of such, or had the intellectual curiosity to find them. But since you clearly haven’t realized that I am aware of them, to set the matter straight, I was attempting to find out what you considered to be the Bible’s “contradictions” and “immoralities.”
And you are such a person?–do you actually believe that you have absolutely no emotional investment in matters of ultimate morality, purpose, and meaning?
You mean like, the concept of a “multi-verse”—or all the other “just-so” explanations for the universe we observe and the life within it?
Because you put it there to smugly point out that you could use that tact if needed—passive aggressive, anyone?
Apparently that peer review and supervision consists of reinforcing your and your colleague’s contempt for Christians by honing your attack skills by making such condescending assumptions as: “you cannot give a list of instances which contradict the view which you ascribe to your particular version of ‘god,’” and “yet you can recall none of them,” and “you insist that atheists are all unhappy and deeply hopeless nihilists,” and “you seem to be completely unaware that you are failing to see or remember things after reading your Bible or the postings of people…”
Thanks, I’ll try to remember my lowly intellectual domicile in relation to yours—more passive-aggression, anyone?
Apparently, my sarcasm superseded your lofty intellect. I was responding to your arrogant pedanticism. Science and reason are metaphysical concepts that elude empirical proof—no one “invented” them, they’re self-evident manifestations of consciousness.
Thank you for another generous helping of your pedanticism…
That’s a rather simplistic interpretation and projection of that Biblical event for someone as ostensibly knowledgeable of the Bible and it’s historic contexts.
Hmmm, I’m beginning to smell a rat…
Like I said, by your reasoning, a 19 year old should have no “cognitive biases,” but having been 19 once myself, I know first hand that that blows your psychobabble claptrap out of the water.
Again, I wanted to see what you considered its contradictions and immoralities were—and your prosaic concept of the Tower of Babel tends to confirm my suspicion.
How does it feel to be trivialized?
Hmmm, sounds like someone has a “confirmation bias” of her own…
Because apparently, you have that same compulsion?
See my explanation above about trying to determine where you are coming from.
No. I never said I wasn’t aware of them.
I have been nothing but honest here. You’re clearly incapable of discerning my sarcasm.
Given all your smug, passively-aggressive assertions about me, I could just as easily ask the same about you.
Guilty as charged, so let’s attack the messenger instead of the message, shall we?
Whether they consciously hold that worldview or not is not to say that they all understand that in the end, atheism ultimately is nihilism.
Then please explain to me how atheism provides you with any durable, truly meaningful sense of purpose for your life.
Show me. All I’ve seen is just the opposite—that the religious tend to live longer, more productive lives than those despairing in their atheism.
Cute. Now you’re attempting to twist the statistical insignificance of atheists compared to the majority of the religious to prove something unscientifically… there are lies, damned lies, and statistics…
Never mind the fact that there are millions who, being firmly grounded in their faith, genuinely are joyous and happy… Now I’m really smellin’ a rat.
That cinches it… you’re a fruad.
Please give an “operational” and exhaustive definition of consciousness—then please show me scientific evidence that it can be reproduced by experimentation.
Define the “we” in that sentence, please.
Looking at my fingers is “unusual” behavior, or “careful engineering?” Discerning sarcasm clearly isn’t your forte—my point was that you are not immune from cognitive blindspots either, and your posts demonstrate a multitude of them.
And the mud on your’s is particularly thick.
That’s sheer speculation. You have zero scientific evidence that proves our innate conscience “evolved.”
Show me your reliable, repeatable statistical sampling of what the true atheist population is.
Nice dodge. That still doesn’t explain the astronomical body count inflicted by atheists compared to so-called Christians.
How arrogant of you to assume something like that about me.
Another arrogant assumption.
And shame on you for your entire post in which you made no attempt at all to hide your raw, sanctimonious contempt for me—all while exposing your own intellectual failings, biases and incomprehension.
And there ya have it—you thought it was incumbent upon you to “educate” me into the hopeless pit of despair you call atheism.
And you’ve done no credit to yourself or your profession here.
Shodan06:
I don’t understand. Are you saying I’ve denied the existence of the earth and our species?
You surround the text with blockquote “tags” like this:
<blockquote>Text to be blockquoted.</blockquote>
which, when posted, looks like this:
Don’t forget the slash in the closing tag to terminate the blockquote.
& again JCC demonstrates his formidable commitment to being crazy – cherry picks, denialism, semantical wordplay. & always, ALWAYS dragging down his critic(s) to a personal level, to wrestle in the mud of madness he calls an epistemology.
But then, little mice like it dirty, don’t they?
Nothing funnier than a theist who accuses an atheist of intellectual fraud…& fails to spell it properly.
For anyone interested, Rosita’s the real deal, & we all know who the ‘fruad’ actually is.
jcc, I’m not suggesting that you deny the earth exists nor do I suggest that you deny our species exists, however I am suggesting that you deny how the earth came to be, how it works, and how our species got here.. Despite the evidence (which by the way is growing to a point that I think to deny evolution at this point is just silly) you, and people like you still want to deny, for whatever your reason, that evolution IS what happens. Again, I suggest Dawkins new book that I think MAY satisfy your concern about science not being able to produce a new species through experimental processes.. Selective breeding in agriculture has brought about new species. I have read your book, the bible, so please go get a book written by the opposing view and read it.. I know embryology, genetics, microbiology, geology, archeology, and most other science is difficult, but until people like you start LEARNING about the earth and how it works you will still just be in the dark.
Shodan06:
To clarify, what have I said about how the earth came to be do you disagree with?
The nature of the “evidence” (and lack thereof) is exactly the reason why I reject evolution as a viable scientific theory.
A book that makes excuses why a theory cannot be experimentally verified? That won’t satisfy my concern for its validity, that will only buttress my position that the theory of evolution is not supported by the very science its proponents attempt to prop it up with.
New species? By what definition?—and can that definition be equally applied to the animal kingdom? Could those “new species” have been produced purely by “natural selection and random mutation?” The indifference of objective scientific scrutiny must cut both ways or it’s not science at all.
What makes you so sure I haven’t?
What a terribly arrogant, elitist, immature and ignorant thing to say about someone you’ve never seen or spoken to face-to-face. Given your inexperience here, you are clearly in need of some grace: I earned a Bachelor of Science in Geology (which required multiple credit hours in disciplines like biology, and microbiology—not to mention the fact that the entire core curriculum was heavily steeped in Darwinian indoctrination) probably before you were born and followed it with a Master’s degree in Computer Science probably about the time you were being weaned. Like you, I was once a slavish, Darwinian Kool-Aid swilling lackey until, by the grace of God, I could no longer sustain or rationalize the cognitive dissonance it created within me in light of the astounding lack of corroborating evidence. So, unless you know exactly what it’s like to have walked in my shoes, think twice the next time you feel compelled to condescend to me like that again.
There, fixed it for ya, you ‘fruad’
I believe that you have the absolute right to believe whatever you want to, but you have no right to criticize atheists. You say “what about all those atheists who commit suicide because of the utter lack of hope you religion provided them.” First of all, atheism is not a religion. It is the simple belief that there is no god. Second, why should truth provide lack of hope? Would you rather live in a cloak of delusion all your life? Truth is the most powerful thing in the world, and should be provided to everyone, whether they should chose to believe it or not. If hope is lost or not is a personal question, but was not caused by the “religion” of atheism.
Oh Really? Says who? They (you) have every right to criticize Christians…
Oooops. You sorta shot yourself in the foot by your use of “belief” there.
It doesn’t, but you’ve yet to demonstrate the “truth” of atheism.
Provided by whom?
Can you tell me what hope your belief in atheism provides you in finding this “most powerful thing in the world?” Can you tell me what hope your belief in atheism provides you in finding a durable meaning to and purpose for your life?
Then, when that “hope” proves fruitless, the problem is exacerbated. Pastor can’t get a prayer answered any more than anyone else can. No one’s listening.
God cured Miz Lizzie’s cancer! Why can’t he cure Pastor’s depression? Pastor must not have enough faith, or the right kind of faith. Or as David said, he’s figured out there’s naught in which to have faith.
God cured Miz Lizzie’s cancer! Why can’t he cure Pastor’s depression? Pastor must not have enough faith, or the right kind of faith. Or as David said, he’s figured out there’s naught in which to have faith.
Aren’t you 1 of the guys pretending to be an atheist?
When I was in Catholic school, we were required to read the Bible, but never ALL of it. Only parts, and certain parts they told us. Also parts we were encouraged to find and present to our teachers for approval for use in a mass we would organize.
They never told us to read the entire Bible. I always wondered why – until I read it all. No wonder!
Yes, anyone whose job it is to read that whole thing, memorize a lot of it, and to be prepared to debate its finer points, is going to have a lot of issues to think about. Especially if they’re honest people in general.
The clergy have a special challenge in explaining why Jesus didn’t like the clergy, and eventually the clergy arranged for his execution, along with the angry masses.
One thing that some clergy members at wealthy churches may be thinking about is when Jesus uttered that famous line: “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven.”
I made a video about that conflict recently. I recite that line in front of around 20 different megachurches here in Austin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTmkl7qvpoc
I did this on a Sunday morning, and you would not believe how expensive the average car driving into those megachurches is!
Jealousy is soooooooo unbecoming–not to mention, immature…. and you look even shorter than I envisioned.
Thy pride showeth forth from every hole in thy robe, little mouse…
Why do they spend so much money on Churches and not Schools? I bet if we sold all the churches in the world we could end world hunger and poverty.
Funny. You don’t try to deny his point because you don’t have any argument so you insult him instead.
“And you look even shorter than I envisioned.”
What’s that supposed to mean, and how is it relevant?
Yeah right, since eight $trillion over the past 50 years hasn’t done it, surely the whopping $billion or so from churches will cinch it… Yep, once all them nasty Christians and their churches are gone, then and only then will all the despots, tyrants and tinpot dictators have a miraculous change of heart and open up their granaries and feed the world… I get goosebumps just thinking about it.
When one reads the bible cover to cover one is faced with interesting characters, history, geography and morality.
According to the holy god inspired book of genesis, snakes once spoke, as is witnessed by the conversation between the rib woman and the serpent. Now often Christians claim that it was the boogeyman who spoke through the snake, but this is proved wrong when god (the good guy) condemns the snake to crawl on its belly and eat dirt from now on. Why would he punish the snake if it was the devil who perpetrated the nefarious deed?
Then we come to Noah and all the animals in the world on the yacht? Floating around for about a year, not eating one another??
We also have Adam and Eve, Cain and Able. Cain kills Able, Cain is sent to the land of Nod where he takes a wife…..who was the wife?
Linguists can trace the development of language all the way to Sanskrit and maybe beyond, but according to the bible all languages were created in a split second by god who was worried man might sneak a peek at him in heaven by means of a tower (heaven is closer than we thought) I wonder why it does not piss him off that we go into space but a little tower justifies such a condemnation?
Jonah and the whale, the talking donkey, the sun standing still in the sky, and we have not even touched on the zombie king or the new and improved three headed deity of the Christians.
Do you understand a little better JCC why the bible makes the best tool in creating atheists out of thinking people (emphasis on thinking)?
Honestly, if you are a very liberal Christian, I would think that it would be a fairly logical course of action to commit suicide. After all, the afterlife, under a liberal theology, is basically an ethereal realm of sublime tranquility and peace of mind—-not a place I would expect someone to have earthly regrets.
Rereading my above reply, it sounds a bit contemptuous and smug; the effect was unintended.