What questions do you have?

Posted by Hemant Mehta on: 02.14.2006 /

Thanks to all for your comments. I’m working out a schedule with the Off The Map people to go to several more churches. As I do this, though, a thought crosses my mind: As an Atheist, I do have many questions about religion and Christianity that I hope to answer as I go to the churches.

But I’m sure that some Christians have questions they’d like to know as well, but might feel embarrassed to ask… so, let me try to help you answer them!

Do White Christians have questions about Black churches?

Does one denomination have questions about another?

Do you need to know anything about Atheists?

Please add your questions to this thread. Thanks :)

89 Responses to "What questions do you have?"

  • Comment by: Stephan

    1 02/14/06 11:13 AM | Comment Link |

    Hemant, more than anything else I am interested (as are the people at OTM) to hear an outsider’s view of church. I was raised going to church, and, although I have attended several different churches, I always had a basis by which to compare them. It will be interesting to hear a less influenced opinion on what church looks like.

    I would also be interested to know if athiests in general consider themselves to be anti-Christian, or simply un-Christian. Are you strongly opposed to organized religion or simply disinterested? Or is is more complicated than that?

  • Comment by: Tim K

    2 02/14/06 12:03 PM | Comment Link |

    Hemant said,

    “… we should value family and friends before fads and trends…” in his St. Patrick’s blog.

    Why is that? I’m assuming you’re making a moral judgment, but I’m not sure I agree. Where in the world did the idea that we should value family over fads come from?!? What’s an atheist’s view point on morality? Help…

  • Comment by: Rick

    3 02/14/06 12:19 PM | Comment Link |

    Stephan said: “…if athiests in general consider themselves to be anti-Christian, or simply un-Christian”.

    Let me answer this one. Atheists aren’t against christians, or buddhists, or anyone for that matter. Its christianity, buddhism that we can’t relate to.

    As atheists, you don’t “need” to oppose religions. Atheism is just a way of life for many quite akin to how christianity is a way of life to christians. You don’t have to oppose or hate any religion to be a christian. You just are one. Atheism is no different.

  • Comment by: Emily Farewell

    4 02/14/06 12:42 PM | Comment Link |

    Hey, just to let you know, it doesn’t matter if a person is black or white, if the person is a christian they are a child of God. Again with the differant domination thing, if they are a christian than they are a Child of God. If someone is a child of God, than i love them and they are my bro-sis in Christ, so it totally dosn’t matter who that person is. Atheist and wrong in their believe system. How can you not believe in a creator who is higher and more powerful than yourself. Look around you, who could have made those plants, animals, humans who were wonderfully crafted. It is logical that someone, something of a higher power made all of the world, the universe.
    Have a nice day, and please don’t brush off what i have informed you on.

  • Comment by: Tim Rice

    5 02/14/06 1:27 PM | Comment Link |

    I mostly just want to hear your impressions of the churches you visit. I apologize that some of us seem to keep wanting to direct you in what we see as the right direction. I’d like this to be more just a regular conversation. What we need most is to relate to one another as friend to friend.

  • Comment by: Jess

    6 02/14/06 1:58 PM | Comment Link |

    Emily - I agree with you on the bro-sis in Christ thing, but not everyone does. There are factions and denominations. A relationship with Christ does weave a strong bond, though. :-)

    For everyone else - I am interested in different denominations. I consider myself a non-denominational Christian and I don’t really know about the tenets of the denominations. I know the story about Luther and the list, but nothing more. I’d be interested to hear about the different practices and specific beliefs, especially from Hemant’s point of view.

    Hemant and Off-The-Map team - are you going to be attending any predominantly black churches? I went to 4 different ones in Louisville, KY, last summer and it was a different experience. I personally loved it. I hope you get to go just for the experience of it, pretty cool. :-)

  • Comment by: Texan

    7 02/14/06 1:58 PM | Comment Link |

    Hemant,
    To answer your questions “Do White Christians have questions about Black churches?” and “Does one denomination have questions about another?” Let me share my ignorance with you on the subject. :)
    I think maybe they do have questions, they just don’t ask. Perhaps they are afraid that if they do ask, and a response is given that they don’t agree with or will be taken off guard, challenged. Confrontation is scary. Perhaps they want to avoid offending anyone or being offended.
    What I’ve noticed in my own realm of experience when people question other denominations is that sometimes they will hear one or two facts about a denomination, and then make up their mind about it. Good or bad. This is human. You see it everywhere, especially in the news. (i.e.-A 30 second sound bite is not going to give you all the information.) The saddest thing is, is that many people stop there without going further. For instance, a common belief shared with the majority of Protestant churchs is the “Once saved always saved” belief, which can be backed up biblically. One church however, I have heard (through jokes and other highly credible sources :) ) believes a person can lose their salvation if they behave poorly enough or renounce the faith. The thing is, this too can be backed through scripture. (It’s sticky issues like that that go deep into theology and can easily confuse someone looking in from the outside. Perhaps it’s a bad example.) I honestly don’t know the answer to that. I think that what many people end up doing is hunting the denominations until they find one they are comfortable with, sometimes it’s what they were raised in, sometimes it’s not.
    So there it is, my thoughts on the matter. For now I will just stay with the first two questions you asked and will think about the others.
    …..Well, I do have one question about atheists. Where does an atheist find his or her moral compass? And, are there any thoughts about what happens after death?

    This is a great site. I’m excited to read the blogs and excited to hear Hemant’s take on church activities.

  • Comment by: Texan

    8 02/14/06 1:58 PM | Comment Link |

    sorry about writing a book instead of an entry. didn’t know it’d be that long. :-)

  • Comment by: seeker

    9 02/14/06 3:21 PM | Comment Link |

    I too would like to hear your impressions, including answers to such questions as:
    - what goes through your mind when they are preaching?
    - what sticking points do you mentally disagree w/ when they preach?
    - what topics or subjects irritate you
    - what practices irritate you (emotionalism, passing the plate, communion)
    - would you like to revisit any of the churches? If so, why?
    - discuss the music at each place, how it made you feel, did it feel stilted or natural, stale or mediocre or strange or hip

    You should keep good notes - you could definitely get a book deal out of this experience, so don’t waste it or take it for granted. You have at least two audiences watching you w/ curiosity.

  • Comment by: luiza

    10 02/14/06 8:17 PM | Comment Link |

    I went to the internet infidels site and found it very interesting. I saw that the articles rebutting many christians like Lee Strobel and CS Lewis. I read one on ‘Mere Christianity’ but I didn’t find it very convincing. (Though I also read some christian books and find them very lame too!) But I was wondering what was it that made you become an atheist? is it solely the science thing - and if so, what do you make of christian scientists? John Polkinghorne, R. Berry, Russell Stannard, Vinoth Ramachandra? Or what else is it?

  • Comment by: Rick

    11 02/14/06 10:40 PM | Comment Link |

    Luiza:”…what was it that made you become an atheist? is it solely the science thing - and if so, what do you make of christian scientists?”

    Road to atheism is a thought process. When things don’t add up some still accept it on basis of faith, whereas some decide to put it under spotlight to check its validity. Atheism is when you “question your answers”.

    About christian scientist. There doesn’t need to be a disconnect or a link between science and religion. Mendel was a the founder of genetics even and also a member of a seminary and a devout christian. When we think of scientists, we regard them for their scientific contribution and wouldn’t care less about the kind of religious or philosophical baggage they carried through their life.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    12 02/15/06 12:11 AM | Comment Link |

    I once heard someone respond to the question “Do you believe in God?” with the answer “No, I’m not superstitious.”

    That got the wheels turning in my head.

    Of course a lot of big life events and different paths and investigations and reading before and after that point contributed to it.

    But I consider my hearing that sentence the tipping point for me.

    “No, I’m not superstitious.”

    Of course, on it’s face it’s an insulting thing to say. Utterly ridiculous, of course. There’s a huge difference between beliving in God and the foolishness of fearing black cats and walking under ladders…. right? Right?

    So I set out to discover the difference. Obviously only the extremely gullible are afraid of bad luck from seeing black cats. And on the other hand, only the extremely virtuous have the most faith in God. Everything else in between was fair game, so I started going down the list of everything supernatural I believed in, and some I still wondered about, with the intention to pare back everything that didn’t have better evidence than superstition.

    Okay, black cats, gone.
    Loch Ness Monster, gone.
    UFO visitations, looked into it, tried to find the best evidence, at the end had to drop it, No credible evidence, so gone.
    Astrology, completely easy to do double-blind experiments, always falsified. Gone.
    ESP. Same as astrology. Fails every double-blind test. Gone.
    Bad Luck Streaks. Easy to test, just look at Vegas results, streaks are just the human mind seeking patterns where the data is just purely random.
    Ghosts. Gone.
    Psychic mediums. Gone.
    Dowsers.
    Past lives.
    Pet psychics.

    Eventually I got to religion. I can’t say there is no God. But I did put the question in a positive phrasing, testing it the way I tested everything from ESP to UFO’s.

    Has anyone provided proof that their religion is the true one? That God exists and their church is the one with the correct image of God.

    I concluded that, no, there was no such religion that actually had compelling, solid, bet-your-immortal-soul-on-it proof. So I could not in good conscience say that I followed any religion, any more than I would follow the Loch Ness Monster society or the Bigfoot society or the black cat-ophobes.

    There are a lot of different images of God, and a lot of different ideas that i had to work through. This was just one.

    But to this point, now in my life, I have come to the understanding that I have no reason to believe that a personal God listens and intervenes in my life. Other people say He does in theirs, but then again, other people say they saw Aunt Millie beamed up by martians.

    So I came to my current understanding that my reasons for believing that God existed were as compelling as my reasons for believing that rabbits feet are good luck.

    And I’m not superstitious.

  • Comment by: Mark

    13 02/15/06 8:05 AM | Comment Link |

    I think Rick answered the question well concerning why some atheists are seen as anti- or un- christian. But right after he did Emily tells us that we’re wrong. She also presumes it was a “who” that made everything. If we begin to explain these questions in scientific answers then some see us as anti-christian. She also conveys that she has informed us. Thanks, but no thanks Emily. No matter what we say we will be viewed by some as anti-christian for disputing her comments though we don’t agree with her. I’m going on a limb here and saying it’s not just a difference in opinion between Emily and I on this.

  • Comment by: Hemant

    14 02/15/06 10:16 AM | Comment Link |

    Stephan– I’ve never met an Atheist who was anti-Christian. Or anti-God. Atheists don’t *hate* God. They just don’t believe in god. The idea of hating god makes as much sense as hating a unicorn. How can you hate something that you don’t even think is there? After that, being “un-Christian” is a moot point.

    There are some Atheists who are opposed to organized religion. But it only really gets to us when they start taking away our right to not believe. For example, it’s organized religion that tries to put Intelligent Design in Science class. It’s organized religion that kicks us out of Boy Scouts. It’s organized religion that tries to control what I can and cannot watch on TV. That stuff bothers us. A lot.

    On a side point, I hear a lot of talk about how Atheists try to take away others’ right to be religious. Which is absurd. The whole idea of “no prayer in public schools” only refers to a person in leadership forcing everyone to read the Bible– or say a prayer. Students are welcome to form Bible clubs, as long as other religious groups can form as well. Students can read the Bible in class, just as other students can choose not to. It’s just not forced upon everyone.

    Tim– Atheist’s view on morality? I think one could sum it up by saying “Do what makes you happy as long as you’re not stopping someone else from doing the same.” If we follow this, we shouldn’t murder, lie, steal, etc.

    Jess– Yes, I will be going to predominantly black churches. Soon.

    Texan– What happens after death? Nothing. Which is why one should celebrate life as he/she is living it. If there’s no “heaven,” we must create a “heaven on Earth” by doing good things. For this reason, we should all be organ donors and donate our bodies to science.

  • Comment by: luiza

    15 02/15/06 10:39 AM | Comment Link |

    I’m a christian because of Jesus - initially because of his historicity. What do you think of him?

  • Comment by: Siamang

    16 02/15/06 10:59 AM | Comment Link |

    I think Jesus probably existed. As did Muhammad, Buddha, Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    17 02/15/06 11:03 AM | Comment Link |

    I’d put in my 2 cents to this Hemnant quote:

    “Atheist’s view on morality? I think one could sum it up by saying “Do what makes you happy as long as you’re not stopping someone else from doing the same.”"

    I would add that atheism, per se, doesn’t have a moral code. It’s just that you’re not going to church.

    But as members of society, we have to abide by the moral codes of society or we suffer the same fate as all other members of society who do immoral things.

    Why am I not immoral? Because I love my fellow man. I do that because my momma taught me well, not because of threat of hellfire.

  • Comment by: Mark

    18 02/15/06 11:37 AM | Comment Link |

    luiza,
    I think Jesus is a plagurized myth that came from Mithraism and when Jesus Ben Pantera was killed they made up the story of Jesus Christ to fulfill Jewish prophecy. You are free to believe otherwise.

  • Comment by: smt

    19 02/15/06 11:44 AM | Comment Link |

    I know I am not the one paying you to go to church, but would you consider giving reports from an additional angle? Consider the universality of religion in our world and the purpose it serves as a way of giving meaning to one’s life. I would like to hear your response as to how effective you think each church is in accomplishing that goal. This is a question from the perspective of an Otto Rank or an Ernest Becker, who places religion as a social structure which provides answers to the human condition (that being that we are sentient creatures keenly aware of our inevitable future death). Since other have given book suggestions, I would suggest reading Becker’s “The Denial of Death” to better understand this.

    Everything that has been discussed about the various traditions/rituals in churches can be summed up as an evolution of religious belief that fosters meaning in one’s life. From following traditional scripture reading in Latin, to taking communion, to raising a hand or two, to “being filled with the Holy Spirit” and dancing around the aisles. It all is a process which brings one closer to god, and which brings one closer to becoming an immortal being. Of course, from an atheistic perspective, we all turn to worm-food anyway, but maybe religion is necessary to help the majority of people to have hope and to go on and live another day.

  • Comment by: Tracie

    20 02/15/06 11:45 AM | Comment Link |

    Do White Christians have questions about Black churches?

    Yes (I’m white), but I’d probably never ask because I don’t want to sound like I’m trying to point out any differences between races, kwim? I finally did go to a black church and it was very different than my church! Mostly in that the service was really long! :) Hehe! I enjoyed it and it was a great experience.

    Does one denomination have questions about another?

    Oh, I’ve always got tons of questions about other denominations. I attend a Grace Brethren church. I try to educate myself about other denominations. And while there are a LOT of differences in (human) doctrine, I find that the only important issue…acceptance of the fact that Jesus is God, died for our sins and was resurrected…is there 99% of the time. The other issues are things that our salvation doesn’t depend on.
    I do have a huge curiosity for Catholocism, though. I’m not sure why. It’s just very intriguing to me.

    Do you need to know anything about Atheists?

    I didn’t become a Christian until I was 16 and wasn’t raised in a Christian home, so I guess I can say I’ve pretty much been there. To me, here are only 2 groups of people, those who have accepted Christ and those who have not. I know that sounds overly simple, but I believe that is the only thing God cares about!

  • Comment by: andrew

    21 02/15/06 9:17 PM | Comment Link |

    luiza,

    I don’t think a “Jesus of Nazareth” existed. There’s actually no evidence of him at all. This is all well documented, and has been discussed for a long time. In fact, the early Christians, including Paul of Tarsus, probably did not believe in a historical Jesus. Check out http://jesuspuzzle.org/

  • Comment by: andrew

    22 02/15/06 9:21 PM | Comment Link |

    Tracie,

    Yes, that does sound overly simple. Are you saying that if I accept Christ, then God doesn’t care if I rape or murder?

  • Comment by: andrew

    23 02/15/06 9:35 PM | Comment Link |

    luiza,

    I didn’t have time to look up all those people you listed, but I looked up John Polkinghorne. He is a real scientist. He is also a Christian. This is not unique or surprising. Many scientists are Christians. It is almost misleading to call him a “Christian scientist,” because that unfortunately seems to suggest that he is a member of the “Church of Christ, Scientist” (he is not) or that he is a creationist (he is not).

    In fact, John Polkinghorne accepts the fact of evolution, including human evolution, and he denounces creationism, including “intelligent design.” Dr. Polkinghorne accepts the facts of the big bang, a billions-of-years-old universe, quantum mechanics, and stellar evolution. Why? Because he is intellectually honest. Good for him.

    I’d like to return the question. What do you think of John Polkinghorne, luiza? And what do you think of the scientific facts he accepts?

  • Comment by: wheee

    24 02/15/06 11:57 PM | Comment Link |

    Emily Farewell,

    check this out

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/13/national/13evolution.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

  • Comment by: Chris Sitler

    25 02/16/06 2:15 PM | Comment Link |

    As a Christ-centered Quaker, I would like to know how other traditions (Christian and others) incorporate silent waiting into their worship. How does an outsider react to this intentional silence?

  • Comment by: Siamang

    26 02/16/06 4:14 PM | Comment Link |

    Chris,

    I’ve never heard of this practice. What is it?

  • Comment by: Brian

    27 02/16/06 4:39 PM | Comment Link |

    “Atheist’s view on morality? I think one could sum it up by saying “Do what makes you happy as long as you’re not stopping someone else from doing the same.”"

    I have to say it seems silly to think that all atheists follow the same philosophy (or vague lack of one, as above). The range of non-religious moral philosophy is obviously huge and comes from all cultures. Lots of people have done lots of thinking on this topic. Me, I think I can go with Kant’s categorical imperative most of the time.

    What I don’t understand, though, is how in the face of hundreds of books on morality written from an non-religious point of view, so many theists express the view that there is no morality aside from religion. Have they just not been to school? Or do they talk about, say, Hume and Kant, and reject them? Hemant, anything you could figure out on this topic would be helpful.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    28 02/16/06 5:42 PM | Comment Link |

    Tim’s question about morals is something I think religious people think about often.

    After all, religious people believe that their morals came originally from God. Atheists obviously don’t think that the morals came from God, but came from human beings.

    But to answer the question of where did Siamang get his morals from, I’d say the same place that Tim did: The previous generation.

  • Comment by: Stephan

    29 02/17/06 7:40 AM | Comment Link |

    I think morality is really a red herring in this equation. More evil has been done in the name of religion than has been done by athiests who have no religion. I’m a Christian, but am appalled by some of the things that have been done in the name of Jesus. Having religion certainly does not ensure morality.

    Andrew, don’t you consider the Bible a historical document? It is surprisingly accurate in many historical aspects and is better preserved than most other documents written at the same time. Granted, its purpose is to convince people of a religious principle, but it should at least be considered.

    Regarding ID and science/evolution, I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive. ID simply states that there is an intelligent force behind the design of things. It does not deny that changes have taken place over billions of years, but tries to suggest that those did not happen by themselves. The elements and processes were directed by someone or something. For many scientists, the deeper they get into the design of things, the more they are convinced that it was by design, not by chance.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    30 02/17/06 10:26 AM | Comment Link |

    Not to jump in too much, Stephan, because biblical scholarship isn’t my expertice.

    But simply from a logical point of view, I have a problem with this point:

    “Andrew, don’t you consider the Bible a historical document? It is surprisingly accurate in many historical aspects and is better preserved than most other documents written at the same time.”

    I’d say that preservation, per-se, is not proof of historical accuracy.

    You can have an amazingly well-preserved work of fiction, or embellished fact, or legend, or the mystical writings of credulous cultists. To establish the accuracy of the claims in the document you would look to other sources of corroboration. Are there other contemporary accounts of Christ’s miracles outside of the Bible, for instance?

    I use this example sometimes, not to pick on one religion, but because the claim of revelation is relatively recent: Mormonism.

    We know that Joseph Smith was a real man. The LDS Church claims that Joseph Smith found a set of gold tablets inscribed with an ancient language. He was given a pair of magical golden glasses to wear, and when wearing these was able to read the text on the tablets. That text he transcribed as the Book of Mormon, another Testament of Jesus Christ.

    According to church doctrine, a number of witnesses actually saw the gold books, and signed documents stating that they saw them.

    Something I do not understand about non-LDS Christians. Why do they reject the evidence for the revelation of Joseph Smith? After all, the story of Joseph Smith is remarkably historically accurate, and the Book of Mormon is one of the best preserved religious texts of all time.

  • Comment by: Stephan

    31 02/17/06 11:28 AM | Comment Link |

    Siamang, very good point. I have to admit I had not thought of that. It certainly puts historical accuracy in a different light.

    The reason most Christians would reject Joseph Smith is that the Bible as we accept it was researched over many years by a large group of people who analyzed many different texts to decide what was, and what was not, authentic, God-inspired scripture. Any texts outside of this are considered suspect at best, and are weighed against what scripture says. There are too many contradictions between our Bible and the Book of Mormon for us to accept what it says.

    The Bible, admittedly, has some contradictions within itself. I am comfortable with this, in that none of them compromise the over-all message. This is not true with the Book of Mormon. One writer, Dr. Timothy Johnson, actually says the contradictions in scripture could be used to argue its truthfulness. If the disciples were trying to make up a story, wouldn’t they have gotten together to make sure they all had the same story? The fact that they had some details different says they were writing from their own experience rather than creating a myth. Of course, Johnson is already convinced and is writing from that perspective, but I think he has a point.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    32 02/17/06 12:09 PM | Comment Link |

    Stephan,

    I don’t know much about the history of early Christianity, so I’ll just address this thought:

    “If the disciples were trying to make up a story, wouldn’t they have gotten together to make sure they all had the same story?”

    This assumes a few different things, first it assumes that the gospels are the writings of the specific apostles whose names tradition applies to them, and not pseudepigraphical.

    It further assumes this false dichotomy: that the authors either willfully intended to create a deception, or were completely accurate historical transcribers. It overlooks other possibilities, such as the idea that the authors were politically starting their own sects in different parts of the world, with different views of the “real” Christ, and therefore their writings were intended to push early Christianity in a certain direction. Ministers do this all the time.

    It also assumes that these are primary texts written as a historical account, and not based on previous writings or an oral tradition. It assumes a tradition of “just the facts, maam” reportage that may or not have been a priority of religious writers of the period.

    It also denies the very real possibility — the all too recognizable aspect of human psychology — that followers of a charismatic religious leader aren’t the most reliable, impartial or skeptical witnesses. See Joseph Smith, above.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    33 02/17/06 12:40 PM | Comment Link |

    Stephan, one more thing, just from a logical point of view.

    I don’t understand how you take internal contradictions in the Bible as being evidence of authenticity, and yet reject the Book of Mormon for contradicting the Bible.

    To use your own words, if Joseph Smith was trying to make up a story, wouldn’t he have made sure it didn’t contradict anything in the Bible? Isn’t it equally possible that God decided that some of the things in the Bible got there by the political meddling of man, and so decided to reveal to Joseph Smith certain corrections,revisions and addenda, via direct revelation?

    It seems you are applying a logical double-standard: contraditions are evidence FOR the accuracy of the Bible, while at the same time are evidence AGAINST the accuracy of the Book of Mormon.

    Illogical?

  • Comment by: Stephan

    34 02/17/06 2:06 PM | Comment Link |

    Siamang, I guess part of being a Christian is accepting that the Bible as it has been given to us is the authentic word of God. It is generally accepted (by Christians) that, while it has many different authors, it was all inspired by God and contains His truth. Anything that contradicts what is written there is not accepted, as is the case with the Book of Mormon.

    The contradictions in the Bible itself are fairly minimal. For instance, one account says Judas hanged himself. Another says he fell to the ground and split open. Either way, it does not matter to my faith. The Book of Mormon denies Jesus was one with God, which is a key belief of orthodox Christianity. That, to me, puts it out of bounds.

    I know we won’t resolve this here, but it’s nice to be able to get the opinions of others.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    35 02/17/06 3:04 PM | Comment Link |

    Stephan, you wrote: ” I guess part of being a Christian is accepting that the Bible as it has been given to us is the authentic word of God.”

    Why?

    I mean, why that book, and not the Book of Mormon? Or the Koran? Or Dianetics?

    I’m not trying to put you on the spot, and I think your answer will have to do with personal faith and the spiritual fulfillment you feel.

    But to turn the spotlight on atheists, and the process by which they can become Christians, it might be helpful to look at different types of atheists.

    I’ll talk about 2 different types. One I’ll call the lost soul. The other I’ll call the skeptic.

    The lost soul hasn’t thought about Christianity much. He’s gotten the impression from watching TV preachers that Christianity is a loud, very square religion which teaches young people to listen to bland music from sound-alike pop bands. In other words, Christianity didn’t appeal to him, as he understood it.

    One day, he meets a person who becomes his friend, and that person is normal, likeable, well-balanced and a Christian. The lost soul learns that Christianity also has communities within it that he finds appealing and welcoming. He learns about Christ from a community of friends and comes to accept the faith.

    The skeptic is a different type of person. She may have been a member of a religion in the past, or she may not. But one thing’s for sure, she’s thought a lot about religion. At many differrent times in her life, people have approached her about joining their religion, and each time she attempted to evaluate the claims of each religion to see if any of them were verifiable. She views missionaries as salesmen, and she wants to check the ingredient panel and the better business bureau before she hands over her immortal soul. How is she to choose honestly between them? Jehovas’s Witnesses, Mormons, Scientologists, Presbyterians, Seventh-Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, Baptists, Catholics, Branch-Davidians, etc… They all ring her doorbell and ask if she’s heard the Good News.

    Here’s an important point, she doesn’t feel a spiritual pull. She feels that there’s a cultural component to the religions people choose, since 99% of christians have christian parents, and 99% of hindus have hindu parents.

    A christian would have a hard time getting their foot in the door with her, because her question is, why should I choose you, and not them? Her question is, why should someone else’s internal feelings of faith be enough to convince me, when every other religion has people with the same feelings.

    It doesn’t help when religious people offer as pursuasion circular presuppositionalist arguments, special pleading, argument from authority and a good ol’ extra helping of hellfire and brimstone, if you weren’t already persuaded. The skeptic won’t be moved by that.

    There is a large and growing community online of skeptical atheists like her. There are conventions, magazines, books, clubs and lecture tours devoted to the philosophy of applying the motto of the state of Missouri (show me) to people who want us to choose a religion.

    I honestly don’t know how you reach us. I guess it’s up to you to figure out.

    In a larger sense, I do know how folks can go about bringing more people to the Christian faith. And it goes alot like what Off The Map is dedicated to here.

    By being open and loving. By being in the world, and part of people’s lives who aren’t necessarily Christian. And by living a positive, committed, involved life.

    I do believe that people are brought to a religion because they feel comfortable in it. And that comfort comes from people.

    I’m sorry i’m such a sticky wicket when it comes to this stuff. I ask questions like, “why?” and “how do you know that’s true?”. I think the world is majestic and mysterious. I like facts, and I like mysteries, but the thing that I would fear most would be that I’ve thown away a good mystery by choosing a belief and calling it fact without a good skeptical investigation.

    To me, the wonder of Creation (God-made or natural) is that mysteries abound, and yet, we still can investigate them and come to understand them. We can shine the light of understanding everywhere. But the only way that light shines is if we ask the questions “why?” and “how do you know that?”.

  • Comment by: Texan

    36 02/17/06 3:59 PM | Comment Link |

    Siamang,
    I think you are a very well-thought out person. It’s obvious you’ve given things much comtemplative time in the brain. I might no be so deep and thought-out as you are, but I have a question for you. If you come to understand a mystery, what then makes it a mystery? I heartily agree with you on exploring our world and understanding things. I’m particularly fascinated with the natural world and all the little systems that make it tick….But some things we will give it our best investigation, and it will still remain a mystery. What do we do then? I’m eager to hear your response.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    37 02/17/06 4:26 PM | Comment Link |

    My answer is, keep investigating.

    When the motion of the sun and planets was a mystery, we didn’t just say that Helios was driving his flaming chariot across the sky and leave it at that…. we kept investigating.

    And it took thousands of years of post-Helios investigation before we had the answer.

    It took until Gallileo until we knew the answer to “how does the sky move.”

    It took from him to Newton before we knew “why does the sky move.” The answer was gravity.

    It took from Newton to Einstein before we knew “what is gravity?”

    Is God too big of a mystery for human exploration? Good question! If He is, then “shut up and just believe already” might be all the theology we need! ;-)

    And I suspect some people reading this might shout it at me! ;-)

  • Comment by: Rick

    38 02/19/06 6:51 PM | Comment Link |

    I find this entire site and discussion very stimulating. On your person blog you asked Christians and atheists alike to offer a one word characterization about the other side. Some of the replies were honest, some were harsh. My question is, have you ever encountered a Christian whose character and manner of engagement with you challenged the preconceived notions you had about followers of Christ? If you have had such an experience I would find it very interesting to know what you learned about them and in what ways they seemed different than you expected. Thanks! Rick

  • Comment by: Stephan

    39 02/20/06 10:46 AM | Comment Link |

    Siamang, to answer your question regarding why I would choose Christianity over other religions - You’re right, my parents are Christians, their parents were Christians, so that is why I was exposed to Christianity. For those who don’t fall under this umbrella, I would present this.

    All other world religions I have studied set out a list of rules you must follow, and if you follow them well enough you might make it to a better life to follow. Christianity basically throws that out. It says that no matter what you do, you can never be good enough. The only way we can make it to heaven is through a sacrifice good enough to erase all of our sins. The only sacrifice good enough to do this is Jesus Christ, God incarnate, who lived a perfect life and was killed as a punishment for our sins. Because Jesus paid the spiritual price for my sins, I am absolved and can go to heaven when I die. This is an over-simplified view of what theologins have debated for centuries, but this difference is key. To my way of thinking, Christianity is the only world religion that not only presents the possibility of a better future life, but also presents a realistic way of reaching that better life.

    I could add to that evidence of the historicity of scripture and reflections on my own personal experiences, but I don’t want to monopolize the conversation.

  • Comment by: Mark

    40 02/20/06 1:03 PM | Comment Link |

    Stephan,
    In Buddhism someone is reincarnated with expectations of being better than the prior life. In Islam, Muslims are going to heaven for submission to Allah and his Word. Are you aware of these ideas? These are leading to a better life as I see it.

  • Comment by: Stephan

    41 02/20/06 2:07 PM | Comment Link |

    Mark, yes, there is a promise of a better life, but in order to earn it you have to follow the list of rules, which is pretty long, and then you can only hope you might deserve it. Christianity states that Jesus earned it for us, so we can be sure of our salvation. I don’t believe Buddhism or Islam can claim this.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    42 02/20/06 4:38 PM | Comment Link |

    Scientology comes with a pretty easy toolset. All you need is cash!

    So when I ask the why question, Mark, you respond with a subjective point about the idea of Salvation being guaranteed via Christianity.

    Of course, that guarantee only works if you presuppose the veracity of the claims of Christianity.

    So I think you have answed a different question than the one I (albeit inartfully) asked.

    If I may rephrase, what leads you to believe that you have chosen something TRUE, as opposed to merely something COMFORTING?

  • Comment by: Siamang

    43 02/20/06 4:38 PM | Comment Link |

    Pardon, that question was for Stephan!!! Sorry! Darn lack of an edit function!!!

  • Comment by: Mark

    44 02/20/06 5:06 PM | Comment Link |

    Stephan,
    What rules are different? Rituals may be different in that people pray to Allah five times a day and Christians can pray when they want or as Jesus said in Matthew 6:6 quietly in a closet but Muslims are just as sure they are going to heaven and getting some virgins and you are the infidel for not accepting Allah and his prophet Muhammed. Are you saying you can ignore the bible “rules/commandments” and still go to heaven?

  • Comment by: Stephan

    45 02/21/06 5:53 AM | Comment Link |

    Mark, I have a tendancy to monopolize the debate here, so I will try to wrap this up and not take up so much space. In Islam and other religions, your salvation is based on what you do. If you are good enough, pray hard enough, kill enough infidels, etc., you can get to heaven (or nirvana, or whatever the promise is). In Christianity your salvation is not based on anything you do, it is based on what Jesus did. Our obedience then is not an attempt to get salvation, but a grateful response that salvation has already been given to us.

    Siamang, there are many reason I believe, and I cannot expound on all of them here. What I am trying to stress is that Christianity is not just another religion. It throws the whole “do good and be rewarded” thing out the window. It is partly because of this difference that I believe it is true. It is unique, in that it provides not only the problem of sin, but a realistic solution in Jesus’ death on the cross.

  • Comment by: BeHim

    46 02/21/06 10:19 AM | Comment Link |

    Hemant

    I would like to know what atheists think happens to a person after they die?

    And what the purpose of this life (the whole of it) is?

  • Comment by: Mark

    47 02/21/06 10:38 AM | Comment Link |

    Stephan,
    Narrow is the passage of heaven and faith without works are two central biblical themes. We will have to agree to disagree that christianity is any different on doing something to earn a place in this heaven idea.

  • Comment by: Mark

    48 02/21/06 10:39 AM | Comment Link |

    Behim,
    We die, get buried or cremated and then decompose. The purpose is what you make of it.

  • Comment by: BeHim

    49 02/21/06 11:09 AM | Comment Link |

    Mark - how do you know for sure that what you say [We die, get buried or cremated and then decompose. The purpose is what you make of it.] is absolutely the truth?

    Do you have proof this is exactly what happens?

  • Comment by: BeHim

    50 02/21/06 11:14 AM | Comment Link |

    I noted Siamang you appeal to logic for determining facts.

    If you don’t mind me asking Siamang: How do you know logic doesn’t change? Are the laws of logic consistent and unchanging in your worldview or are they too capable of changing at any moment for any reason?

  • Comment by: cautiousmaniac

    51 02/21/06 11:54 AM | Comment Link |

    Behim,

    There is no way to find the absolute truth on what happens to people after they die, because there is an amazing paucity of personal, first-hand observations on the subject. People that die, generally, have made their final remarks.

    If you look at human cultures, extinct and extant, the two main ways of treating a corpse (burial vs disposal via other means) both support the idea that most human civilizations (and even people before civilization) have thought that part of a person exists after death.

    In cultures with burial, it was thought that a real physical, tangible version of the person came back after death…Egyptians pharaohs didn’t get buried with their servants for nothin. Various branches of Christianity have believed (and still believe) that the soul will be returned to its body, that the newly formed body may live in the earthly kingdom of Christ.

    As opposed to cultures where the body was not taken care of…India/Hinduism cremates the body, releasing the spirit to its next life. Zoroastrianists allowed the bodies to be eaten by carrion-eaters, once again, allowing the soul to be released. Vikings put their kings onto boats with their possessions and then burnt the boats…

    Brights think that all of these ideas on what happens with the soul are intriguing ideas, but also believes that all of these cultures’ death rituals and rites all make the assumption that the owner of the body cares. …which…they don’t, they’re deceased.

  • Comment by: BeHim

    52 02/21/06 12:03 PM | Comment Link |

    Okay cautiousmaniac so what you’re suggesting is that it is possible Mark is wrong in his belief and you’ll surmise that I too may be wrong.

    How do we know for sure which belief is right or wrong?

    You’ll use history to interpret the facts but I will suggest you assume all things are possible without fully knowing which is true and which is not (there is NO way of knowing for sure).

    Is this correct?

  • Comment by: Randy Ehle

    53 02/21/06 12:17 PM | Comment Link |

    I appreciate the honesty of asking questions - we all should do that, regardless of what church we attend (or stay away from most regularly). I don’t think our attitude should be to question/challenge authority, but rather to investigate it ourselves. I appreciated Hemant’s willingness to do so. In Acts 17:11, Luke commends the Bereans as “of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” We need to have the same attitude.

  • Comment by: cautiousmaniac

    54 02/21/06 12:29 PM | Comment Link |

    BH, yeah that’s essentially correct, all beliefs on what happens after death are as right or wrong as the next, since a correct answer is unknown.

    …much like having a belief that a divinity, if it exists (which is an entirely different question!), has eyebrows.

    I mean this sorta smacks of sounding like I’m talking about relative truth, but there are issues where relative truth is the best you can get, and supernatural events/conditions/places/beings are among those issues.

    …the scary thing is when people believe their relative truth is the absolute truth and do wrong things as a result. usually brights are less willing to do that then supers, but there are bad apples in every aisle of the human being supermarket.

  • Comment by: Mark

    55 02/21/06 12:31 PM | Comment Link |

    Behim,
    If you go to a cemetary what is beneath the ground? If you go to a crematory they can confirm what happens. With the exception of someone lost in the wilderness and dead these are the two events that happen after death. That is not a belief but fact. If you have these events that have happened billions of times it no longer is a belief but fact of what happens. As far as the purpose of life, that’s up to you. I decide the purpose of life for me and you can decide for you but you can’t decide for me.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    56 02/21/06 1:38 PM | Comment Link |

    Behim wrote:

    “I noted Siamang you appeal to logic for determining facts.

    “If you don’t mind me asking Siamang: How do you know logic doesn’t change? Are the laws of logic consistent and unchanging in your worldview or are they too capable of changing at any moment for any reason? ”

    I’m not sure what exactly you are asking with this question. I notice you are asking a few people at a time a similar question, which I see as boiling down to “Well, how do you know anything absolutely for a fact with proof anyhow?”

    I make no claims of absolute knowledge. I think I’ve been quite clear on that. If you’re asking me how I know that logic is inerrant, I say that I don’t claim that it is inerrant or immutable.

    I will, however, claim that it is useful. Logic, observation, reasoning, argument and experimentation are powerful tools for studying the world.

    I believe that they are better than faith. Using logic, reason, observation and experiment I can tell you the precise location of the planet Jupiter 10,000 years from today.

    Using faith, you can’t tell me where it’ll be tomorrow. If faith were our only tool, we’d still be calling Jupiter a star, or worse, a god.

    You cannot say that the motion of the planets is illogical, supernatural or random in any way.

    If God exists, He made a world filled with facts that follow logical rules.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    57 02/21/06 1:55 PM | Comment Link |

    Stephan wrote:
    “It throws the whole “do good and be rewarded” thing out the window. It is partly because of this difference that I believe it is true. It is unique, in that it provides not only the problem of sin, but a realistic solution in Jesus’ death on the cross.”

    It is partly this tenant that makes me (and certain other atheists) believe that Christianity has a central moral flaw in its doctrine.

    To venture into analogy: Stanley kills his wife. The jury convicts Stanley of murder. Stanley says, here, put innocent man Charlie to death to pay for my sin.

    In what moral system is this acceptable?

    Or another for-instance:
    Stanley is on death row. He is about to be executed for murdering his wife. His wife, before she was murdered was planning on going to her first church service. Had she not been murdered, she may have converted to Christianity at that very service. Stanley sees the light and accepts Jesus Christ as his savior just before getting the lethal injection. Stanley’s sins are washed away and he goes to heaven. Stanley’s wife goes to hell for not having accepted Jesus in her brief life.

    In what moral system is this acceptable?

    In the popular image of Hell, sinners are subjected to infinite torture, forever, as punishment for a finite amount of sin.

    In what moral system is this acceptable?

    In many church doctrines of Hell, children who die before the age of accountability go to heaven automatically should they die. Children who live to be older than that risk Hell should they fall into sin or away from Christ. So murdering children before the age of accountability would in essence get them into heaven without danger of Hell.

    In what moral system is this acceptable?

    The CORE immorality in all of these instances is exactly the same. And that is that salvation is not tied to morality. Not for good, not for bad. By seperating salvation from morality, you have a religion that is by its definition morally flawed.

    Perhaps you don’t see it that way. I’m sure you don’t. But how do you solve this moral quandry?

  • Comment by: Stephan

    58 02/21/06 2:26 PM | Comment Link |

    Siamang, I love your questions. I have asked the same ones myself. Theologians have grappled with these for 2000 years. Unfortunately I do not have all the answers.

    I’m always skeptical when people say they heard a voice from God, so I will understand if you don’t believe me, but I heard a voice once when I was asking the same questions you are.

    I said to God, “This is unfair that I get to go to heaven and others don’t, simply because of where they were born, or who their parents were, or some other circumstances out of their control. It’s not fair, and there’s nothing I can do about it. If there was something to do, I would do it. I want there to be one thing I could do that would reach everyone at once. I would be willing to go to hell myself if I could save everyone else.” And God said, “I already did.” That’s all.

    What this told me is that God has it under control, and He’s not going to explain it to me or anyone else. The common Christian belief is that you have to “pray the prayer” in order to get into heaven. I think God is bigger than that. He can save whomever He wants, no matter who they are, what they’ve done or what prayer they prayed. I may be called a heretic for this belief, but I’m holding to it. That’s how I solve the moral quandry.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    59 02/21/06 2:44 PM | Comment Link |

    Another moral flaw is that it’s absolutist.

    A soul judged based on a single finite criterion measured at the nanosecond of their death provokes absolute torture forever.
    Another soul judged based on a single finite criterion measured at the nanosecond of their death recieves eternal bliss forever.

    It reduces a human’s entire moral worth to a single point, then stretches the punishment out to infinity.

    A seperate, but linked moral quandry. Of course, there’s no guarantee that God is moral.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    60 02/21/06 2:57 PM | Comment Link |

    Sorry to add that last bit.

    I had that belief as well, for awhile, that God saves the righteous, all the righteous, by His own fairness and love.

    Of course, I had no such confirmation from the Big Guy himself.

    It doesn’t change the idea that we are judged based on finite actions, and punished or rewarded infinitely for that.

    Proportionality of consequence seems, well, infinitely off-balance. And that cannot be moral. We do not nuke a country off the map for breaking a trade embargo. We do not strangle a child for spilling the milk.

    Proportionality has got to be a moral part of the equation.

    To me the idea of karma, constant reward and constant punishment in proportion to the evil or good committed seems more moral in this regard.

    Sadly, there are central moral flaws to the idea of karma, as well.

  • Comment by: BeHim

    61 02/21/06 4:13 PM | Comment Link |

    [BH, yeah that's essentially correct, all beliefs on what happens after death are as right or wrong as the next, since a correct answer is unknown.]

    I of course hold to the Fact that a correct answer IS known and knowable. You may not accept the testimony but WHY do you not accept the testimony?

    MARK: I agree with you, death is a fact, we all die BUT I asked, what happens AFTER you die? and How do you know for sure.

    [If you're asking me how I know that logic is inerrant, I say that I don't claim that it is inerrant or immutable.]

    I asked about the laws of logic being inerrant and immutable, not human logic, we know human logic can be in error and mutable.

    If you’re suggesting the laws of logic are in error and mutable then no one can really know nothing, ever.

    [I will, however, claim that it is useful. Logic, observation, reasoning, argument and experimentation are powerful tools for studying the world.]

    I agree, especially when we view the world with full understanding of our metaphysics, axiology and epistomology.

    [I believe that they are better than faith. Using logic, reason, observation and experiment I can tell you the precise location of the planet Jupiter 10,000 years from today.]

    You make a scientific claim with no real proof except what you can test today and tested yesterday. Was Jupiter there 10,000 years ago? Will it be there 10,000 years from now? How can you make such grand statements with no real proof. You still have to have FAITH that your scientific method is correct in its assumption.

    [Using faith, you can't tell me where it'll be tomorrow.]

    You just did use faith to tell me where Jupiter will be tomorrow. Science cannot test tomorrow it can only guess on what it knows may be true today.

    [You cannot say that the motion of the planets is illogical, supernatural or random in any way.]

    In fact, I don’t say they are illogical or random. They are precise and ordered (not chaotic).

    [If God exists, He made a world filled with facts that follow logical rules.]

    Indeed! God did make a world filled with facts, ALL inter-related and immutable, a reflection of His very nature.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    62 02/21/06 6:08 PM | Comment Link |

    BeHim Wrote:
    “If you’re suggesting the laws of logic are in error and mutable then no one can really know nothing, ever.”

    And here we get to a very standard fallacy of those who attack the beliefs of others:

    “Unless one can know everything, then nobody knows ANYthing.”

    I find that argument intellectually impotent. And demonstrably false:

    You don’t know the 8*10^9048582934509th digit of Pi. Therefore you know nothing.

    See?

    BEHIM ALSO WROTE:

    “You make a scientific claim with no real proof except what you can test today and tested yesterday. Was Jupiter there 10,000 years ago? Will it be there 10,000 years from now? How can you make such grand statements with no real proof. You still have to have FAITH that your scientific method is correct in its assumption.”

    As I said before, I make no claims of absolute knowledge. But I said that logic is a useful tool. Logic can tell us exactly where Jupiter will be in 10,000 years. Human understanding makes observations, advances a hypothesis, makes a prediction based on that hypothesis and then checks the prediction against observation.

    Millions upon millions of observations of Jupiter have confirmed Gallileo’s Newton’s and Einstein’s work, and now we can make very precise predictions of the future position of Jupiter.

    But you don’t seem to care about that. Hundreds of years and millions upon millions of successful, useful calculations based on logic are nothing to you. All you care about is this idea that they could be wrong tomorrow. You hold out hope that logic, someday, eventually, if you pray hard enough, will be wrong.

    But that doesn’t discount from the utility of logic for making all the millions of accurate predictions up until now.

    I said I had no infinite knowledge, just that logic was a useful tool. And a failure of logic failing does not, by default, prove faith as infallible.

    Again, you seem to be requiring absolute knowledge, or no knowledge.

    And, of course, YOU BeHim, know everything. You substitute God’s omnicience as your own, and claim His infinite knowledge as the one thing that I am without.

    Prove it, if that is your claim. Prove that God’s knowledge is your own. Tell us one thing that no mere human being using logic could possibly know.

    Failing that, you could come to the humble conclusion that all our knowledge is frail, human and imperfect. But still the best thing we’ve got.

    BeHim said:
    “You still have to have FAITH that your scientific method is correct in its assumption.”

    No I do not, unless you conflate two different definitions for the word “faith.” That is a fallacy of equivocation.

    Two definitions of faith:

    1: Trust or confidence in something.
    2:Strong belief in God or the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

    So I have trust and confidence in the future position of Jupiter, based on a successful track record of hundreds of years of correct predictions.

    And you have a belief based on what your gut says. What FEELS true. To you.

    You make faith lesser than it is, if you say that every tentative guess about every perception we have and even if the sun will come up tomorrow is an act of faith.

    If you feel the need to obfuscate,conflate and manipulate the word faith into such a twisted shape just to make your point, you are denegrating the very idea of faith, in my opinion.

  • Comment by: cautiousmaniac

    63 02/21/06 7:39 PM | Comment Link |

    as siamang said, “And, of course, YOU BeHim, know everything. You substitute God’s omniscience as your own, and claim His infinite knowledge as the one thing that I am without.”

    Exactly. On Hemant’s blog there was the post asking atheists what’s the first word that comes into their mind when they hear the word Christian, and …I think it’s tough to get it down to one word, but I think “arrogant” is a step in the right direction. I think that arrogance is a common human problem, but I think that supernaturalists of almost every flavor have a type of arrogance that irreligious people can’t have.

    When discussing metaphysics, a bright is able to step back and admit that all metaphysical ideas are equally nutty, but, conversely, possible. It’s entirely possible that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was born of a virgin and died on the cross and took away all our sin. I could very well be entirely and completely incorrect about thinking that a deity, if it existed, is unknowable; that, actually, there is a specific deity who was willing to pander to our needs SO MUCH that He came down to live as a human.

    Ok. That wasn’t so difficult to do.

    But now it’s your turn.

    Take a myth or a legend or another religious precept, and accept that its possible that your view of the world is not right, and that someone else’s is. Accepting this possibility IS NOT the same as admitting that your views are wrong, or that someone else’s views are right.

    And let’s say you don’t want to admit something as particular as saying that maybe Shiva and Brahmin are real and Yahweh ain’t. How about this: there have been somethin like 100000 years of people, of our species living on this planet. Over that time period there have been tons of different creation myths, by tons of different cultures and religions and societies.

    Are you so arrogant in your claim to unique truth that you think that everyone else’s myth is crazy nuts wrong, but that Genesis is the end-all be-all storyline? Or, are you willing to admit that any one of these myths might be The Ticket.

  • Comment by: BeHim

    64 02/21/06 10:53 PM | Comment Link |

    [And here we get to a very standard fallacy of those who attack the beliefs of others: "Unless one can know everything, then nobody knows ANYthing." I find that argument intellectually impotent. And demonstrably false:
    You don't know the 8*10^9048582934509th digit of Pi. Therefore you know nothing. See?]

    So are you saying the laws of logic or immutable or mutable?

    I of course hold to the laws of logic being immutable because they are a reflection of the very Nature and Charachter of God and thus CANNOT fail.

    [Human understanding makes observations, advances a hypothesis, makes a prediction based on that hypothesis and then checks the prediction against observation.]

    And again, the observation assumes the data (Millions upon millions of observations of Jupiter have confirmed Gallileo’s Newton’s and Einstein’s work, and now we can make very precise predictions of the future position of Jupiter) is absolutely correct how???

    [But you don't seem to care about that. Hundreds of years and millions upon millions of successful, useful calculations based on logic are nothing to you.]

    Based on logic that can change or doesn’t change???

    I care to know how you absolutely know the hundreds of years and millions upon millions of successful, useful calculations based on logic are absolutely useful and successful?

    [All you care about is this idea that they could be wrong tomorrow. You hold out hope that logic, someday, eventually, if you pray hard enough, will be wrong.]

    Actually, you’re the one that believes the laws of logic can fail. I know the laws of logic will not fail.

    [I said I had no infinite knowledge, just that logic was a useful tool. And a failure of logic failing does not, by default, prove faith as infallible.]

    Again, we’re talking about the laws of logic not human logic. The laws of logic never fail. If they do, no one can ever know anything, ever.

    Example: How can you know if “A” is “A” if the law says it can be both “A” and “non-A” at the same time in the same sense?

    The first law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. Meaning, “A” cannot be “A” and “non-A” at the same time in the same sense.

    You’re worldview, that the laws of logic can fail allows for any and all contradictions to exist at the same time in the same sense which means you could never know anything, EVER.

    BUT

    I know you can absolutely know things yet you cannot provide a reason for you’re absolutely knowing things absolutely.

  • Comment by: BeHim

    65 02/21/06 10:58 PM | Comment Link |

    Hey cautious are you asking me to admit:

    all opinions and judgements are equally valid? yes or no???

  • Comment by: cautiousmaniac

    66 02/21/06 11:41 PM | Comment Link |

    hey, BH. I’m not asking you to admit all opinions are equally valid. The opinion that the Holocaust never happened is a wrong opinion, it contradicts many facts, and ignores a lotta dead people, and is usually an opinion held in concert with other odious opinions.

    I was asking you (and that was a general you, to pretty much all the supers in the audience) to admit that there is a possibility that not only is your take on religion wrong, but that there is also the possibility that another answer is the right one.

    That is partially the point of Hemant’s exercise, isn’t it? He’s supposed to be open-minded about his religious beliefs? So am I asking too much to think that other people might as well be too? Or do we also need to get paid?

  • Comment by: Mark

    67 02/22/06 7:33 AM | Comment Link |

    Behim said:
    MARK: I agree with you, death is a fact, we all die BUT I asked, what happens AFTER you die? and How do you know for sure.

    I answered this:) I said you are buried or cremated. If you can show me something else that happens I’m all ears.

  • Comment by: BeHim

    68 02/22/06 8:18 AM | Comment Link |

    [I was asking you (and that was a general you, to pretty much all the supers in the audience) to admit that there is a possibility that not only is your take on religion wrong, but that there is also the possibility that another answer is the right one. That is partially the point of Hemant's exercise, isn't it? He's supposed to be open-minded about his religious beliefs? So am I asking too much to think that other people might as well be too? Or do we also need to get paid?]

    I’m willing to start with my worldview and the presuppositions that I begin with and test those yes but I’m not willing to say “hey, let’s come to the table nuetral” because NO ONE is nuetral. Everyone has a network of presuppositions they bring to the table. It’s only when someone is willing to lay those presuppotions on the table and discuss them, evaluate them and test them that they can truly test what it is they know and believe to be true. I am willing to bring my worldview and the network of presuppositions that are the makeup of my worldview to the table. I’m guessing you are as well.

    You would like to bring answers (”there is also the possibility that another answer is the right one”) and question if what I believe is wrong. I’m okay with presenting evidence to the degree that evidence also comes with a bias of presuppositions (a worldview). So, you’ll say to me - “you can’t start with a God that is never wrong, simply by faith” and I’ll say “you can’t assume a bone, skull or other part of a human bone is millions and millions of years old because your theory assumes it”…. BECAUSE we all start with assumptions we believe to be true.

    I’ll ask about your “answers” and the assumptions they start with - - are they consistent.

  • Comment by: BeHim

    69 02/22/06 8:22 AM | Comment Link |

    [I answered this:) I said you are buried or cremated. If you can show me something else that happens I'm all ears.]

    Well, one thing we can agree on… we all die!

    So when you die Mark, that’s it. You’re done. Nothing else after that.

    If a man were raised from the dead and told you there was indeed a heaven and hell, THEN would you believe? Do you have to see the man raised from the dead or will you accept testimony of others who were eyewitnesses? Like in a legal court case… the testimony of two or three witnesses???

  • Comment by: Mark

    70 02/22/06 9:24 AM | Comment Link |

    Behim said:So when you die Mark, that’s it. You’re done. Nothing else after that.

    Mark:Yes, unless you can show me otherwise and I’m all ears.

    Behim said:If a man were raised from the dead and told you there was indeed a heaven and hell, THEN would you believe? Do you have to see the man raised from the dead or will you accept testimony of others who were eyewitnesses? Like in a legal court case… the testimony of two or three witnesses???

    Mark:No, I won’t as people lie and it happens every weekend when Peter Popoff heals people on tv. Also, in forensic biology I learned the weakest evidence for a case is testimony as forensic science has shown that people lied and the evidence overrides their version. Do you believe the Book of Mormon witnesses saw the golden plates? I don’t and there is no proof but I’m all ears:)

  • Comment by: Siamang

    71 02/22/06 10:01 AM | Comment Link |

    BeHim, you just responded to me by merely restating your position.

    You said this: “I care to know how you absolutely know the hundreds of years and millions upon millions of successful, useful calculations based on logic are absolutely useful and successful?”

    I could merely restate my position from earlier in the thread. I though I had made this clear, but I’ll quote myself again:

    “As I said before, I make no claims of absolute knowledge. But I said that logic is a useful tool.”

    But you also added this:

    “Actually, you’re the one that believes the laws of logic can fail . I know the laws of logic will not fail.”

    How do you know that? To turn your own point back on you, how do you know that logic won’t fail tomorrow?

  • Comment by: Bruce Lofland

    72 02/22/06 12:00 PM | Comment Link |

    I am a Christian that was agnostic until I turned 44. I am also a software developer, so rigid logical thinking is a tool that has served me well for many years. I went down a long road in learning about Christianity before becoming one, and had many of the same questions that people are asking here.

    When I finally understood the symbolism of the Bible and the theological concepts that it was trying to teach, I removed a large barrier between myself and God. From that I was able to remove other barriers and finally became a Christian. I am a Christian that does not believe that the Bible is meant to be a historical record. I generally do not believe in miracles that contradict natural laws. God is art, not science. His Word can be read like a poem or sung like a song. His Truth is communicated the same way as these art forms. Faith is God and reason do not have to be mutually exclusive.

  • Comment by: Mark

    73 02/22/06 12:17 PM | Comment Link |

    Bruce,
    I agree and that is the middle ground I personally can find with christians. One of the authors I really respect if Bishop John Spong.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    74 02/22/06 12:26 PM | Comment Link |

    Bruce,

    Do you understand why I have come to the position of agnostic atheist? What do you say to the person like me who cannot choose because all the choices of religions of the world make extraordinary claims and have an extreme paucity of evidence for these claims?

    There are belief systems that for me are much more alluring than Christianity. If I were to shut off the part of my brain currently requiring pesky evidence, I would not be a Christian. I would be something else. Something less judgemental, more forgiving, with a more amazing set of promises for Heaven. I would suppose a religion where one good person could ensure all their loved ones are saved, rather than having to convert them one at a time. Nobody would be sitting in heaven greiving for their child who was in Hell. I would suppose a religion where we have multiple wonderful lives after this one, filled with the people we love. I would suppose a religion that is more kind, more forgiving, more loving and more accepting than what we see as institutionalized religion today. And Friday, instead of fish, you eat ice cream.

    I can construct any feel-good religion I like.

    But I would be fooling myself.

    Faith, however, would be telling me that I was right. Because faith always confirms your current beliefs. Mormon, Muslim or Methodist, faith is the Magic 8-Ball that always comes up with the same answer “You are correct. Keep believing!”

    What are your thoughts?

  • Comment by: Bruce Lofland

    75 02/22/06 2:29 PM | Comment Link |

    Siamang:
    I understand why some Christians can make you prefer atheism. There are many flavors of Christianity just as there are of Islam, Buddhism, Judism, etc. There are good and bad people in all of these religions.

    Mysticism exists in all religions and many people choose to follow a religion primarily for this reason. This does not have to be every believer’s primary focus however. I had to learn that the concepts that I had the hardest time believing were often unimportant.

    Does God exist? I assume so. I have found no proof. I don’t know how one would go about proving that anymore. It is all the baggage that we have put on the idea of God that raises skepticism. Is God omnipotent? There is a paradox associated with the concept of omnipotence, so it is difficult to assign that attribute to anyone. But does it matter? To some believers this is what it is all about, an all-powerful God. I think this is kind of superficial though. Does God love us? Is God love? These questions do not lend themselves to testing very easily.

    I don’t accept the popular notion of Heaven and Hell, but see Heaven as relationship with God and Hell as separation from God. We can get to either place right now. I don’t know what happens after we die, and I really don’t care right now. I don’t plan on dying anytime soon, and that is not why I became a Christian.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    76 02/22/06 2:34 PM | Comment Link |

    Interesting. Kind of a mystical approach, and you can count me mystifyed! ;-)

    From my admittedly linear brain, it seems like “the less you define the word God, the more likely you already believe in Him.”

    I’ll work on that idea for awhile.

  • Comment by: Tom in Sacramento

    77 02/22/06 11:02 PM | Comment Link |

    Hemant,
    In response to your request for questions, I have one for you. When I googled to find this site I saw a bit of text that refered to you as an ex-Jain. (I haven’t found that text here yet.) I have just finished a series of courses in comparative religion that covered Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity. And I am now taking a course in the history of New Testament critical scholarship. In a couple of the courses in the comparative religion series there were some brief, tangential references to the Jains. But not enough to be clear.

    My question is, If the “ex-Jain” characterization is accurate, what is it in their beliefs that you questioned and that caused you to move to your present atheistic stance?

    Thank you.
    Tom

  • Comment by: BeHim

    78 02/22/06 11:27 PM | Comment Link |

    [Mark:No, I won't as people lie and it happens every weekend when Peter Popoff heals people on tv. Also, in forensic biology I learned the weakest evidence for a case is testimony as forensic science has shown that people lied and the evidence overrides their version. Do you believe the Book of Mormon witnesses saw the golden plates? I don't and there is no proof but I'm all ears:)]

    Mark so because men lie there is no way to believe the testimony of anyone??? How do you absolutely know the forensic biology professor and text books are telling the truth? They could all be lying too. Are you absolutely sure the forensic science methods are infallible?

    The testimony of the Mormon witnesses assumes God still uses prophets and or apostles to reveal Himself today. The Bible is clear, the Final Revelation given to John is the end of the Revelation of God through prophets and apostles.

    Siamang
    [How do you know that? To turn your own point back on you, how do you know that logic won't fail tomorrow?]

    Because the laws of logic - the first law of logic for example [the law of non-contradiction] - cannot fail.

    If the laws of logic fail, how could we know anything??? We couldn’t!

    Let’s assume your worldview for example that the law of non-contradiction can fail, may fail or does fail (at least your consistent).

    That means that the first law of logic, the law of non-contradiction could tomorrow be the “law of contradiction”.

    Everything would then be a contradiction to everyone, all at the same time in every sense experience. Science would fail, logic would fail and there would be no reality.

    Even HUMAN LOGIC (which can fail, may fail and does fail) KNOWS…. This CANNOT be true or even possible.

    The law of non-contradiction MUST be infallible and immutable, it is the ONLY way we can truly know for sure that we can know things. It IS what science is based on!!! If you believe the laws of logic can fail then science is gauranteed to fail…. BUT you and I both know, Science doesn’t fail. There are scientific methods WE KNOW work… We know we can trust our senses for things and we know we can predict where Jupiter will be in 10,000 years…. BUT…. you can’t in your worldview provide an answer as to HOW you know absolutely for sure why these things won’t fail.

    The Christian Worldview is consistent with the laws of logic not failing tomorrow because they are infallible and immutable, reflections of the Christian God’s Charachter and Nature.

    You may not like the answer Siamang BUT in my Christian Worldview I can provide a consistent and logical answer for the laws of logic never failing where as in your worldview, when held consistent only ends with chaos that destroys the very fabric of your entire understanding in science and logic itself. The first law of logic (the law of non-contradiction) cannot fail, ever! Here on earth, on the moon, in the stars, in the outer most parts of the universe, the law of non-contradiction will not fail.

    Seriously think about it Siamang I’m having to defend the unfailing laws of logic against YOU, the person whose worldview is entirely based on a “logical scientific method” for determining truth. If you want destroy the laws of logic by saying they can change at any time, today, tomorrow or next week, then you do so at the entire expense of your own worldview, logic, and all science.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    79 02/23/06 12:34 AM | Comment Link |

    BeHim said:

    “The first law of logic (the law of non-contradiction) cannot fail, ever! Here on earth, on the moon, in the stars, in the outer most parts of the universe, the law of non-contradiction will not fail.”

    How do you know that?

    All you did is restate that they cannot fail. How do you know that?

    The reason I asked that question is not that i think they will, but to turn your question back on you.

    You were the one who placed the hoop of absolute verifyability out into the future when I said that science was a good tool for understanding things. You said, how do you know it won’t fail tomorrow?

    But you claim that logic will never fail.

    You cannot prove that logic will never fail. Because your proof will require logic. And in the event of a failure of logic, your proof will vanish into the same singularity.

    It was you who required absolutism, forever into the future for science. So I turn it back on you. How can you prove that logic will never fail?

    Now me, I don’t claim absolute knowledge. I claim a tentative understanding. Science, reason, observation and logic have served me well so far, so I have no reason to believe they will fail me tomorrow.

    But it seems to be you who cannot handle the idea of partial certainty. For you, it’s either full certainly for ever and ever, or nobody knows anything at all.

    Are you some kind of binary creature, like those little dudes with the big heads on Star Trek?

  • Comment by: Mark

    80 02/23/06 6:28 AM | Comment Link |

    Behim said: Mark so because men lie there is no way to believe the testimony of anyone??? How do you absolutely know the forensic biology professor and text books are telling the truth? They could all be lying too. Are you absolutely sure the forensic science methods are infallible?
    Mark:No, there is no way to believe testimony as truth, just opinion. Testable and verifiable proof of someone’s testimony is different.

    Behim said:The testimony of the Mormon witnesses assumes God still uses prophets and or apostles to reveal Himself today. The Bible is clear, the Final Revelation given to John is the end of the Revelation of God through prophets and apostles.
    Mark:It assumes much more than that, it presumes god exists in the first place:)

  • Comment by: BeHim

    81 02/23/06 8:49 AM | Comment Link |

    [Now me, I don't claim absolute knowledge. I claim a tentative understanding. Science, reason, observation and logic have served me well so far, so I have no reason to believe they will fail me tomorrow.]

    Siamang - you claim to know how to count and verify counting BUT you cannot give a REASON for counting. In your worldview, counting can fail at anytime. In my christian Worldview, counting will never fail.

    As I said, you may not like my REASON for knowing counting will never fail but my Christian Worldview is consistent with the laws of logic… while your worldview is not only inconsistent but contradictory and destroys the laws of logic themselves.

    I’ll give you this Siamang. At least you were consistent in saying that in your worldview logic can, may and does fail. Most who debate such things won’t even go there - they’ll dance for days and months before they admit that, if they even admit it ever - - - why??? Because they know in their heart of hearts, the laws of logic won’t fail but you surpress this truth to believe you are right in your own mind (worldview). You prefer to worship the creature rather than the Creator.

    MARK:
    [Testable and verifiable proof of someone's testimony is different.]

    Like the testimony and witness of others? Seeing, touching, hearing the very thing the others testified about.

    These things happened Mark. Multitudes testified of Jesus’ death on the cross. Multitudes seen him crucified. Multitudes testified to the Tomb being empty and multitudes testified to seeing Him Alive and He Himself ate, drank and walked with many after He rose from the grave. They saw Him, Touched Him, Heard Him and testified of Him.

    It was, is and always will be proof BUT…. you don’t believe. Why? Because of forensic science? Because of men who lie?

    We both know it’s not the proof that keeps you from Him, you’re perfectly willing to accept things at face value with far less proof on things like gravity and thermodynamics BUT it’s more than likely don’t you like the standard of morality the Bible holds to. There could be a multitude of reasons but in the end, we both know it’s not the “proof” or evidence. There’s plenty of evidence… enough in fact to gaurantee the Bible, by using probability measurements, is more reliable than the law of Gravity or the second law of thermodynamics (Dr. Hugh Ross).

    If you really want proof, it’s out there but it’s more than that isn’t it??? Is it that you want to live as YOU see is best and not have anyone, even God, tell you why you exist and what is expected of you? I know for many years this was my excuse.

    It wasn’t the proof or lies of men that kept me from Him; it was my own deceitful desires that kept me from The Truth.

    “I am the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the father but through me” John 14:6 (the whole chapter is worth reading - the whole book for that matter)

  • Comment by: Mark

    82 02/23/06 9:19 AM | Comment Link |

    You are so far off I’m not going to bother. I’ve read the bible twice. Look at prior mythology stories of messiah myths and see how they compare to Jesus.

  • Comment by: Siamang

    83 02/23/06 9:47 AM | Comment Link |

    Wow, BeHim, you have a “WORLDVIEW”? That’s your proof?

    Argument by assertion fallacy. Look that one up in your logic book.

    Also look up “special pleading.”

    You construct hoops for science to jump through that you don’t require of your own “worldview”.

    You can see the mote in our eye just fine. But you’ve got no beams at all, NOSIREEE!!! You’ve got a WORLDVIEW!!!

  • Comment by: Bruce Lofland

    84 02/23/06 11:23 AM | Comment Link |

    BeHim:
    I have met a lot of immoral people that are Christians. Many people thought that I was a Christian before I was because of my behavior. I had a lot of the same values that are often considered “Christian” even though I was not one. I understand that moral behavior may be a barrier for some to becoming a believer, but it is by no means the primary reason!

    There is no proof that God exists. I have looked every where and even read Lee Strobel’s book and he does not make a convincing case unless you are predisposed to believing to begin with. I was really disappointed when I studied the apologetic literature out there. Believing in God is a matter of faith. I assume that He exists.

    Believing that the Bible was inspired by God is also a matter of faith. I assume that it was. It cannot be used to prove that God exists however if one does not already believe in God.

    Believing in Jesus can only come if you accept the first two premises.

    Many believers come froma tradition of believing from the time they were children. God is a given in that situation. The inspiration of the Bible is usually also a given. This makes it much easier for them to accept Christ that it would be for someone that does not have that background (like me).

    Some of these believers fall away because their churches don’t know how to get past the baby food version of Christianity. All of these non-believers are not being unreasonable. They are simply grown-up and don’t want baby food.

    I had to search for many years before I found what the scriptures were really saying and how beautiful His Word is. It was not obvious.

  • Comment by: Laptops

    85 03/8/06 1:40 PM | Comment Link |

    i like this one …keep it up

  • Comment by: Cully

    86 03/8/06 2:59 PM | Comment Link |

    BeHim> There are 14 “eyewitness” accounts of Jesus’ life and death (yes 14… The gospels of James, Mary, Nicodemus, Bartholomew, Philip, alternative versions of Peter, Matthew, Mark, and an extra book from Thomas that covers Jesus’ teen years. Plus the 4 or 5 in the Bible depending on which bible you use. Some scholars put that number at 40, though the ones I listed are the only ones that are generally findable and readable by the average person.) That’s hardly the “multitudes” that you site, even given the 9 (or 10) extra books that your bible doesn’t recognize! The real problem is that these books drastically disagree with each other. They don’t even agree in the largest facts like Jesus’ last words, how long he ministered before the crucifixion, and who carried the cross to the mount. The apocryphal gospel of Peter even has chapters debunking the virgin birth. No problem seeing why the church removed that one from canon I guess. Outside of the bible there is very little in the way of verifiable proof of Jesus’ ministry, or much else in the bible for that matter. The bible verifies itself.

    I never understand why Christians can’t see that this is circular logic.

    Why is the bible true?

    Because it is the word of God.

    Why is it the word of God?

    Because it says it is.

    I can’t write $20 on a piece of paper and say, “This is a 20 dollar bill, because it says that it is.” There are other books out there that claim to be the true word of God, and have no further proof of their veracity than the Christian bible, but you deny those. Why?

  • Comment by: JuS10

    87 03/9/06 11:49 PM | Comment Link |

    I just read about Hemant in AOL News, and having had agnostic and atheist times of my life, I had to check this out to see how similar my views are to Hemant and anyone else who would give their two cents to this blog. I started in the beginning of this blog, chronologically speaking. I had to stop here because I had too much and needed to speak my mind. So far, I can merely applaud Jim Henderson and Hemant for their work in getting Christians and various non-believers to better understand themselves. There seems to be a lot more work ahead of you.

    One thing I’ve noticed in this entry and a couple others is people are debating, which was discouraged in the beginning. I have also found that there is a bit of science vs. religion debate. Ever since the 7th grade, at the latest, I have found this to be one of the most illogical debates, regardless of how often it happens in reality. And my point may just come down to semantics, but here it is:

    With science and religion, we ask two completely different questions. To make it easier for me to give everyday examples, let’s just call religion “philosophy” for a moment. Science tells us “how” things happen. Philosophy tells us “why” things happen.

    Example: How do I use my turn signal when I change lanes? I remove my left hand from the steering wheel and push the signal lever in the appropriate direction. Why do I us my turn signal when I change lanes? To let others know which direction I’m headed.

    Two different questions; two different answers. The first explained the process; the second explained the purpose.

    This may just be me, but my acceptance of Christ as my Saviour and my faith in God did not come from my desire to know “how” we exist in this world, but rather “why”. Likewise, the likeliness I find in variations of the Theory of Evolution didn’t spring from wishing I knew “why” I am human, but rather “how”.

    My philosophy is that if you are looking for Christ to give answers to your biology, you might have the Man confused with someone else. And if you look to science to explain your purpose on this planet, you’re reading the wrong book.

  • Comment by: Kevin Jones

    88 03/14/06 4:59 PM | Comment Link |

    I was commenting on the phrase about christianity has to be accepted on faith. I want to say that everything that has ever come in science and religion is based on faith. You as an atheist have taken faith that your ideas are right. Scientists that get their theories on things such as gravity or nuclear physics have faith that something will be there when they experience, so to say that you do not accept christianity because of faith is a contradiction because you take atheism by faith

  • Comment by: Presence

    89 03/29/06 10:33 PM | Comment Link |

    Hi,

    I am hoping that I can ask a Stephan a question about a much earlier post, you say “The Book of Mormon denies Jesus was one with God, which is a key belief of orthodox Christianity. That, to me, puts it out of bounds.”

    I have a question about that. My reading of the New Testament makes me reject the trinity. If Jesus is God, then where is the sacrifice? I ask this in all honesty. Jesus fears death, but because it is his Father’s will, he does it anyway. If he was God, then there would have been no turmoil for him. And actually, the disbelief in the Trinity did not begin with the Mormons, it was simply wiped out when the Franks came in and conquered the Goths or Visgoths, I forget which group. Unfortunately, my books are all packed away for my move. But it wasn’t until The Council of Nicea (325 AD) that it was decided that “the Son was “one in being with the Father” by use of the Greek word ‘homoousius.’”

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm

    BTW, I am not a Mormon. Anyone know a denomination that agrees with the above? I happen to be seeking a church, but that is where I stall out about every time.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe without commenting