Fallen and Flawed

Luke,
How has your dad taken the news of your “un-conversion?”

Lol, Christians love the porn line. If you read my story, you’ll realize that I had a spiritual re-awakening after that and was pursuing God will all my heart but unfortunately when I did some studying I found out there was no more evidence for God than for fairies and unicorns. So, I had to give it up. Which was hard. My warm fuzzy Christian fantasy felt good, and all my friends were there. But I had to admit the truth.

Also, why is my picture blurred? Does the blurring make me look spooky and soulless?

Anyway, if anyone has any questions, ask away. I’ll be following this thread.

Don,

My parents have had a hard time coping with my deconversion. Not so much because they believe baby Jesus will be torturing their good son for all eternity, but because I rejected much of how they tried to raise me as both delusional and immoral. That’s a hard thing for any parent to take. I’ve tried to bring it up a few times because philosophy and atheism are passionate parts of my life – they’re hard to avoid – but it is too difficult for them to discuss, still. It’s pretty hard. Like leaving Scientology or Islam or Hinduism, there are costs to leaving Christianity. But I couldn’t live a lie anymore.

Hey Luke, after reading your answers and your bio and a spate of your posts, I couldn’t help walk away thinking how intelligent and ambitious you are. It’s admirable. I also noticed you often say you’re pretty sure about something, but your overall philosophy is that we can’t know anything for sure [am I correct?]…
–
Which brings me to my next point: You say, “I have no dogmas.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but a dogma is a “settled or established opinion, belief or principle.” You’re statement “I have no dogmas” sounds an awful lot like…well…dogma.
–
And on your bio, you refer to yourself as a gnostic atheist…you “know” fairies and God don’t exist. What’s to stop me from saying “I KNOW you’re wrong”?
–
I think in the long run, I’m kind of confused on where you stand…even though there’s a bristling confidence in your beliefs. I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

Great stuff Luke. On the contrary, I think the blurring makes you look soulful
.
Quick question: What’s your current belief on how life began? (i.e. where did we come from?)
.
Thanks for sharing!

Luke, pardon the porn lead…but that’s the ad man in me…not the Christian. And if you’ll notice…just about all images are blurred.

Demian,
-
Yes, we can’t know anything for sure. Not even that we exist (Descartes was wrong).
-
“I have no dogmas” means that even “I have no dogmas” is open to revision upon good reason and evidence… a method that is also open to revision. And my openness to revision is also open to revision.
-
Nothing will stop you from saying you know that I’m wrong. In fact, I will defend your right to do so. No doubt, you will also say that you KNOW you have an invisible friend who grants you wishes with his magical powers. Many people also KNOW that aliens kidnapped them in their sleep, probed their genitals, and erased their memories.
_
As for “bristling” confidence… I’m pretty confident that the Christian God does not exist, like I’m pretty confident that Zeus does not exist. But, 6 months ago I was pretty confident that objective moral values did not exist, and now I (tentatively) defend a theory of moral realism that I did not expect to discover. Always open to revision.
-
I am slightly amused when Christians talk about the confidence of my beliefs. My assertions are always partially tentative, and only ever based on good evidence and reason. Christian assertions are usually confident and based on NO evidence (or at least, only the exact same “evidence” that is used in defense of Allah or Vahiguru).
-
Why do I have to space my paragraphs with hyphens in order for them to stay apart?
-
Demian, I appreciate your interaction with atheists. I know I can be pokey but that’s only because serious poking was what finally changed my own mind, and my conversion to critical thinker was the best thing that ever happened to me.

Ryan,
-
How did life begin? For an answer to this I must defer to the experts on the subject of abiogenesis. (The origins of life have nothing to do with biological evolution, just like cosmological evolution has nothing to do with cosmogony.) Their current answer, last time I checked, was “We don’t know yet.”
-
That was also the experts’ answer on lightning a few thousand years ago, and their ignorance didn’t give any credence at all to the Zeus theory.
-
Cheers.

You’re clearly well-versed in this stuff, Luke. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Only one small objection…
-
You wrote, “Yes, we can’t know anything for sure.”
-
Now I’m no philosophy major, but isn’t that statement inherently claiming to “know something for sure”? In other words, by saying we can’t know anything for certain, you are implying that you know something for certain (namely, that we can’t know anything).
-
My brain is now about to explode, but doesn’t that seem a little odd? If we can’t know anything, how can you say we can’t know anything? Doesn’t that ruin the entire premise of the logic?
-
Maybe I’m missing something here…

Ryan,
-
No, my statement that “we can’t know anything for sure” should be read in exactly the same way as all my other statements. I don’t know for sure that we can’t know anything for sure.
-
As for ruining the entire premise of logic, I’m not sure what you mean. Which axiom do you take to be “the premise” of logic? The law of identity?
-
In any case, logic is a word-game we all agree to play by, not a fundamental rule of the universe. For example, if we both agree that “Bill Clinton” is equal to “Bill Clinton” (the law of identity), then we can trade arguments about Bill Clinton. If somebody wants to say that “Bill Clinton” is equal to “not-Bill-Clinton” in the same way at the same time, then he just isn’t playing by the same language game and there will be no productive conversation between us.

Thanks Luke. I guess the question still remains though. By saying, “I don’t know for sure that we can’t know anything for sure”, you are still asserting something that you believe to be true. In other words, you are sure that “you don’t know that we can’t know.”
-
I don’t want to get lost in Neverland here, but do you see my point? Once every layer of the onion is peeled back, you are still making a “sure” statement at the base of all your reasoning. Even the statement, “I don’t know for sure that we can’t know anything for sure” is a statement which you are claiming to be sure of. You are sure you don’t know.
-
If you then say, “Well I’m not sure about that either”, then you are once again making a “sure” statement. The layers go deeper but the baseline is still the same. Every statement made (even one that claims to be unsure) is a statement of surety. You are sure that you’re unsure. No?
-
In all honesty I have no idea what this proves, but I’d simply be worried about ascribing to a system of reasoning that is self-defeating like that. It’s similar to when people say, “There is no truth.” Well then how can that statement be true?
-
Okay, smoke is now pouring out my ears so I think that’s enough Thanks man!

No, I’m NOT “sure” that I don’t know that we can’t know. I’m not 100% positive about anything, including the contention that I’m not 100% positive about anything. Please do not interpret any statement of mine to assume 100% assurance. You can go back a million layers and even that statement is unsure about itself. Everything comes in degrees of belief, including this one.
-
But yeah, I think this is a dead-end topic. Cheers.

Wow…I’m not really sure what to say Luke cause pretty much everything you believe is up to revision even though you are confident you’re on the right track…yet everyone who believes in God is mistaken. Is that belief up for revision? You’ll probably say “Of course, if given enough evidence” but your loaded language on the topic leads me to believe that God himself showing up on your doorstep wouldn’t do the trick.
–
I apologize, comment paragraph breaks are still janky.
–
Thanks for getting involved with this discussion. I appreciate your contribution.

Luke -

I haven’t really engaged with Atheists before so I want to thank you (and Demian for the blog series) for your willingness to share your story and answer some questions.

My question is about death. Would you say that you fear dying? Not necessarily based on what the bible says about what happens to non believers when they die but just the uncertainty of it. If you do, what helps you deal with that fear? If you don’t, why would you say that you don’t?

“…invisible friend who grants you wishes with his magical powers.”
Why does that seem to carry a condescending tone that borders on mocking?
For all of the claims atheists make, I see most atheists as very well-reasoned men. I respect their (and Luke, yours too) reasoning.
But when claiming to be all about objective reasoning and logic (or however you want to label it), why revert to such nonobjective characterizations of the other side? Even if Christianity is, in yours eyes, unbelievable at this time, how can you (seemingly) mock it if you do not know for sure that it is false?
-
I pull this issue out, not to divert the arguments to a more petty issue, but I have been picking up on a trend lately while reading more work by atheists than ever before my life. I am reading work by atheists because I want to understand. Luke, you seem interested in pointing out flawed arguments and tactics, and you are the first one I have been able to ask this question.

Great answers, Luke.

Demian said,

…yet everyone who believes in God is mistaken.

.
What I’d say is that everyone who believes in God is more than likely mistaken. There’s always a possibility that a particular God exists. However, there’s implications that aren’t so pretty, if so.

Demian,

Everything is open to revision because 100% certainty is not possible. All beliefs are probabilistic. I speak very confidently about things I’m 99% sure about, like the non-existence of Yahweh or Zeus or fairies. Do you think it is odd for me to be so confident about the non-existence of Zeus?

Nathan,

I encourage you to interact with more atheists, and thank you for your questions. You asked:

“Would you say that you fear dying? Not necessarily based on what the bible says about what happens to non believers when they die but just the uncertainty of it. If you do, what helps you deal with that fear? If you don’t, why would you say that you don’t?”

I do not fear dying. As the ancient stoics said, there is nothing to fear because when I am alive I cannot experience death, and when I am dead I cannot experience death. I think it’s unfortunate that I won’t get to see what happens in the future, because life on earth is very exciting, but that’s just the way things are. I certainly do not fear going to a “bad place” or a “good place” after I die.

If I did fear death, I would guess I’d use all the best techniques of cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy to cope. But I don’t think much about death. I’m not sure why, I just don’t. Death is not a concern. Happens to everybody. There were billions of years of history for which I did not exist, and there will be billions more. I did not mind non-existence before, and I will not mind it in the future, either.

Daniel,

I am not mocking you. If you are a standard Christian, you LITERALLY believe that:

1. Jesus is your friend.
2. Jesus is invisible.
3. Jesus sometimes grants you wishes (the Christian term is “prayer request”)
4. Jesus grants these wishes with non-natural means (magical powers, supernatural powers, whatever).

As you can see, the standard Christian LITERALLY believes he has an invisible friend who grants him wishes via his magical powers. There’s no mockery here. It’s a sober an accurate description of the contents of a Christian’s beliefs.

I point this out because Christians like to avoid this obvious fact. Only when this was pointed out to me did I, as a Christian, say to myself:

“Woah. He’s right. I DO believe in a friend who is invisible and grants me some requests through magical powers. Holy crap. I believe that! I really believe that! Maybe that’s true, but I should at least look into this with an open mind.”

And when I DID look into that with an open mind, I found out I had no more reason to believe that than to believe the dogmas of Islam or Hinduism or mystical New Age nonsense.

That is why I use those terms. To make Christians aware of what it is they really have convinced themselves of. Christians need to feel the full weight of what they really believe, to see if they can really justify it rationally or not.

Thanks Luke, I understand you better now.

When you say “Christians need to feel the full weight of what they really believe, to see if they can really justify it rationally or not” – what do you mean by “rational” and what would you deem to be rational? Or, to put it another way, what would be required to have a rational belief in God/Christ?

Luke, you asked,

“Why do I have to space my paragraphs with hyphens in order for them to stay apart?”

*
In fact, you don’t. You can use @ or % or ? or just about any key on the board. I’m about 99% sure of that. I think. At least I think that’s what I think.

Seriously, your rationale is impressive, particularly in view of your being a recent deconvert. Thank you for your time and patience on this blog (I have not yet visited yours).
^
Please don’t think me patronizing in asking the following questions. Like Daniel (above), I think you’re a likely candidate to ask and receive intelligent answers:
^
Without exception, every atheist/agnostic/skeptic I have read who considers himself a former Christian has taken the same stance regarding their former beliefs. They seem convinced that their experience epitomizes Christianity; because of their sincerity towards God and Christ, what they “had” was as authentic as could conceivably have been. This position effectively excludes the possibility that there is a genuine Yaweh/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit who really knows and is known by some people, and that their own personal history may have bypassed or been passed-up by that reality entirely. How do you view this prospect?
+
By the way, as one who “follows the evidence,” what is your view of the statement in Heb.11:1 that the faith given by Jesus the Christ to those who believe in Him is both substance and evidence?

Daniel,

Critical thinking, logic, well-considered evidence… this is what I now require all significant beliefs, and it is a huge topic. Basically, if I was given reason to think that the existence of Yahweh more plausible than his non-existence, then I would believe. But that depends on weighing all the arguments and evidence that are out there; a huge project. And that’s exactly the project I’m doing on my blog.

Thanks for another great discussion here. Just curious Luke – what do you do with the historical evidence for Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection? I agree that WE (writing in 2009) have not seen Jesus, but there are many who did and who went to their (often times horrific) death proclaiming that they did.
-
In essence, all the history points to the fact that Jesus lived, breathed, walked, talked, died on a cross, was buried, rose again and was seen by many. Is that all just made-up by conspiracy theorists? Was Jesus just a good teacher/man? What’s your take on the physical person that was and is Jesus Christ?

Thanks Luke, you write a great blog. I’ll continue reading there in the future. May I ask what such evidence, in your view, would look like? (an example of sorts). What does it really take to create a plausible case for God’s existence? What are Christian’s missing in their case?

Ryan,

The “evidence” for Jesus is hearsay upon hearsay, and frankly these accounts look exactly like all the other recorded myths and legends of the other mystery religions that sprang up around that time. Why should I take the stories about Jesus and his magical virgin birth and magical feats as a child and silly magic tricks and resurrections and exorcisms and everything seriously, when in every other circumstance we would simply conclude that this letter/book is just another interesting myth told by ancient, superstitious people? This is a prime example of how religious belief requires a double standard. You would immediately dismiss the stories about Aeshyclus or Apollonius or Horus or Simon Magus, but you accept such mythic stories and legends as historical fact? Bizarre.

The historical problems with the gospels, Paul’s letters, and other early Christian writings that were not chosen for The Canon in the 4th century are so numerous one cannot even count them.

As for the disciples, even if some of them DID die for their faith, that is nothing knew. Many of the original Muslims died for their faith, as have thousands of people from many different religions.

All the history most certainly does NOT point to a Jesus who lived, did miracles, ROSE FROM THE DEAD, appeared and disappeared and walked through walls and flew off into the sky. No. No evidence of that. Extremely, extremely unlikely, and you would realize this if the stories were about anybody else in history.

Daniel,
-
A good argument, or serious evidence would do the job. The problem is all the “evidence” that is offered is not evidence for what Christians think it is (usually, it is merely an argument from ignorance, like “Lightning is so complex we can’t understand it, therefore Zeus is the best explanation”), or else the argument fails badly. A lot of my blog is devoted to showing how the most sophisticated versions of these old arguments fail.
-
But this is an internet classic: The Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists. I do not actually agree to everything on that page. Sometime I should write a full post on the topic of What Would Convince Me That God Existed.

Luke,

Thanks for answering my question. Just a few more:

1) What is your relationship like today with you parents and your brother?
2) How would you respond to how the bible responds to your unbelief? For example Romans 1:18-25, Galatians 3:3, (I can’t find anymore sorry Luke it is almost 2 am and I am WAY tired =) )
3) Have you considered the works and writings of former atheists such as C.S Lewis or Lee Strobel? I assume you and you have some critical things to say about them but I thought the question was still worth asking.
4) Do you plan on debating William Lane Craig ever? If approached, would you?

A few more things:

Sorry you did answer the parents question earlier. I missed that my bad. What about your brother though? A few more I thought of:

5) My wife and I have a friend that is a former christian turned secular humanist. Do you have any advice for ways that we could “minister” (if you will) to her better?
6) Can an Atheist enjoy listening to U2? I just don’t see how they could. =)

Seriously though I have thought about you a lot today bro and I am up late praying for you.

Praying Romans 11:23 for you right now.

- Nathan

Nathan,
-
No worries, ask away! I am glad that you are trying to understand. Atheists, simply by fact of being less numerous in the United States, are not well understood in the USA.
-
But remember that theists almost literally have NOTHING in common. There is nothing we have in common except nonbelief in gods. Imagine thinking of those who don’t believe in Santa Claus as a single “group” of people and you might understand what I’m saying. Just knowing that someone is an atheist tells you NOTHING else about them.
-
1) My brother and I are cool. He’s still a believer, but religion was never important to him like it was to me.
-
2) The scriptures of various religions can whatever they want about non-believers, it doesn’t make it true. The Qu’ran would say to kill me, just like the Bible (Deuteronomy 13:6).
-
3) Yes. There are people who have converted every which way. Atheists who became Muslims, Christians who became Muslims, Muslims who became Hindus, Buddhists who became atheists, etc. Lewis and Strobel were smart people, but their arguments and reasons for converting are just as vacuous.
-
4) No and no. Unless it’s like 15 years from now and I am better qualified.
-
5) Just try to understand them. Don’t assume that the Bible will give you a more accurate picture of them than they themselves can give you. (FYI, I am not a secular humanist.)
-
6) Lol, I like some U2 tracks. There’s music I like from all varieties of religions. Arvo Part is one of my favorite composers, and he’s Orthodox Christian, I think.
-
Cheers,
Luke

Luke,

Top of the morning to ya. Some interesting answers for sure. I promise this will be my last question and I will stop bugging you.

Where, in atheism, is the hope? My perception is that there is little, if any. For example, Christians believe that when humanity is restored and Christ sets everything new again, we get to be with Jesus forever and it will be unending delight for all of eternity always to increase. You may reject that notion and choose to dispell that with some clever rhetoric, but you can’t deny that it is what it claims and that if you reject that notion, it is at your own risk.

In atheism, we just live and then we die? Do you ever feel like you are taking more of a risk?

Nathan
-
I’ve enjoyed answering your questions. No need to “stop bugging” me. It is good to understand and be understood.
-
It seems like you have a very narrow view of hope if the only way we could have hope is if there is an eternity of bliss after death. It has long been an effective tactic for the church to tell people that, “Don’t worry. If you come with us you need not fear death. If you come with us, you get to see your friends and family after you die. You get to live forever! You get to see wicked people suffer, and you get to see righteous and downtrodden be exalted. All your tears will be wiped away. Just join our tribe, and everything will be okay. It’ll all be okay.”
-
Now that is a compelling and grandiose fantasy, but it is a fantasy nonetheless. (It is also, by the way, about as far from ‘humble’ as one could possibly get.)
-
You ask if I ever feel like I am taking a risk. The answer is no. Not anymore than I feel I am taking a risk by rejecting Islam, or Bahai’i, or any other religion that promises a happy afterlife.
-
Wishful thinking does not change the truth about our universe.
-
As for hope, I direct you to Comforting Thoughts About Death That Have Nothing to Do with God.

Hey Luke,

Totally hypothetical, but what would you say if when you die, this is not just “wishful thinking” and there really is a God who is going to judge the world?
-
Just pretend with me on this one (if that helps), but what would your reaction be?
-
Thanks for engaging us all.

[...] Quick note: I gave a brief interview at Fallen and Flawed. [...]

Luke,
What is your hope? In response to Nathan’s question, you reiterated your rejection of the Christian hope. However, that does not show your hope. I want to give you an opportunity to answer that, as I think you do have an answer. You have spent your time reasoning.
-
Let me also take this question a step further.
It would seem that you think you need not have a hope for life after death, because there is no afterlife. But hope is not limited to the promise of an afterlife. What is your hope in life?

Ryan,
-
You’re asking what I would do if I died and ended up at the judgment seat before the god of Mere Christianity.
-
I would ask a bunch of questions: “Why did you give no more evidence of yourself than of all the other gods? Why did you not reveal yourself to me when I begged you to? Why have you sent billions of good people and innocent children to eternal torment simply because they never heard of you? Why did you allow so much innocent suffering? Why did you send yourself to earth to do a few magic tricks and to fulfill some rules you yourself made, instead of imparting basic medical knowledge that would have saved and improved billions of lives? Why did you created humanity to fail, then curse him for failing? Are you really the wicked monster Christians describe you as, or have they misunderstood you all along?”
-
I imagine that’s what I might do.
-
Ryan, what would you do if you die and find yourself in the body of a cow, or else at the judgment seat of Allah?

Thanks Luke. I actually may ask a few of those questions myself.
-
I think the fundamental misunderstanding that we often have is that somehow we are”owed something” by God. As if He exists to do our will. Though I find this emotionally difficult as well, the Bible states that we are all sinners and that we all deserve death as a result of our sin. I know that doesn’t win you many friends in social circles, but that’s the reality presented to us. And it’s pretty hard to deny… turn on the news for 20 seconds and you’ll see some of the most horrific things taking place all over the world. This of course is nothing new. These horrible things have happened since the beginning of time, throughout all humanity, and in every corner of the world.
-
As hard as it is to believe, this is not just because people “do bad things,” but because they are intrinsically bad in their heart of hearts. We may do a few nice things here and there and live moral lives, but we are merely treating the symptoms (behavior) rather than the disease (a sinful heart). Yet instead of being a “wicked monster” and letting us all head straight to our certain death, God actually intervened on our behalf. I know you know the stories of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, so I won’t go through them – but the reason for His coming is so that we CAN be forgiven. That we CAN be cured of the disease of a sinful heart. And far from being a vile monster, God actually did this out of love. He did it out of grace. He had mercy on us. We didn’t deserve it, but He did it anyway.
-
I, too, struggle with the problem of evil. I wrestle with the enormity of suffering. I wonder why God allows so much wrong. But then again, I have to realize that I am not God. I didn’t create myself. I didn’t have any part in me being alive on this earth. I can’t put God in my sinful human box of reasoning. It’s hard not to, but I guess that’s where faith and trust come in…
-
As for ending up at the judgment seat of Allah, I suppose I would ask many similar questions, though with a few twists. For instance: “Why didn’t you send a savior to earth to die for our sins? Why did you create a man-centered religion that depends on human achievement rather than grace? Why do you claim to be so great and mighty, yet lack the love that Jesus Christ and Christianity teach? Why can’t we have our sins washed away by the blood of Jesus like the Christians do? If you really are sovereign over everything, why did you (essentially) only give revelations to one man? Why didn’t you show up until well after Jesus and after the Bible was written? Why do so many parts of the Qur’an seem ripped-off from the Bible? If you’re the Creator, why didn’t you come up with something original? Why do you demand people to follow your rules, but not give them any way (like through Christ and the Holy Spirit in Christianity) to consistently do so? Why do some of your followers blow people up in your name? And so on…”
-
My apologies for the rambling. Got on a little typing overload there… Thanks again Luke. Enjoying the discussion here.

Daniel,
-
No, I don’t have any hope for an afterlife. Don’t need any. I’m not mopey about not living forever in eternal bliss in the same way I’m not mopey about not being able to fly or have X-ray vision.
-
So what hope do I have in life? I have hope that I can make myself a better person. I have hope that I can do my small part to change the world for the better. I have hope that I can experience a life of wonder and adventure and passion.
-
Some people do not have such hope. Some people are born into lives of crushing poverty, disease, war, unrest, and slavery. I suggest that our response to this should not be to offer them false hope, but to do what we can to release them from poverty, disease, war, unrest, and slavery. But that means we have to get busy, instead of just praying and thinking that is our contribution. But I suspect we agree on this anyway.

Ryan,
-
If God created humanity to sin, and now condemns us for our sin, and in fact doesn’t even reveal to the majority of us what his law is, I do not accept his authority or his judgment. If you think God’s might makes right, then I disagree. If that kind of God exists, then I use my autonomy to reject his authority, the same way I would reject the authority of Kim Jung Il if I was born in North Korea.
-
But the reason I “reject” God is because I have no reason to think he exists. In this sense, I “reject” him only in the same way I “reject” Vahiguru.

Hi Luke,
as a silent observer I have appreciated your comments and thoughts. the question of “hope in this life” intrigues me and was one that I was planning on asking as well. You say you have hope that you can do your small part to make changes in the world.
.
But in reality, how much hope do you find in that, with the understanding that you can do very little? As one person, it is unlikely that you would have the finacial ability to really “change the world.” How do you wrestle with the fact that many people don’t even have hope of clean water or freedom? Other than clean water, do you have anything else to offer them to give them hope? Or is it more a mindset of “do all you can and hope for the best?”
.
Also, how can you experience hope and joy through adventure and passion with the realization of suffering, poverty, rape, war, etc? Do you ever feel “guilty” for such adventures knowing that such immense and pervasive suffering is taking place all around you (or all around the world)?
.
just curious… these are just some thoughts I have wrestled through and was curious to know your thoughts.
.
again, thanks for all you’ve shared.

Luke, mine was the 21st comment entered above, and the only one to which you have not directly responded. I’m hoping that’s because you simply missed it in the flurry of discussion your interview has launched, and not because you’ve blackballed me from the list of people with whom you’ll dialog…:)
‘
‘
Anyway, assuming the former reason, I’d still appreciate knowing your response to my questions.
+
You more recently told Nathan that “the church” says

“Don’t worry. If you come with us you need not fear death. If you come with us, you get to see your friends and family after you die. You get to live forever! You get to see wicked people suffer, and you get to see righteous and downtrodden be exalted. All your tears will be wiped away. Just join our tribe, and everything will be okay. It’ll all be okay.”

=
That is, sadly what many “churchES” may be saying, but it is also a poor and errant representation of biblical Christianity. The scripyural assignment to a true disciple of Jesus Christ is to worship and thank Him (alone, in families, and in congregations) for the gift of life, to honor Him in all we think say, and do, and to tell others of what He has done and why. Nothing about joining tribes or seeing anyone suffer. If you have encountered folks who have told you wrongly, you may have developed some (their) wrong ideas about Jesus and His message. From all you have said thus far, I’m inclined to think that’s the case. [My point here harks back to the questions I asked you earlier, your replies to which I look forward.]

What reason do you have to want to help the less well off people? Why does giving them water bring you hope? Why does their life / quality of life mean anything?

Emily,
-
I think atheism offers less hope and a smaller purpose than Christianity does. The problem with Christianity is that it offers FALSE hope and purpose. I could make up thousands of comforting stories about how we’re all going to live forever in PleasureLand and our lives have eternal, epic, cosmic purpose, and I could tell this story to people who are suffering to cheer them up, but I would be LYING to them.
-
My approach is to do the best to figure out how the world REALLY works, pick the best solutions I can, and advocate them. Maybe even help enact some of them.
-
I suspect many atheists are hopeless and joyless. Frankly, I knew lots of Christians who were hopeless and joyless, too. But that is not my subjective experience, for reasons of contingent brain chemistry and experience, I suppose.
-
Do I feel guilty that my life is better than 95% of all lives that have ever been lived or are being lived now? Sometimes, yes. I’m still trying to figure out as best I can what is moral, what is appropriate guilt, what the best way to live is. The “problem” with critical thinking is that you actually have to do the research and the work to get the answers to hard questions, instead of just accepting a list of easy answers that are comforting and simple but happen to be false.
-
Thanks for your questions, and thanks to all of you (especially) Demian for allowing to express my view – one that most people probably are not familiar with (unlike the Christian positions on things).

Al,
-
Yeah, somehow I missed yours. Don’t worry about patronizing me; I do not take offense, ever. It is not a useful reaction.
-
You asked about the prospect of their being some kind of genuine God, even if MY experiences as a Christian were not of a genuine God (though I thought they were at the time).
-
Actually, if you read my story, you’ll see there was a time when I knew I couldn’t believe in the God of evangelical Christianity, but I assumed there must be some kind of genuine God out there, and I would find him. It seemed absurd to me that there would be NO god at all. So I looked around and tried to believe and… in the end I had to admit there was no better reason for me to believe in any gods than there was reason for me to believe in fairies or astrological forces.
-
Hebrews 11:1, and also much of the work of other NT authors like Paul, tries to redefine “faith” as “evidence,” and modern Christians have followed in his suit. I think the whole idea is incoherent. Anybody who tells me to trust the voice in my head or the “feeling” in my “heart” is not telling me to follow the evidence, I don’t think. If that counts as evidence, then there is abundant evidence for the existence of Hindu and Buddhist gods.
-
As for the Christian fantasy promises not being true to Biblical Christianity, well… the Bible was written by dozens of authors over a thousand years in different languages and cultures from different worldviews. So there are lots of presentations of Christianity that qualify as “Biblical”, and the promises of happy heaven represent one such Biblical Christianity. If you do not accept that kind of Christianity, fine, but that does not make your version of Christianity any more plausible, or provide any reason for me to believe your version.

Daniel,
-
You asked, “What reason do you have to want to help the less well off people? Why does giving them water bring you hope? Why does their life / quality of life mean anything?”
-
This is a common question, and one that I asked of atheists when I was a Christian. I thought that my sense of morality had come from God, and that without God’s stern hand of judgment (or loving face of encouragement) I would just live a life of selfish decadence.
-
Well, to my surprise, I DID lose my faith in God, but I did not suddenly want to live a life of selfish decadence. I still cared about other people. That didn’t change.
-
In fact, I’m not even sure it counts as “moral” if you do good things for other people only because you think your all-seeing daddy is watching.
-
I suspect I am motivated to be moral because some of that was built into us by evolution (and is seen in other species, especially primates), and also because I see others pain and I imagine what that would feel like. In fact, if you watch somebody poke themselves in the hand, the nerve endings in your own hand fire. You and I both literally feel other people’s pain. Other people’s pain is our pain – in a limited sense, and as long as we actually see it. So that’s some motivation to be moral.
-
But that doesn’t answer the question “What IS moral? What IS good? Why is it good?” Those are some of my favorite questions, on which I’ve done a fair amount of work. In fact, I even wrote a very short ebook/audiobook about those questions.

Demian, did you add in the hyperlinks to my post, or did I send it that way. If you added them, many thanks. That makes the interview more useful.

Luke, I’m honored you’ve spent so much time interacting. Most interviewees don’t have the stamina you do. Thank you for hanging in there.

I kept on much longer over at Jesus Manifesto.

To my observation Luke’s interview has drawn by far the most interaction with readers of any in this series thus far. Kudos to Demian for arranging it and to Luke for participating to such a degree.
~
Although this thread isn’t about me, my (very abbreviated) personal testimony may be in order to explain the nature of my questions to Luke:
~
I was about Lukes age when I first heard of Jesus Christ’s Gospel. The Christians I met thereafter were the nicest people I had known, so I was naturally drawn to them and their beliefs. I married a Christian girl, became a church member, and we had four children. My involvement ran deeply: teaching, preaching, leading Bible studies, overseeing a training house for single Christian young men, etc. I was so deeply in earnest that I had been baptized three times just to be sure that I had done it the “right” way.
~
Ultimately, the strain of having a full-time job, responsibilities for meetings 7 days a week, the training house, and my own family duties resulted in burn-out. I thought I had failed God and was rejected by Him, which led me into over 20 years of doubting God and my salvation. The biggest stumbling block for me was that the combination of my own sincerity and all my Christian friends’ acceptance of me as a Christian hadn’t been enough to bring me to a life of faithfulness, strength, and belief. Either I had failed God, garnering His wrath, or God had failed me.
~
So I spent the two decades in which my young children grew to adulthood just muddling through, trying to survive. I became a doubter, skeptic, secular humanist, agnostic– a seemingly endless recycling of overlapping doubts and semibeliefs that failed to answer my needs and questions.
~
About five years ago the Holy Spirit began to awaken me to the reality of Christ, opening my eyes to the Gospel of the Bible, and breathing into me the breath of life. The Bible says we are all born spiritually dead because of sin in our nature. That’s why the Bible seems fictitious to us– it is a spiritual book, only discernable to the spiritually alive. The dead comprehend nothing– the spiritually dead comprehend nothing spiritually. That is why Jesus said unless we are born a second time, from above, we cannot see the kingdom of God.
~
So as the dead, we see in the Bible a book of fantasy and faery tales, but having once been made alive by God we can see His truth and respond to Him. A Christian trying to reason of godly matters with one who has not received spiritual life might be likened to trying to teach a tree sloth to run the 100 meter dash; the beast is utterly unequipped for the task and can’t comprehend the lesson anyway.
~
Does this look down upon the skeptic/atheist/agnostic? Hardly, for such was every one of us from our natural birth: rebels against and enemies of God who, in our foolish, blind, deadness blamed Him for our inability to see and find Him. Powerful against Him, our arguments we thought were (as Yoda might have put it). But they were nonsense before His omnipotence, and yet He had mercy upon some of us and shined His light into our souls, showing us Himself.
~
So we who believe have nothing wherein to boast. We are not superior to the unbeliever, for we were the unbeliever, and would be still except for His kindness to us. That kindness we gladly extend to others, both in witness and in prayer. More than that we cannot do, for all are given freedom to choose their bondage: some by grace to Christ Jesus, others by some other quality to self.
~
Luke said that the NT authors try

“to redefine “faith” as “evidence,” and modern Christians have followed in [their] suit. I think the whole idea is incoherent. Anybody who tells me to trust the voice in my head or the “feeling” in my “heart” is not telling me to follow the evidence, I don’t think.”

…
and I fully agree with his concluding statement. Voices in one’s head and/or feelings in one’s heart are not the essence of Christianity. But those authors are not redefining anything– they are stating God’s definitions: Faith is the substance and evidence to us who exist in time/space of the unseen realities of eternity. Faith is neither the exercise of heart nor head in attempts to muster up belief. Faith is the gift of God’s grace (mercy, love, and kindness) to us, unearned by us, which allows us to believe the truth that is to the natural man beyond belief.
~
For a mortal to presume to analyze, evaluate, limit, judge, or otherwise describe the parameters of creation (natural, spiritual, moral, ethical, you-name-it) for an infinite eternal being is the height of egoistic self-aggrandizement; in effect making the Almighty God answerable to himself. No wonder the Bible states, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”
+
Inasmuch as God was kind to me in my decades of folly, I am privileged to extend his kindness on toward others. During my misguided years Christians prayed for me, not giving up on me. I would certainly have given up on such as me, but God is more patient than I, and I must learn to exercise His patience because He enables me to do so.
=
So Luke, although I think you egoistic and arrogant in spite of your obvious excellent intellect, whether in spite of or due to your youth, still I find you certainly no moreso than I, and, I am not your judge! (something for which we can both be glad!). So you are stuck with me (and others) praying that God will have mercy on you, spare your life, and lead you to Jesus Christ (the real One), the resurrected Savior and only Way to God.

al,
-
Thanks for your story.
-
Please notice that everything you said could have been said by a member of any cooky religion or cult.
-
1. Instead of giving evidence of your god’s existence, your just assert that God has given you faith that he exists, which is “substance and evidence” to “spiritual” people who live in “unseen realities of eternity.” I know that’s your theology, but imagine what you would think of the Norse religionist who, when asked for evidence of Odin, said that “My faith is the substance and evidence for the gods, a gift from Odin to those who have seen the unseen.”
-
2. Instead of offering any reason to believe, you merely assert that it is silly for us mortals to analyze or evaluate the work of an infinite creator. But any whackjob can use this line. When asked for evidence of the alien overlords living in the core of Venus, she could just as easily reply, “It is silly for us puny humans to try to comprehend the infinite wisdom of the Venusian overlords, whose brains are so complex we cannot even comprehend them.”
-
3. You conclude that I am egoistic and arrogant to think I could have a chance of knowing the truth by reason and evidence, or to think I could analyze God. But the whackjob could just easily assert that YOU are egoistic and arrogant to think you could comprehend the Venusian overlords or understand them, unless you have had an “inner experience” of them.
-
You may think my examples are silly and that is exactly my point. Your reasoning follows the exact same structure. I just substituted in other un-evidenced, ridiculous magical beings in for your chosen magical being. You need to see how silly your responses are, and how even you wouldn’t accept them in any other circumstance.
-
You know this kind of reasoning is absurd. It just doesn’t sound absurd when you use it to defend your religion. When the astrologer or the paranoid schizophrenic or the Norse pagan uses the exact same forms of reasoning, you recognize it for the vacuous rhetoric that it is.
-
It seems there is a partition in your mind. You shine the light of reason on everyone else’s religion and superstition, exposing them for the frauds they are. But you hide your own dogmas from this light of reason, so they are protected.
-
The tagline for my website applies here perfectly:
-
“When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

[...] while now that are interviews with various outspoken athiest bloggers.  The most recent post is a discussion with Luke Muehlhauser, author of the blog Common Sense [...]

I don’t want to cause any problems, but I do see one line of reasoning I have a problem with. You keep comparing the Christian God to aliens, unicorns, ancient gods, etc. But there is one difference that I find: there is actual scholarly evidence that the Christian God is at least feasible, those other things not so much. There IS study into why people are not backwater yokels for believing in a god, much less the Christian God. I’m being vague because I am pretty sure you can run rings around me logic wise. You are convinced there is no difference between any sort of ‘fantastical’ belief, when there is something quantifiably different between Christian belief and mythological belief. There are vast similarities, but there are also vast differences. We are not stupid. There are stupid Christians, but there are smart Christians as well.
-
I’m sorry if this seems a little reactionary. It kind of is. I’ve thought of every thing you’ve brought up, at least a little. I’m (mostly) confident I am not a stupid person.
-
Again, I apologize at the tone of this post. I do appreciate you coming here and engaging us. I’ve been engaged, believe you me.

Luke, complete side issue – I found/posted on your old blog this evening (http://godtaughtme.wordpress.com/2007/01/10/rediscovering-jesus/). You’ve got quite a story. Do you still check the old blog for new comments?

“You are convinced there is no difference between any sort of ‘fantastical’ belief”
-
No, no… there are a huge number of differences between Yahweh and Zeus, and especially between the “God of the Philosophers” and unicorns. I have never said that these things are identical.
-
I have merely pointed out precise instances of how the “logic” used by Christians to defend their God could really be used to defend any number of ridiculous entities.
-
There are a great number of very smart Christians. There are even smart theistic arguments – Maydole’s modal perfection argument comes to mind.
-
But there are also a great number of silly arguments offered by Christians, and defenses like “God doesn’t have to make any logical sense because he’s beyond our comprehending” are vacuous precisely because they can be used to defend ANY wacky idea, including the existence of Venusian overlords.
-
I suspect you are not a stupid person, Jeff. But you do literally believe you have an invisible friend who grants you wishes with his magical powers. Doesn’t that at least give you pause? Doesn’t that at least make you think, “Well, I think I have good reasons to believe that, but… I dunno, maybe I’m wrong, like all the other smart people in human history have been wrong about thousands of other gods…”?
-
Do you REALLY pause to ask yourself that? Do you give it serious consideration? It really, really matters whether you devote your entire life to yet another superstitious delusion, as you apparently believe has been the plight of billions of other intelligent people around the world.

Daniel,
-
I do not check the old blog for comments. But I am glad that small record of my deconversion exists. To some degree, I blogged right through my whole awakening experience!

Thanks Luke for your answer. I appreciate that you do consider that there are at least some decent reasons for theistic belief. There are also some silly ones. Things like God not having to use logic is okay for a Christian to believe as long as they understand why God is like that, but I do believe its silly for a person to bring that up in a conversation like this. Belief statements are different than evidence, I guess is a good way of putting it.
-
As for the fact that I do believe in an invisible friend that (sometimes) grants my wishes through magical powers. That’s kind of an arrogant way of putting it, but yeah, I do. Check out my blog if you’re interested in my answer, as flawed as it is. The short version is there is a difference between saying I believe in a god (I mean God/Yahweh, but will use the lower case as a general sense) which by definition is invisible that does things for his believers, and simply making up an invisible friend to whom I attribute all the good things that happen to me. I don’t have them all on the top of my head, but Jesus has a collection of corroborating evidence (even if the evidence is not sufficient for belief, as in your case), whereas Billy the Wonder Gerbil does not. At least Jesus has something! I guess that ended up not being the short version…
-
The reason I brought up there being difference between truly mythological figures, and the God I believe in is because in a few cases you’ve equated belief in one to belief in the other. Not that they are the same, but, for example, you “know” God doesn’t exist the same way you “know” faeries don’t exist. I understand what you’re saying but it puts Christians on the defensive by relating belief in something unlikely (God) to belief in something crazy (faeries).
-
A warning, last night I was on the defensive for multiple things, so if you do end up reading my blog, I do use words such as arrogant and condescending. I thank you for your very very civil tone here, and admit I’m a little embarrassed at my attitude.

“As for the fact that I do believe in an invisible friend that (sometimes) grants my wishes through magical powers. That’s kind of an arrogant way of putting it, but yeah, I do.”
-
I’m very confused about why this is “arrogant.” Is it arrogant to make an objectively true statement about your beliefs, especially one you willingly agree to?
-
Do you think it would be accurate for the Hindu to say that your dismissal of Shiva is “arrogant”? Besides, I bet I’ve spent a lot more time considering your God than you’ve spent considering Shiva.
-
There is indeed some evidence for Jesus, and none for Billy the Wonder Gerbil. But many people’s invisible friends are people who once lived but are now dead (like, you know, Jesus). Why do you not take the claims of Elvis sightings seriously? At least in that case we have living witnesses, we have the original documents claiming to have seen Elvis after his death, and we have some of these witnesses on video. Our evidence for Jesus is pathetic in comparison. And yet we do not take claims of Elvis sightings seriously.
-
Double standards once again. They’re the only way religions survive in otherwise rational human minds.
-
Jeff, I know my words are rather harsh. But when someone is in so deep that they literally have an invisible wish-granting friend and believe in magic and an ancient dead guy who resurrected to a new body with superpowers and everything, then in most cases like that you’ve got to shake them really hard to get them to wake up. It took a lot of shaking and poking to get me to wake up. Remember, I know what it’s like to REALLY believe all this stuff, and to not even realize how bizarre and unfounded my beliefs were.
-
Myth is what we call everyone else’s religion.

Maybe arrogant is the wrong word for it… condescending maybe? I say that because you’re putting it in the worst or silliest words possible in order to shake us really hard to get us to stop believing something you believe is silly. I hope a Hindu wouldn’t believe I was being arrogant to say I don’t believe in Shiva. I don’t refer to Shiva in a way that is irreverent, and are in fact very respectful of their position. They believe I’m wrong (or believe our religions are the same), and I believe they are wrong. I might perhaps tell them why I believe they are wrong, but it is certainly not because believing in a multi-armed god of destruction is goofy.
-
I don’t know this, but I would be willing to bet a probe of people’s belief that Elvis exists would provide a lot more flaws than a probe of our best sources to why Jesus exists. There are flaws either way, but Elvis’ resurrection probably has less evidence than Jesus’.
-
Last thing and I’ll probably bow out of this conversation (maybe). Jesus had those superpowers before he died.

Luke,

“You conclude that I am egoistic and arrogant to think I could have a chance of knowing the truth by reason and evidence, or to think I could analyze God.”

~
Not my conclusion– just my observation for the present. I choose to hope that in time you’ll get over it.

+

“But the whackjob could just easily assert that YOU are egoistic and arrogant to think you could comprehend the Venusian overlords or understand them, unless you have had an “inner experience” of them.”

~
Happens all the time; proves nothing.
+

“You may think my examples are silly and that is exactly my point.”

~
What I may opine is irrelevant. God says that you and your points are foolish. That’s what matters.
+

“Your reasoning follows the exact same structure.”

~
The “structural” similarity I see is that we both employ circular reasoning. I begin with the presupposition that God is, that He is the God of the Bible, and that He has established that book as the inerrant and infallible expression of His nature, character and will as He has given these to be known by mankind. You begin with a different presupposition, which you can summarize better than I. My argument will always return to my basic premise, citing God’s expressed words as evidence, and yours will return to whatever you choose to consider evidence of what you believe, which as best I can tell is your own opinion. I know I cannot convince you of anything based upon what I accept as evidence, therefore I do not try to do so. I simply state my belief and my evidence for the benefit of whoever may choose to consider it.
+

“I just substituted in other un-evidenced, ridiculous magical beings in for your chosen magical being.”

~
I agree with Jesus’ claim on this, that I have not chosen Him, but He has chosen me. [I don't claim to know why. In my view He could have chosen much better.]

+

“You need to see how silly your responses are, and how even you wouldn’t accept them in any other circumstance.”

~
You take on a great deal in presuming to know what others “need to see” or what I would or would not “accept in any other circumstance.” In fact, you have no idea what I have accepted and rejected in various circumstances. Foolish, as God says…
~

You know this kind of reasoning is absurd. It just doesn’t sound absurd when you use it to defend your religion. When the astrologer or the paranoid schizophrenic or the Norse pagan uses the exact same forms of reasoning, you recognize it for the vacuous rhetoric that it is.”

~
You even claim to know what I “know,” and how things “sound” to me, and what rhetoric I consider “vacuous.” Foolish. Quite full of yourself you are (Yoda again).
~

“It seems there is a partition in your mind. You shine the light of reason on everyone else’s religion and superstition, exposing them for the frauds they are. But you hide your own dogmas from this light of reason, so they are protected.”

~
While I won’t deny I may have a deviated mental septum, that is not the issue here. I do not shine “reason,” but the Light of the Gospel, which Light is Jesus Christ, the living Word of God. The Bible says that the preaching of the cross of Christ is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is life and truth. Now my knowingly preaching foolishness can hardly be called “shining reason on everyone else’s religion and superstition,” can it?
+

“The tagline for my website applies here perfectly: ‘When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.’”

~
I hope by now you can see why I dismiss all other gods, which are not possible but are false. I don’t expect your agreement, but hope that you understand that my life is based on the fundamental presupposition I explained above. Narrow? Definitely, just as Jesus said it must be.
+
And yes, I understand that you choose to dimiss my God on the basis of your chosen presupposition(s), which privilege my God allows you. No smugness here; no rancor. I wish you whatever happiness you can gain from this life, and will pray God will awake you from death while you may still respond to Him.
+
And thank you again, my friend, for being interviewed here, for subjecting yourself to cross examination for the sake of our enlightenment, and for your candor.

“it is certainly not because believing in a multi-armed god of destruction is goofy”
-
Well there, we just differ. Believing in a multi-armed god of destruction is goofy.
-
Okay, re: “Elvis’ resurrection probably has less evidence than Jesus’.” Woaaaaaaaaah, no. The ONLY evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, indeed the only evidence for Jesus’ earthly existence, is hearsay upon hearsay, finally recorded in a few ancient, anonymous documents for which we have no originals. In contrast, we have abundant physical, audio, and video evidence that Elvis existed, and for his living after death we have living witnesses and original documents. The evidence for Elvis is WAY, WAY better than the evidence for Jesus, mostly because Jesus supposedly lived 2000 years ago and Elvis lived in the modern era.

Okay okay last thing. I have to say that I can prove Elvis is dead. I can show you his grave, where there is still a body in it. I can talk with the people who did his autopsy (as long as that person or people isn’t dead as well). I can’t prove Jesus is alive. Heck, other than lots and lots of smart and reliable ancient historians saying they know people who lived when Jesus lived. I’m sure you’ve heard this one before, the Roman authorities could have easily put down Christianity, which in its early years they hated a good deal, if they had brought out the body of Christ, which would have proved the Christians were believing a lie. There’s no body so while that doesn’t prove he lived, it does prove he at least didn’t die.

al,
-
As far as I can tell, your response came in two points:
-
1. I presume to know too much about you.
2. Our worldviews are on a kind of “equal level” because we both begin with presumptions.
-
As for (1), I should clarify that I’m only making guesses based on how most Christians I’ve encountered work, and how I worked when I was a Christian. So I apologize for directing these assertions at you, when I should have made it clear I was talking about most Christians I’ve encountered.-
-
As for (2), I do my best to avoid presuppositions. I do not presuppose that logic and evidence are the best methods for truth, or even that other minds exist, or even that the external world exists. None of these are my presuppositions, and I would change my beliefs about them if I was compelled to.
-
But, as you seem to admit, this view of it also puts our beliefs on equal ground with belief in Venusian overlords. Everybody is arguing from presuppositions, you say. Everybody is arguing in a circle. I disagree. I don’t think epistemology is so empty. There really are ways to figure out which truth claims are more likely to be true than others, and I suspect you know it. But that is a whole ‘nother topic, big as an ocean…
-
al, I would be curious to know what has led you to think that the existence of Yahweh is more probably than his non-existence. Is it your own personal experience, which is more reliable than the personal experience of billions of Muslims and Hindus? Is it your study of the philosophical arguments for deism? Is it your study of the historical evidence for Jesus’ magical resurrection? What is it?

Jeff,
-
I will grant you that you can prove Elvis died. I was comparing only the “positive” evidence for Elvis’ resurrection vs. the “positive” evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, because there is no negative evidence against Jesus’ resurrection to compare to Elvis’ buried body, in the same way there is no negative evidence against the resurrection of ANY ancient person. ALL those bodies are gone, if they ever existed in the first place.
-
re: “There’s no body so while that doesn’t prove he lived, it does prove he at least didn’t die.” Was this a typo? We have no body for Caesar Augustus, but this doesn’t mean he resurrected and flew off into the sky as “trusted historians” claimed to have happened.
-
“the Roman authorities could have easily put down Christianity, which in its early years they hated a good deal, if they had brought out the body of Christ, which would have proved the Christians were believing a lie.” There are a million explanations for this one that make more sense than magical resurrection, which contradicts everything we know and have ever tested or experienced… Even outlandish theories about Jesus having a twin brother fit the facts better than a story that breaks thousands of physical laws never broken anywhere else. At least that kind of thing, however rare, has happened in modern history and is physically possible.

Wow, things are definitely starting to snowball over here!
-
Like others have said, thanks so much Luke. This is wonderful and you’re a very bright guy who has put a lot of thought into these issues. Just want to add one quick point…
-
All the miracles and crazy fantasies and mythological ideas that you’re ascribing to Christianity are solely hinged on one (debatable) reality: God. If God does not exist, then yes, this stuff is insane. But if He does, then all of these miracles are 100% feasible in every way. Why? Because if God created the universe out of nothing (zero raw materials), then for Him to raise someone from the dead, answer prayers and direct the events of the world is a piece of cake.
-
Does that make sense, at least logically? In other words: If God can do this MASSIVE miracle over here, then for Him to do these (seemingly) impossible things in other spheres of the galaxy is a walk in the park.
-
It’s like saying to a marathon runner, “I bet you can’t walk 20 feet without falling.” Well of course he can. He runs 26 miles at a time. In our case, the only debate is not whether or not he can walk 20 feet. It’s: Does the marathon runner exist? If he does, everything else falls into place. 20 feet is a breeze.
-
The only point here is that we need not harp on whether X, Y or Z is possible. All that matters is, Does God exist? Did He create the universe out of nothing as the Bible says? If so, then the other miracles of Christianity are certainly surprising and wonderful, though they are not “mythological” in any sense.
-
Sense you admitted that you “don’t know” how life began, then of course you find it hard to believe all this other mumbo-jumbo that Christians believe. If there weren’t a God who created the world, then I can’t imagine believing it either.
-
Cheers again, mate.

Kudos to Luke for the stamina of a marathon runner. Like others have said, thank you for your sincere interest and contribution. It’s not easy.
–
And let me say this: I respect your stance. Atheism is a legitimate response to our world. I hope you don’t feel like anyone’s disregarded that.
–
But as it’s been stated repeatedly…you’ll never get at Christ with logic. Granted, I think we’ve all paused and said at one time our another, “This invisible friend who grants my wishes with his powers…is it real?” That’s when we look down at the record and say “Yes, it is,” because we are justified by faith…
–
And just so you know, that’s not intellectual suicide. It’s intellectual surrender. Humility.
–
Couple of things I suggest you examine [and understand I share this because I want you to improve as a debater...even if you remain an atheist...you are smart, and anything that smacks of brains has a special place in my heart in such a way I love to see it grow...so I hope you understand where I'm coming from when I share the following]: loaded language, straw man and an inadequate understanding of comparative religion.
–
What do these have in common? The first two are fallacies you commit regularly. The second is the apparent state of your knowledge in this field. I say apparent because I’m only going by what you share. You may know more. But your tendency here is to lump everything together, including mythology and religion, which is a category mistake and indicator you don’t know what you’re talking about.
–
Finally, in the end, if were wrong and you’re right, so what? Why do you even care? I’m concerned you’re going to drive yourself nuts combating Christians. Relax. Enjoy life. Your young. If things go your way, you’ve got a lot of years to tangle ferociously with Christians.
Thanks again, Luke.

Ryan,
-
I have been enjoying this dialogue, too.
-
Please apply your line of reasoning to any OTHER myth or religion and see if it makes sense.
-
For example, does the absurdity of the Hindu milk miracle (yet another miracle that has much more evidence behind it than Jesus’ resurrection) hinge only on one question: the existence of Ganesha?
-
No. If Ganesha existed, it is still extremely bizarre and implausible that the miracle he would perform in modern times is that statues of him would suddenly drink milk for a day, then stop. That’s extremely unlikely – and better explained by natural causes – even if Ganesha exists.
-
Another problem with your line of reasoning is that nearly all arguments ever given for the existence of God argue for a very vague kind of powerful superbeing, which fits the qualities of a very long list of gods. If any of THOSE gods exist, instead of Yahweh, then this makes the resurrection of Jesus and other Christian miarcles no more probable, at all.
-
A third problem with your line of reasoning is that there are a long list of problems introduced by even the most basic Christian theologies, like the absurdity of an “all-loving” God who sends people to hell for eternity, or the notion of a being that can simultaneously be “all-merciful” and “all-just.”
-
I have never argued that the things Christianity claims are logically impossible (though often, they are). I have mostly just argued that Christianity’s claims are extremely unlikely to be true, like the claims of other religions and superstitions.

Demian,
-
“…we are justified by faith… And just so you know, that’s not intellectual suicide. It’s intellectual surrender. Humility.”
-
No, no, no! Absurd beliefs are NOT justified by faith. If that were true than literally ANY beliefs could be “justified.” Belief in astrology is justified by faith, belief in Venusian overlords is justified by faith, belief in Ganesha is justified by faith? Don’t you see that?
-
And it IS intellectual suicide to justify beliefs by faith. Call if faith or “intellectual surrender” or “humility” or whatever but you are still deciding to take up beliefs that have no more epistemic justification than Venusian overlords or Ganesha. Intellectual suicide is PRECISELY what that is. “Intellectual surrender,” as far as I can tell, just means “I’ve decided to believe X, whether I have good reasons to believe X or not.” (That’s what faith means, too, as far as I can tell.)
-
The problem with that is that X can be ANYTHING. In contrast, if you have epistemic standards for the beliefs you will accept, you will be less gullible and more truth-tracking.
-
The vast, vast majority of truth claims are FALSE. We all agree on this. It is a necessary truth. And if you “justify” beliefs with faith and surrender, you are simply allowing yourself to believe anything you want. That is blind, dumb, deaf, and gullible. The person who takes up that strategy can “justify” literally any belief (most likely, the ones they were raised with).
-
Do you really not see that?
-
Re: “loaded language, straw man and an inadequate understanding of comparative religion” I don’t think my language is quite so loaded. I’ve shown that it is not hyperbole to say that most Christians have an invisible friend who grants them wishes with magical powers. Every word of that statement is literally true about mainstream Christian belief. It’s not “loaded.”
-
If there are straw men in my arguments, it is only when I forget to say that I am responding to mainstream Christianity and not whatever brand of Christianity you happen to hold, which of course I cannot know.
-
Comparative religion. I have never claimed that Hinduism and Christianity and Venusian-overlordism are identical. I’m not “lumping them all together.” I’m showing how they are identical in very PRECISE and TRUE ways, for example that they can all be justified by “faith.” This is not lumping. I was very explicit about the features these things share, and my statements of this kind were objectively true.
-
Demian, I accept criticism all the time. I have corrected posts on my blog and changed my mind several times already because of reader comments. But in this case I legitimately disagree with your criticisms.
-
Okay. Why do I care? I care because truth matters. Because a world run by lies does serious damage. Especially on the religious scale, where literally billions of lives are affected. I care because I want to make the world a better place.
-
There is a lot more to my life than trying to promote critical thinking, and it’s hard to get me worked up. I may sound intense online, but that’s because you can’t see me in person. There is plenty of relaxation and enjoyment in my life. But thanks for the encouragement.

Weird. Smiley faces seem to always show up on a new line instead of where I actually typed them…

Another random question, Luke…
-
If you (hypothetically) did come to faith in Jesus Christ, are there things that would be hard for you to give up? Are there lifestyle choices you’re making that would be difficult to relinquish?
-
This is not meant to be a leading question. Just curious if there are other barriers besides the intellectual ones. I know for me there certainly were moral objections (had to battle my pride, selfishness, drunkenness, works-righteousness, etc.), and I really didn’t want to let go of those seemingly pleasurable things.
-
You sound like a much better man than I was (I was a mess, for the record), so I have no idea what your answer might be. Just curious.
-
Thanks again.

Ryan,
-
It’s hard to say, because there are so many varieties of Christianity, which prohibit and encourage so many different things. But in the interests of answering your question, let’s say I became convinced of roughly the conservative evangelical Christianity I grew up in.
-
I would miss the freedom to do what I want with my life. I would miss the freedom to create great relationships, and the freedom to part ways when they fade out.
-
I would not appreciate the heavy burden of serving a cosmic dictator, of trying to find excuses for how an all-loving God would cause and allow so much innocent suffering, of being required to live up to an impossible standard, of having to defend an ancient an obviously contradictory “book” supposedly inspired by God.
-
I would not enjoy the awareness that millions of innocent people will suffer for eternity. I would not enjoy having to condemn things that hurt no one. I would not enjoy listening to Contemporary Christian Music.
-
I’m sure there’s more, but I’d like to end with one that surprised me. Just now, when you asked that question, I realized that I’d miss how AMAZING it is to think that all my complexity arises from quantum wave functions – and that we discover each day yet another piece of HOW that happened. I’d miss being “just” subatomic particles, and yet so much more at the same time. I’d miss the excitement and wonder of a universe to easily “explained” away by “Goddidit.” I’d miss taking questions like “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and “How could something come from nothing, or else the past be infinite?” seriously, instead of being able to shrug them off with “Goddidit.”
-
I suppose there would be things gained by going back to Christianity. Family togetherness, political privilege… clean, subservient women… just kidding!
-
I’m just splashing stones in the water, here. Obviously it would matter entirely what kind of Christianity convinced me and why…
-
Interesting question, Ryan.
-
Now, you may all proceed with the “See! That is why you really believe! It was all an emotional choice after all!” bullshit…

I mean, “That’s why you really disbelieve!”
-
Wish I could edit my comments…

“I would not enjoy listening to Contemporary Christian Music.”
Haha nice. Thanks for your answers Luke. I thought we might be running out of ground to cover, but apparently not
Enjoy your weekend -

“I would miss the freedom to create great relationships, and the freedom to part ways when they fade out.”
This is such a beautiful sentiment, and I feel the same way. Not that I miss it as a Christian, but I love as a Christian being in great relationships with believers and nonbelievers, and I have parted ways peacefully with a great many people, people of which I still care for greatly. The rest of your comment is beautiful as well, but ironically everything you say you do not miss, I love about being a Christian. There’s no debatable essence to this: I love loving a God who creates something from nothing, created us through subatomic particles. There is a degree of awe in the Creator God that sometimes gets pushed back. When believers give a half-hearted shrug when they answer “Goddidit,” they are missing out on a world of wonder and awe, and a God that is unbelievably, and un-understandably (as we can see through this conversation) powerful. The joy you find in not believing these things is the joy we, or at least I, find in believing them. I know I said I was going to bow out, but I can’t help but keep coming back.

Hey Luke, thanks for your time…and I’m sure you’ve probably washed your hands clean of this discussion by now, but if you’re still listening, I was curious…I’ve heard other de-converts of Christianity say that they are probably more moral now. That’s always intrigued me. Do you feel the same way?

I think I’m a tad more moral than I was as a Christian, but it’s hard for me to measure since I don’t have moral knowledge about a great many things. My moral theory is one that doesn’t give you answers to all moral questions without doing a fuckton of research in some cases. So I claim that humanity does not have moral knowledge on many issues. So I can’t know, fully, how moral or immoral I am.

I think it’s quite possible that Christianity motivates many people to be more moral than they otherwise would be, while it makes other people much more IMMORAL than they would otherwise be.

Great answer, Luke. Got a chuckle out of me on that last night. I hope you’re doing fine.

Doing great! I’m still subscribed to this thread, so if people come up with more questions, ask away. The reward to y’all is greater understanding of atheism and naturalism, the reward to me is that I get to feel like a guru.

Alright, Luke. Since you asked…
-
Have you ever heard of Pascal’s wager? And if so, what are your thoughts on it?
-
If we need a refresher, his basic argument was that, “If you receive the grace of God and accept Christ, you have infinite to gain if God exists, and nothing to lose if He is not. On the other hand, if you reject Christ, you have infinite to lose if God exists and nothing to gain if He doesn’t.”
-
This probably has some theological laziness to it, but that’s the general question. Curious to hear how you dismantle Pascal

The Pensées is beautifully written, but Pascal’s Wager is absurd (and indeed, Pascal never meant to deploy it by itself, as it is deployed today).

The wager can be done with ANYTHING. Let’s say I tell you Allah exists and will burn you forever if you don’t worship him. And you tell me, “Why not believe? If you’re wrong, you lose nothing – if you’re right, you gain an eternity of bliss!” Does this do anything to convince you to believe in Allah?

Of course not. You would need some evidence that it is at all likely that Allah exists and has the attributes and plans often assigned to him.

Let’s say I tell you some space aliens are going to blow up the planet unless YOU PERSONALLY make love to Ron Jeremy. It’s very mysterious, I know, but they are so much smarter than us that their purposes often make little sense to us. And, I point out, “Look, if I’m wrong about this, then all that happened is you had to sleep with Ron Jeremey. But if I’m right, and you DON’T act, then we’re all toast. So, the consequences clearly tell you what your action should be.”

There are other problems, but I don’t think I need to continue. Pascal’s wager is a non-starter, and, like “faith” and many other Christian methods of “knowing”, it can be used to encourage belief in literally ANYTHING.

The other thing that’s always bothered me about Pascal’s Wager is that it seems that any god which may exist, especially the Biblical one, would probably not be appreciative if individuals feigned belief on the mere basis of probabilities and not due to genuine devotion. Would any god suggested as a theoretical subject of the Wager appreciate such a cynical gesture?

Good stuff, Luke (and teleprompter). Though I would argue that the God of the Bible (far) more likely exists than the Ron Jeremy/alien combination, I definitely see your point. Just don’t think you can put those two on a parallel like that (knowing one is absurd and one is not nearly as absurd).
-
But anywho, that what makes this interesting, right? For the record, I also have some issues with Pascal’s wager – especially the “genuine devotion” that ‘Prompter pointed out.
-
Thanks again guys.

Ryan,
-
Christianity is just as absurd, it’s just what you (and I) were raised with. Seriously. We’re talking about an ancient semitic sky god who spoke the world into existence (in the wrong order, no less), then led one tribe in conquest against all the other tribes, then changed the whole game by introducing an afterlife, a place of eternal torture for those who don’t believe, and did it by sacrificing himself to himself to appease himself and his anger over us doing what he programmed us to do. He did this through a half-man, half-god born of a virgin who performed petty miracles and exorcisms, got killed, then rose from the dead into a new body that could walk through walls, appear and reappear, and fly off into the sky (where to?).
-
Even saying it like that doesn’t capture the sheer absurdity of it all, because you and I are familiar with stuff like “born of a virgin”, and so we’re comfortable with it even though it’s absurd. So Christianity is even more absurd than how I’ve described it above, but neither you nor I can ever feel the full force of how absurd it is.

Thanks Luke. It seems like it’s only absurd because you’ve ruled out the possibility of the supernatural from the outset. Everything else hinges on that, so there’s no chance of it not being absurd.

Ryan,
-
No.
-
I have not ruled out the supernatural at all.
-
Please think about it. You probably think the Mbombo earth-vomiting creation story, the ancient Greek myths, my tale about Venusian overlords, and a million other supernatural stories are ABSURD, and yet you do NOT rule out the supernatural. These stories are absurd even when you and I do NOT rule out the supernatural.

Luke, you crack me up…your myths get more elaborate as you go along. Although I’m a little confused on how vomiting creation is supernatural…I get where your going, but…so gross. I guess if I was a Mmombo native, I’d get it. “People vomit. That’s what we do.” So…it wouldn’t be the Word of Faith movement…it’d be the Vomit of Faith…”We vomit wealth, health and our best life now into existence.” [It's late...I'm going to bed now.]

Except for Venusian overlords, these aren’t “my” myths. There are thousands of them, and they’ve been believed whole-heartedly by millions of people in earth’s history. And frankly, most of them are less elaborate than the Christian myth surrounding Jesus. But most of them (and certainly the Christian ones) are absurd, whether you believe in the supernatural or not.
-
Quantum mechanics is also absurd, but the difference is that we have tons of great evidence for quantum mechanics, and none for God.

“The difference is that we have tons of great evidence for quantum mechanics, and none for God.”
-
Luke, what would you count as evidence for God (if there were such a thing)? Does creation count? Does Jesus count? Does your mind, heart, soul, morality and conscience count? Do babies being born count? Does the solar system count? Or were all these things just the products of lots of ooze and proteins melding together and exploding some 900 billion years ago? And if so, where did those proteins, etc. come from? (Not saying you believe this either, but just curious what you would accept as evidence for God.)
-
I realize that at some point this all comes down to faith. There is faith in Christianity. You don’t watch a live recording of Jesus dying on a cross and then believe it. Without faith, this would all be meaningless. And of course, as Paul makes clear, even that faith is a gift from God (see: Eph. 2). Sometimes I think there’s a good reason why Christ came thousands of years before all the recording technology we have today… He wanted genuine faith; not some half-hearted belief that a DVD is accurate.

With faith, you can “justify” belief in ANYTHING. A worshiper of Zeus or an astrologer or a New Age psychic could all retreat to “faith” just as well as you can. Because faith has no dependence on truth. You can “have faith” in anything.
-
The world (what you call “creation”), the life of Jesus, the mind, the moral sense, our consciousness, birth, our solar system – all these things are evidence, but what are they evidence for? What is the best explanation of them? These are scientific questions and there are very good reasons why Mbombo, Zeus, and Yahweh are extremely poor explanations for these phenomena, and why scientists reject such explanations. Also, just because we can’t yet explain consciousness or abiogenesis or whatever does not mean Yahweh’s magic is the “best” explanation, the same way that “Zeus’ magic” wasn’t the best explanation for lightning before we understood electricity.

Luke, stick to science. It’s obvious you’re a “guru” there. Not so when it comes to religion or Christianity. You continue to lump Yahweh [and implicitly Jesus of Nazereth] with Zeus demonstrating your fundamental lack of understanding the difference between a myth and a historical religion.

Demian,
-
You keep forgetting that I have NEVER made a claim that Yahweh is much like Zeus or Mbombo. I have only give SPECIFIC comparisons. For example, it is simply TRUE that all three are gods once worshiped by men. This is not “lumping them together”, it is making a true claim of a specific similarity.
-
The same goes for when I point out that all three gods can be justified by “faith.” I can have “faith” in Mbombo just like I can have “faith” in Yahweh. But I cannot have good evidence of either if they don’t actually exist.
-
Likewise, it is also true (I argue) that Yahweh is a very poor scientific explanation for abiogenesis or the origins of the universe in the very same way that Zeus is a very poor explanation for lightning. What I mean by that is very specific, relating to Pierce’s abductive reasoning. Positing Zeus as an explanation for lightning or Yahweh as an explanation for abiogenesis has very little explanatory scope, explanatory power, etc… These “answers” also fail Occam’s razor very badly.
-
You are attacking a straw man, sir.

That’s cool. It is kind of hard to comprehend comments, so thanks for clarifying.

Does Christianity have more evidence to its credit than Islam? Because one could just as well say that the god of the Qu’ran is evidenced by creation, birth, morality, and conscience, could one not? When one does examine historical religions, as you suggest, one may ask: can the same claims be made for other historical religions which can be made for Christianity? If one has reason to believe that religion satisifies those claims, how does one discern which religion or religions will satisfy those claims?

Teleprompter: Great question. This is a short hand answer, but yes, in fact Allah could be proven on the same evidence as Christianity. True for Judiasm, too. They are all monotheistic. But where they depart is not in the life of Jesus, but his death and resurrection [Muslims deny Jesus died and Jews deny he rose.] Thus the abundant energy to prove the resurrection.

Demian,
-
By the way, the best case ever made for the resurrection of Jesus will be published tomorrow in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. You can read the whole thing here:
-
http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/Resurrectionarticlesinglefile.pdf
-
Much, much better than the cases made by, say, Habermas and Craig.
-
I think it fails badly, but it will take a lot of time to show why on my blog. I want to get to the posts on Bayesian inference in my “Intro to Logic” series, first, and also write some posts on historical methodology and Hume on miracles.

Thanks for the heads up, Luke! And looking forward to your response.

You say you were once a Christian but I would question that.You might have been attending a church for a long time but that doesnt mean you were a Christian.Now I dont know your heart only God knows that(the one you no longer believe in)but there are verses in scripture that point to true Christian conversion and losing your faith just could not happen unless its because you have back slidden.The one verse that shows this to be true is from the lips of Jesus Himself: Matth 7.21 “Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 “Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 “And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
Now Jesus would be a liar by saying I never knew you if at anytime in your “christian” life you had a relationship with Him.Paul says the Christian life is like a race run until the end. Also again from Jesus own lips:Matt 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
This doesnt mean that salavation is gained only at the end of the race but shows that having endured to the end their belief in Jesus at the beginning of it was a true conversion by their endurance in finishing the race.You havent endured it seems and you have to ask yourself if you truly believed

Frank,

Yup, I was REALLY a Christian. I loved God, I loved the theology, I wanted to serve God with all my heart, I really believed, I really did all the Christian stuff. My heart was in unison with many faithful Christians who still believe. The only difference is that I did some studying and they did not.

You think you can prove that I was never a Christian by quoting the Bible. But the Bible is only words by men, and should not be considered more true than what plain reality proves. If the Bible told you that insects had 4 legs instead of 6, would you believe the Bible, or reality?

I am one of those who now sides with reality.

“You think you can prove that I was never a Christian by quoting the Bible. But the Bible is only words by men, and should not be considered more true than what plain reality proves.”

This proves to me that you view Jesus words as not believable and in so doing stand with all atheists(who never became Christians)in perfect harmony with them.I take Jesus words above yours and in that light His statment about never knowing you is true.You might not like it or even agree He said it but thats the choice you have made.Who knows maybe sometime down the line you might even return to the faith just like like the author A N Wilson has just done(he also left the faith)You say you have studied and found Christianity wanting but there are Christian scholars out there debating with atheists like you and it seems winning the argument eg Dr Craig,Dinesh D Sousa Dr John Lennox etc who have read the same bible and have still kept the faith(though I believe Dr Craig was an atheist in his younger days)

Frank,

Do you really think I never believed because I don’t believe now?

Luke Yes unless you are backslidden and looking at your comments I dont think you are.When a person gives his/her heart to Christ then the promise of Salvation is given to that person as a gift it cannot be earned.That Salvation is secure in Jesus sacrifice on Calvary and can never be taken away.This doesnt mean we no longer sin but as we grow in faith our lives become more like Jesus.The verse I quoted is true that when Jesus said to those who”believed”they were Christians “I never knew you”there was never a time in their lives EVEN THOUGH THEY BELIEVED IT that Jesus had a relationship with them.You said it was just words and are not true therefore your atheism has seperated you from that truth.If our Salvation depended on us then we are all lost because each day we sin and the wages of sin is death.So you couldnt have been truly born again because Luke you would be still running that race.

Wow, gang, I can hardly believe I’ve been gone from this thread since April 30th! And I’ve just given myself eyestrain and a headache attempting to catch up…
|
First things first– Luke, you made a statement some days ago that the only superior beings that you have made up personally are the Venusian overlords. Now, look, Sonny– I will be 67 in a couple of months and I have been aware of the VOs since long before you were born, so just come down off it! While you’re strutting your intellectual superiority a few buddies and I meet regularly with Venusian overlords for cards and billiards [you wanna talk about a poker face...] These are just regular guys who put their pants on the same way we do. It just takes them longer because of all those legs. They play a hand [er, flagellum] of cards with great glee, and can run a table of 8-ball with the best on this planet. They were not pleased to learn you think you made them up!
|
OK, enough of that. You said:

Everybody is arguing from presuppositions, you say. Everybody is arguing in a circle. I disagree. I don’t think epistemology is so empty. There really are ways to figure out which truth claims are more likely to be true than others, and I suspect you know it. But that is a whole ‘nother topic, big as an ocean…

It’s not really so big a topic. The question isn’t about likelihood, but about absolute fact. Truth. My truth is God’s Word. It is infallible, whether you, I or anyone believes it or not. But your “likelihoods” are another matter entirely– they are not absolute, but best guesses. I know that the earth is held in place by the Word of God’s power because the Bible tells me this is so and God cannot lie. But you can only guess whether gravity works the same today as it did 5,000 years ago, or whether it will do so tomorrow, based on the “law” of probability. No one living has actually observed the laws of nature at work for thousands of years so no one knows that fossil dating techniques are valid because rates of decay and change may have been very different at different times. My foundation is rock-solid and certain; yours is guesswork based on suppositions.
|
You also asked me:

al, I would be curious to know what has led you to think that the existence of Yahweh is more probably than his non-existence. Is it your own personal experience, which is more reliable than the personal experience of billions of Muslims and Hindus? Is it your study of the philosophical arguments for deism? Is it your study of the historical evidence for Jesus’ magical resurrection? What is it?

|
None of the above. I think I explained this previously, but I’ll give it another shot. God, who cannot lie, sent His Holy Spirit into me when I was utterly dead to Him, breathing life into me so that my blind, dead eyes could be opened and my dead, deaf ears could hear, and He spoke to me through men’s written and oral words the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Because He gave me new life where only death had previously ruled my existence, I was able to receive His proffered life by faith and respond by repenting of my sins and my sinfulness. I learned of Jesus’ birth, life, ministry, trial, death, resurrection, ascension, and enthronement, and how each of those aspects affects me, and I received the message with gladness. All my studies that have benefitted my faith have taken place since that time, not before.
|
Life after being born again is entirely “other” than existence was during the preceeding time. I can only explain it as the man who was born blind did after Jesus had healed him– this one thing I know: once I was blind, but now I can see.
|
I’m sure you would like to, and will, attribute my faith to something [anything!] other than God, but that’s my story…
|
I congratulate you, Luke, on having the most commented-on thread on this blog, and I hope to meet you in heaven if not before.
|
PS– Venus is in Romania. I don’t know why its overlords are so weird…

*sigh*

Frank and al, I don’t think a response from me at this point will be useful, but I’ve enjoyed the conversation.

*sigh* yeah I know what you mean Luke It must be hard for you to accept the truth that maybe you were never TRULY a born again Christian

Al,I understand you perfectly why! its because we are born of the same Spirit.When I was an atheist what you have just posted would just have seemed utter nonsense to me but now the words are inspirational and full of meaning so thanks.

Hey Luke, just wondering, did you actually ever read the old testament and then the new in their entirety, without any biases from the Christian church? If so, could you point me to where it says humans have an immortal soul, that, should we not choose not to believe in Jesus, will be specifically tormented for all of eternity in a so-called hell?

Tell me, does God ever say this in the Old Testament? And let’s remember, much of Jesus’ teachings and the New Testament writings are derived from the Jewish scriptures. They’re based on the Old Testament.

When Adam & Eve ate of the apple, did God say they will surely burn in an eternally burning fire of all of eternity? Or, did he say that they will simply die? Isn’t it odd that, given that eternal torment in fire is an ostensibly much more fearful thing than death, that God did not even warn us about this fate, from the very beginning and throughout the Bible’s pages?

Wow, not only are we worshipping a being who likes to torture his creation for all of eternity, but someone who lies to us as well!

Perhaps, though, if we read the Bible with a fresh, open mind, we will come to view God as possibly a more reasonable being (after all, we were made in the image of God. Why should Christianity be made into such an other-worldly faith?). If you were genuinely interested in learning about the Christian faith, and you encountered a stumbling block which is the idea of an eternal hell, would not the more reasonable approach have been to try your best to truly understand this God as depicted in the Bible? To respect the writings and language used throughout the Bible and really grapple with the text in efforts to understand this God, as opposed to quickly departing the faith as as result of fusing prevalent pagan ideas with what the Jewish writers meant to say? If you were genuinely seeking God, I think that God would have given you a clearer understanding of his nature, as I believe he did to me. I came to the realization recently, based on taking the Bible holistically and looking at the language used all throughout, that I am no longer an amorphous soul wandering around the earth waiting to be saved so that my soul does not burn in hell, but rather, I am a whole, integrated being that either lives or dies!

If you were truly, genuinely, honestly seeking God, would you not have tried to come to a similar understanding yourself of how the Bible depicts God, instead of merely relying on what others have told you? Is this not a shaky, and lazy foundation from which you departed to begin with? At least this is how I understand your previous faith, given that your belief that God enjoys torturing billions of “souls” forever and ever was one of your criticisms of the Christian faith that perhaps led to your deconversion. If this is the case, I must say I am disappointed in your efforts to even learn about God in the first place.

Who came up with this idea of an eternal hell? In fact, Plato popularized the idea of an immortal soul. The Bible, in contrast, depicts us as complete, living beings. The heart, mind, soul are usually used in the Bible in combination to describe our complete life essence. These terms do not necessarily connotate that they are all separate parts, that then go on existing on their own right after our deaths.

I think that if you had genuinely sought out God, you would have come to this (mind you, slightly tentative for me) conclusion that Christianity is about life versus death, not heaven versus hell, and as a result, I think you would have found God to be a much more reasonable, understandable being, someone you could actually begin to love. For this was what happened to me, as I genuinely searched for his truth revealed to me in the Bible.

Looks like some of the early Christian thinkers disbelieved in this false dichotomy of heaven vs. hell, as well. Please see here.

Christianity, I’ve come to realize, is about life versus death, not heaven vs. hell.

[...] see the comments on my post at Fallen and Flawed: Lukeprog: The problem is all the “evidence” that is offered [for theism] is not evidence for [...]

Revisitng an ancient thread here.

But for the sake of Frank Keefe and Al:
Luke has just stopped casting pearls before swine.
Frank is just digustingly presumptuous. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered anyone as transparent and sincere as Luke when it comes to asking the hard questions.
The hard fact is he’s been at both sides of the argument, and he’s explored both sides more vigourosly then anyone I’ve ever known. You guys have explored one under the guise of complete favouritism, and he says your wrong.
You guys simply can’t accept this, so you hide in obscurity, illogical or unprovable arguments, and in attacking Luke’s character. His reasons are legitimate, but you can’t accept that, so you actively decide to presume things about him.

It is what your doing, and it’s pretty pathetic.
I felt the need to point that out as Luke is obviously to tactful too.
You have just proved everything he has accused you off.

@MicThacks,

Glad you could join us. Your remarks are as welcome here as anyone’s. I don’t find them digusting (as you find Frank’s), but they are presumptuous.
First, I see Luke to be as transparent as you do. We just don’t see the same things behind the window.
Second, you have mixed your metaphors: “complete favoritism” is not a “guise,” but an open fact. I favor God’s inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word over Luke’s or any man’s vain imaginings. No duplicity on my part– a completely open confession.
Third, I do not hide in obscurity, but maintain a very accessible presence under my name (al Hartman) on FaceBook, lacking the time & tech knowhow to operate a blog.
Fourth, I have not attacked Luke’s character, but simply stated that he is among the multitudes of whom Jesus spoke when He said, “Forgive them, Father, for they don’t know what they’re doing.” This is not a question of character, but of blind ignorance attributable to spiritual deadness because of sin. This is the same state in which I existed before God breathed the breath of life into me, so if I were attacking Luke’s character I would be attacking my own as well.
Fifth, in accusing me of presuming things about Luke, you presume things about me. Inasmuch as none of us has full knowledge of anything, presumption (opinion) is a normal part of conversation. This is why, as much as possible, I defer to the Bible rather than opinion (mine or those of others).

I say none of this in a defensive manner, but to invite you to pursue further discussion as a seeker of truth on fb.

Micthacks “Frank is just digustingly presumptuous.”

Im replying after all this time as I received an email from this site.First let me say what you call disgustingly presumptous would also have to be applied to Jesus whose words I quoted.I find it ironic that an atheist cannot take in that those who say they were once “christian” might not have been.Maybe luke might give you the scripture of the wheat and tares!!When discussing Christianity on other forums and having said I was once an atheist but Im now a Christian 99.99%of all the atheists replies were.. you were never a true atheist otherwise you wouldnt now be a Christian.See it cuts both ways but you see I have the words of Christ to back my belief that Luke was never a true born again Christian but who exactly do atheist have to correct my belief that at one time I wasnt really a true atheist?

Since these additional comments go out to everyone who has posted on this thread, here’s an excellent essay recently posted on FaceBook by Dr. Bud Powell:

The Darkened Heart of Atheism
Dr. Bud Powell [from FaceBook post]

If deep in his heart the a-theist really believed that God does not exist, why would he give a rip what I or anyone else thinks? The a-theist lives by denial. Without the denial he is nothing, for he stands aloof as an observer of what he considers all the folly in the world. If there is no God, there is no truth to contend over for we are all locked into our own minds. Everything is subjective and discourse is impossible. Religious discussion is worse than futile. He is arguing about nothing, for his life is denial. He is like a man trying to explain the mess in the room while ignoring the presence of the elephant. ‘Hm, I wonder why the chairs are broken, there is crap on the floor, and the walls have holes in them. Hm…..”

A-theism starts with the presupposition that nothing is known about God or can be known. It is all unproved. That presupposition means that the atheist has to know everything that everybody knows, for how could he know what everybody doesn’t know if he doesn’t know what everybody knows. He professes to believe that there is no proof for God’s existence. He then seeks to show that everybody in the world who believes in God is deceived and lying about it. What a great leap of faith this is into the minds of every believer, without one shred of evidence that he, the a-theist, is even certain of the validity of his own thought. Some of them even claim to have once been certain of the truth of God (but now that certainty is uncertainty), and give no evidence that their present certainty will not change to something else tomorrow. But we are supposed to follow them in this arrant folly.

To be consistent, then, the a-theist has to deny the validity of his consciousness of my consciousness, for all that he knows is what he claims to know in his own mind. So why does he care what I think? But a-theists really, really do care what I think, for I get this stuff all the time. A-theists are obsessed with God and want to argue incessantly with Christians. If God really didn’t exist they wouldn’t be so angry. They want me to be as angry as they are, but why do they care? They wouldn’t know I was angry if I were angry, which I am not. How do they know I am angry? Is it because I speak plainly? Plain speech might be evidence of love, not anger.

When I challenge them about why they care, they retreat into a discussion of their high morality, which makes them love the truth. But they cannot give any defense of what is truth, because it is only what they think is truth, for they retreat into the castle of their own conscience. “My morality…” which is vaporous, for they have already admitted to changing their morality when they left the theism of the mothers and fathers. Jer 2:13 “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.”

But they do not have the high moral ground because the most fragile thing to hang morality on is the reason that does not believe in God. Ted Bundy admitted that he began on his string of murders and rapes because he had abandoned his faith in God. Some atheist blame religion for human atrocities; forgetting that the greatest atrocities in recent human history were committed by atheistic systems: communism, National Socialism, fascism. There is very little self-conscious Christianity in the movers and shakers even in the Western world today, but those in high places spout the same intellectual garbage about Christianity and religion that I get from my a-theistic opponents. It is even poured out by prominent preachers and agnostic [ignorant] professors and philosophers. Most of my young a-theist opponents didn’t figure this stuff out by themselves–no, they were programmed in philosophy 101, literature 101, or political science 101, or comparative religion 101 by aging ex-hippies of the sixties who are reliving the glories of the days of poppies, pot, sodomy, and free fornication. But God doesn’t go away because you don’t believe in Him.

It is also true that the war most a-theist are having is the war in their own souls. Many of them have departed from the faith of their mothers and fathers, their grandparents, their siblings. There is turmoil within their own souls and they are angry about it. Because cannot find the God they hate, they take out their venom on the relatives and friends, blaming them for their own misery. Like Saul, they breathe out threatenings and slaughters because they are kicking against the prickings of their own consciences.

Isa 57:20 “But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.”

I say that I know the true and living God. That really ticks them off. But if I were to deny it, I would be a liar. John 17:3. They then call me arrogant, so now there are two things that they know about me: that I don’t know God and that I am arrogant. But how can they know that I am arrogant, if they only know their own mind, and why does it matter what an insignificant bit of matter thinks, if it does indeed think? They would have to know what I know in order to know that I am arrogant. I didn’t tell them I am arrogant; do they sit in the counsel of the Most High and know what only God knows?

What if I am telling the truth? Then I would know God and I would not be arrogant. But they cannot know that for they deny such knowledge. To admit the knowledge of what somebody else knows would be to confess their own blindness. But they claim to know what everybody knows when they say that there is no proof of the existence of God. They just arbitrarily assign the arrogance to me and to other Christians because they hate God and the very idea of God. It obsesses them. They realize that if just one person somewhere knew God, their folly is exposed. So they cannot admit that. They are trapped in their own arrogance. All men are fools except atheists, they think.

The fact that they are not convinced does not mean the argument is not valid. The sun shines even if the blind man cannot see it. The elephant in the room does not disappear when you close your eyes.

There is another factor: if the God of the Bible exists then the following would have to be true:

“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” –2Cor 4:3,4

God would not allow men to pretend that He did not exist, but there would be spiritual consequences to such denial, a darkening of the mind would ensue, for first judgments are always spiritual judgments, for God is a Spriit.

Would the a-theist admit the darkness of his mind? Of course not, for he wouldn’t even be aware of it. Instead, he would be puffed up with pride and exhilaration of his own “light.” To admit it would be to invalidate his argument. He only knows what is in his own mind so how would he know his mind was dark? This first clue would be to not understand how he thought before. The mind wouldn’t expose it’s own darkness, unless it were a darkness that fills everybody else’s mind. That is what the a-theist contends for, the darkening of everybody’s mind. He is forced to admit his own ignorance, but only if everyone else admits to be as ignorant as he is. It is a bottomless pit.

2Co 10:12 “For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.”

“If the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness.”

Will this convince? Of course not, for the problem does not lie in the intellect. The issues of life arise from the heart, the religious core of man. If the measure by which you measure lies to you, how will you measure anything. If the weights in the bag are false, who can defend the report of the balances?

Proverbs 11:31-12:1 “The mouth of the just bringeth forth wisdom: but the froward tongue shall be cut out. 32 The lips of the righteous know what is acceptable: but the mouth of the wicked speaketh frowardness. 1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.”

Awesome discussion! As a born again Christian, I have enjoyed the comments made by all. Luke, if you’re still receiving updates, thanks for being so transparent. Your comments are changeling to the believer. I am often disappointed by the lack of Biblical knowledge of most Christians. I’m hoping you have inspired many of us to do our “homework”.

The only comment I will add is a verse from Jeremiah (29:13). Actually verse 11 is a well known and often quoted verse. But verse 13 states, “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” It is my opinion that we find what we’re searching for. (I think the internet is a GREAT example of that, you can find whatever your heart desires.) Some men search for fame and fortune, others for relationships. The list goes on and on. We all search for different things during different seasons of our lives.

I believe you are searching for truth and I hope you find it. I’m not sure you’re searching for it “with all your heart”, but only you would know that.

At any rate, you’ve given me lots to chew on and I thank you for that.

Rodney