Why should I follow your faith? Moreover, why should I worship the way you do, within the specific religion you do? I don't just mean Christianity or Islam... if you are Christian, what sect? Baptist, Catholic, Church of Christ?
Tell me: how do you know your way is the ultimate way, and why should I fall in line?
Think about it, this is your chance to convert one of the most out-spoken Atheists on the web. My mind is wide open.
24 comments:
David,
What is the point of convincing you (an Atheist) that the specific doctrines and peculiarities practiced and taught by those of us within the churches of Christ are more sound than the doctrines of say, the Catholic Church? I could show you book, chapter, verse and reveal the inconsistencies and errors of other Theological systems but it is all for naught: you don't even believe there is a God!
If you were convinced that God exists and He desires us to serve Him in a particular way which is revealed by His infallible Word then we have somewhere to go but otherwise, the quest to bring you to the truth is fruitless.
Mike
Gosh! Mike is really openminded isn't he.
Mike,
Your problems start with "his infallible word." Once you enter humans as the translators, it's no longer 'infallible.' There is at least a small portion of error.
I'm wondering why the scriptures weren't just inscribed inside our retinas during creation, with footnotes describing exactly what was meant, so there would be no interpretation, translation, or sinful humans to trust with "His Word."
Besides, you say "His Word" as if there's only one Word. If that's the case, and it's just one-why so many religions under Christianity?
How can you read the same scriptures as the Methodists, yet disagree with them if the word you're reading is infallible?
David,
God did not write it on our retinas but He did write it on our hearts (See Rom. 2:15 and context).
I do read the same scriptures as the Methodists, however, in addition to the scriptures, the Methodists are reading their "Book of Discipline" which further constitutes their law and doctrine. Therefore, we are not on the same page...and quite literally.
The Catholics read the Bible, as well, but they also have the Papal decrees and the creeds and confessions of later years. As you may know, the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" and, thus, he is said to be infallible. I do not follow any of that and, hence, disagreement between myself and Catholics.
I can provide example after example but, David, it is not as simple as saying that we all "read the same scriptures" and so we shouldn't disagree. Such a statement is technically true but misleading. Faithful members of the church of Christ adhere to the scriptures alone while man-made religious bodies have developed additional criteria for their faith and practice. As long as the source of our convictions are partially different, we can never arrive at unity of faith.
Mike
I belong to a so called non denominational church. So called because all non denominational churches have a set of beliefs they worship by which ends up being denominational. If someone tries to convert you to a certain denominational church, they have the wrong agenda. They need to point you toward Jesus and no other doctrine they may have.
Most denominations believe the same things about being saved. We are sinners, only Jesus can forgive sins, repentance and baptism. Beliefs other than these are in my opinion worship preferences. The shame of American Christianity is the infighting between “Christians” about doctrine. I have many disagreements with the Catholic Church, but I do agree some are Christians like me and we should be working together rather than fighting and creating one denomination after another.
In my opinion the reason for the denominations are most people in America that call themselves Christians are not. In the book unchristian, they point out that only 9% of Americans that call themselves Christian (around 85%) have a biblical world view including: Jesus was sinless, God created everything, salvation is a gift (grace), Satan is real, are evangelistic, bible has absolute moral truths.
As for converting you, when you are ready to seek then ask again.
I like the invitation to convert, that's funny.
I was initially excited about the "chance to convert one of the most out-spoken Atheists on the web" but I hesitated because it felt like a trick.
Oh well, you have the same name as one of my favorite punk singers, so I'll indulge you.
First, a little about me, I'm Baptist-esk and like any good Baptist I don't believe the same things that any other Baptist believes. I don't claim to know the only absolute truth. I think that a religion is more than it's sacred text and that my faith in Jesus could probably do without religion. I am however committed to a local church for the same reason that an atheist might volunteer at a charity, I can do more working with others than by myself. My brother is a secular humanist, my mom is Buddhist/Shinto and my dad is a Baptist Texas Republican. They all make their own choices in life and I would never take that away from them.
Here's what I'm selling:
I think that grace is a good idea.
There is a glimmer of hope in the brand of grace that Jesus taught, the whole 'love your enemy' thing. I know that Christopher Hitchens thinks that grace is absurd but in the name of diplomacy someone has to be the first one to suggest coming to the table to resolve a conflict. Sometimes it works out and it's pretty cool and other times it doesn't and that sucks.
On a side note, if Hillel had been more active rather than passive (don't do unto others vs do unto others) I might be his follower instead of Jesus... but he wasn't... so I'm not...
In the hopes of converting you I'll try to convey that faith in Jesus doesn't have to come packaged with the usual trimmings.
*I think it's fine to believe in evolution.
*I don't think that the Bible is the infallible word of God.
*Evil and suffering exist because there can't be love without free will and everyone at some point chooses to put themselves before another (...I might be wrong on that one).
*I think belief in an afterlife is optional and has no bearing on the decision to model you life after the teachings of Jesus.
*There are all kinds of religions because there are all kinds of people with free will.
So now I'll try to appeal to your emotions.
You were on my mind this evening when I did communion (actually you were on my mind on the way to communion when I hit the car in front of me). I lit a candle and prayed for the well-being of you and your family. I PROMISE I did not pray for your salvation (which I'm told is condescending to atheists).
I'd like to spend some time talking about knowing God through Jesus, as a nice God that doesn't smite get wrathy on anyone, but my wife needs to use the computer now.
Happy Darwin Day!
I hope I converted you, I really can't handle one more failure today.
Brian,
I must commend you on one of the more clever responses ever posted on the dogma debate.
In a way, you attempted to convert me to nothing; which I already believe in, so I suppose you were semi-successful, although I feel no different. I do appreciate being in your thoughts (but I hope I didn't cause the wreck). It's nice to know my family is in your path of concern, and I wish your family the best as well. Thank you.
As to your points, there's one major problem with your ideology. You don't think the bible is the infallible word of a god—but that book is the only reason you even know the name Jesus to begin with, which you DO believe in. (Scratching my head...) How do you know which parts are true, other than just cherry-picking the parts that fit with the lifestyle you choose?
What you've told me is, you believe that men wrote that book (not totally inspired by a creator), and that it could be flawed; yet you believe the story that a god created the world, impregnated a virgin with himself so he could be born to sacrifice himself to himself to save you—all from that same book that you don't fully trust.
How could you trust that book to tell you about a man named Jesus that was the embodiment of the Lord Yahweh, and completely buy that story, yet throw out the story of creation which begins the same book, and is a complete contradiction of evolution, which you also believe in?
Before you make a sale, you should be sold yourself. I don't think you are.
Huzzah!!! I’ll take semi-successful. I’ll put you down as my first convert to the First Nothing Church of Fairfax, our tithe is 20%. But seriously, I didn’t mean to be clever. Please don’t think that I’m trying to acquire you as notch on my Bible. I’d be happy just having you over for a barbeque, vegan friendly if you prefer.
I’ll commend you as well, this is the best atheist blog I’ve ever read.
Usually it’s angry college kids building an argument against religion that will work for one religion but not others, or they switch from criticizing religion in general to a specific and end up with something very confusing.
Speaking of confusing, sorry if I wasn’t very clear about my view of the Bible. It does not fit my lifestyle to show love to my enemies (not you, mostly the HOA), but I am trying.
Do I trust the Bible? I almost lost my left hand in a miter saw accident. Do I trust miter saws? I have confidence in its ability to do what it was intended but I’m really careful about how I use it. Same with the Bible. What is the intention of the Bible? The Bible is a tool. To attribute God’s characteristics to a tool would be inappropriate. A well formed spiritual belief should be transcendent, it shouldn’t have to rely on a ‘thing’ for it’s transmissions. As for the people that do deify the artifacts of faith, maybe God blesses them anyway just because he’s nice or maybe he’s grooming someone to point out the error of their ways.
I think it’s important to make the distinction between buying a story and buying a message. Genesis has two different creation accounts, why?
They both can’t be literally true, so maybe there is a truth in those stories that has nothing to do with origin. Anyway, evolution seems like a perfectly good explanation to me about how God made things, not that I really care. Creationists criticize Evolutionists on the basis that ‘something cannot come from nothing’, but isn’t that exactly what Creationists are saying, that God made something come from nothing? IDK, maybe I fell asleep during that sermon.
Side note on cherry picking.
There are stories and then there are histories. When there is a talking snake involved I’m inclined to believe that it’s just a story. And histories, there are a lot of different perspectives on history. First and second Kings gives us one perspective, first and second Chronicles gives us another perspective. Both contain interesting lessons. If the Bible can contain poems, legislation, chronologies, and letters then why can’t it also include mythologies? Actually the mythology thing is a bit tricky. Once you bring omnipotence onto the stage anything that you’ve ever seen in a comic book suddenly becomes a possibility.
Man, I wish you could have seen me at last Friday’s lock-in at my church, I drank a bologna shake and ate Durian fruit for the gospel, I’m totally sold. I’m not selling traditional or popular Christianity. Ever since I can remember there has been no requirement for a particular belief about the Bible to be a Christian. Christianity existed before the first New Testament canon. Even after that, I doubt that all early Christians were literate and that all the ones that were literate had a hand written Bible. I know an illiterate conservative that planted churches in Japan, he never read the Bible. There are underground churches in southeast Asia filled with people that one day hope to have a Bible. These people are operating on a belief in a message. But back to me being not sold, in the interest of full disclosure, sure, there are times when I see a religious weirdo and I painfully ask myself if I am really ‘one of them’?
All three worldviews (theism, atheism, pantheism) must explain the existence of evil. Though I am not necessarily interested in "converting you," I am interested in how you explain the existence of evil and the extinction of God. Atheists time and again call on theists to explain this particular dilemma; atheists, in all fairness, must do the same. Moreover, please provide deductive proof on the order of mathematical certainty that your claim is indeed true. Why would I request this of you in your response? Simply because the atheist also demands of the theist mathematical certainty that God exists. This would only be fair, correct?
Second, as Darwin (and many, many others) failed to do, please provide scientific proof (i.e., verifiable through REPEATED experiments) that consciousness and rationality (not to mention life itself) arose SINGULARLY from non-life (e.g., atoms, molecules, etc.). Please refrain from saying that the scientific evidence "will be forthcoming in the future." If the atheist will not allow the theist to claim that God will one day quell evil in the future, the atheist is also disallowed to claim that the scientific proof will be given in the future.
Please also comment on how irreducibly complex structures and/or organisms came into existence. We observe via science these structures and organism everyday. The question, my friend, is this: given cause and effect, how do irreducibly complex organism originate. Please note that there is a vast difference between origin science and operational science. Please focus your comments on origin science, not operation science.
A few thoughts to keep in mind as you consider your response. First, relativism is false. To claim that "what is true for you may not be true for me" is an absolute claim and thus self-defeating. Second, truth is knowable. To claim (as an agnostic or even skeptic does) that truth is unknowable is, in itself, a truth-claim. Hence agnosticism and skepticism are false because they are self-defeating.
Indeed, some of the world's best atheists have struggled with these same questions. And from your writings, it is quite evident that you hold yourself in quite high esteem as an atheist. So, if you want to "run with the big dogs" of classical atheism, your response better be more cogent and concise than your contemporaries. Dawkins, Kitchens and the like are very good. But how good of an dogmatic atheist are you? That's what I'm interested in.
I look forward to your comments.
Rather than a religious debate, this appears to be a battle of intellect. Christians aren't called to debate but are called to disciple all nations. Christ did this with love and not wit and intellect. He didn't try to appear smarter than anyone but showed them love. Jesus did and does despise religion. It's an obstacle to a relationship with Him. He doesn't want our traditions and rituals. He wants us.
David, I haven't read your blog in a long time I know of someone who is close to breathing his last breath and he knows it. He sees and knows things we don't see or know.I set in the back of the hospital room and just watch him. His family gathers around him and try to act as everything is okay. I don't take part in the family gathering because I'm watching his eyes. I know you say God doesn't exist but this man is eye to eye with somebody or something. You can almost see it. If you close your eyes just for a second and let darkness surround you for just ONE seond you can almost see what he sees.I open my eyes and I focused on a dying man with a smile on his face. If God doesn't exist, who did he just smile at? And who smiled at him?
First of all, let me say that I'm sorry to hear about his condition. I despise suffering of any kind, and it's an uncomfortable topic to say the least. I truly hope everything works out okay, although I understand the circumstances aren't the best.
I understand how something like that can induce strong feelings of hope, faith, and belief. Many times it feels like that's all we have. That's one of the reasons religion has been so powerful for so long.
I know a lot of people feel like they need religion at a time like that, and it can be effective--as a placebo.
Have you ever heard someone knocking at your door, only to find no one there? Have you ever heard someone call your name only to realize you were alone? When the human psyche experiences an unfamiliar stimulus, it tries to compensate by replacing it with something it understands.
Probably the most convincing testimony from religious people are those that have had a near-death experience. They speak of a bright light, seeing loved-ones that have died, and tell amazing stories with tears in their eyes.
How do you argue with that? Without an understanding of the human body and it's reactions, it's very easy to put a spiritual claim on such an experience. However, we do have biological and psychological explanations for what is happening.
During periods of shock--when humans are getting close to death--we have a lot of reflexes that help keep us alive. It's part of the 'fight or flight' response that arises when we're confronted with danger (just like in all animals), which induces a phase of REM sleep, or 'rapid eye movement.'
Dr. Kevin Nelson, a neurologist in Lexington, Kentucky, studies near-death experiences. He was recently quoted on CNN as saying "Near-death experiences are part of the dream mechanism... during REM sleep, there is increased brain activity and visual stimulation. Intense dreaming occurs as a result" (CNN).
This intense dreaming is where all of the 'spiritual' events take place, and why they have such an amazing emotional feel to them when the person awakes. How does he know what to dream about?
We've all had dreams that felt way too real to be dreams - but when you nearly die, there is some justification there for what you may have seen.
Again, I truly hope everything works out for the best.
Feel free to read the full article here, including a more in-depth explanation of what occurs during a near-death experience on CNN's website:http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/16/cheating.near.death/index.html?iref=24hours
Hey, David:
2 19 2011
Just a brief comment and reference should you be interested... All next week the 700 Club is hosting interviews with individuals who have died and gone to heaven or hell and returned. These are not near-death experiences, the medical evidence is that is that they were completely and technicallly dead and came back to life. I feel this is more compelling than religious theorizing or what each specific denominations believes or not, and the dogma dos or don't.
Another compelling testimony worth watching is that of cartiologist Dr Chauncey Crandall.. This is "googled" in a variety of locations, and there are different versions but this is, I feel, the best detailed. Told by the doctor himself -At -- http://www.cbn.com/media/player/index.aspx?s=/vod/SUT35_DrChaunceyCrandall_080508
Thanks for your time and consideration.....
JP
David
You are not atheist. You are agnostic. -Matt
If he is not convinced about the existence of a god, its up to you to convince him.
Alright David I will play.
I'm an Atheist but like to play devils advocate. I am going to be arguing form the Orthodox/Catholic point of view. If I posted to correct all of your "Errors" in one post it would go on forever.
Orthodox VS Catholic VS all other Christians.
(I am choosing these two because together and separately they are the largest denomination)
A little back ground. Doctrine wise there is only one difference between Catholics and Orthodox, that is the supremacy of the pope. Catholics and Orthodox Catholics believe in the supremacy of the Pope, Eastern Orthodox do not.
Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli and the founders of the Protestant Churchs. The origins of protestantism is said to be when Martin Luther posted is 95 thesis. Most people have actually never read the thesis. It is clear that in the Thesis he is defending Catholicism against those who are abusing the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
As for the later split from the Catholic Church lets assess the basis of the protestant founders of the religion. Martin Luther and the other Protestant founders claimed that their version of Christianity was based on the bible. They then defacto remove 7 books from the bible which are contradictory to their version of Christianity. This is a circular argument. They are men, not only are they men but a fundamental principle of all these men is that man is absolutely corrupt. They then claiming no more authority than any other man just remove any book from the bible which does not agree with them. There is NO divine index, God does not say "these books are in the bible" how then do they know which books are in the bible.
The only rational position is that there are men divinely ordained by god to determine doctrine. Thus these divinely guided men have the authority to determine the bible.
Alright moving on.
Lets break down some of your complaints about Christianity. Murder VS Killing. In Herbrew, Greek, Latin, and English murder and killing. Some say that the word murder means an unlawful killing. In the Latin hebrew and Greek murder however is clearly an unjust killing. In Hebrew the word used is Ratsach, in Greek the word is Phoneuo, the verse in Latin is non occides. The words Kill however are apoktinumi, in Latin the word is Nex, in hebrew the word is Nakah. The words are used exclusively in two different contexts and have two different meanings. One refers to a just slaying while the other refers to an unjust slaying. As for your argument about justifiable homicide not being absolute this is not true when we examine the word homicide. Homicide comes from the latin homicidium, homo human being + caedere to cut, kill. Within the English language the word historically the word Kill can be substituted for murder, but the word murder was never used for kill. In English the word kill is not a value judgment but rather a statement of a definitive fact, noting someones death. Murder however denotes a specific type of death. For example one might hear someone say "the dog killed the cat." or even "the dog killed the man" but it would sound absurd to hear someone say "the dog murdered the man." Murder only applies to an act of one human committed on another human, because it is a moral judgement, where as any attempt to make a moral judgement about a dog killing a cat is absurdity of the worst kind. This is also why until the last 80 or so years the killing of an animal even a horrible killing of an animal was never referred to as murder.
At the moment I am not going to say this is proof of gods existences.
What I am going to do however is use your own argument against you. I do not ask you to believe, but for a moment let us concede the existence of god. IF (and I do mean if) there is in fact a god, when he ordered the Israelite's to kill other people, be it men women and children. This was not murder but in fact killing. It was in absolute fact an abortion. God made the world, therefore the world belongs to him. He has loaned it to man kind which he also created. And just as you argue that a woman has the right to destroy the fetus in her body which is living off of her, so god has that right.
PS
I am not yet discussing abortion. Nor do I think that one can prove or disprove the existence of god let alone the Christian God. My only purpose here is to make your arguments stronger by doing away with the false arguments. There is a clear distinction between just and unjust slaying.
If god destroyed the tower of babel because man tried to reach the sky why doesn't he blow up space shuttles?
[You are not atheist. You are agnostic. -Matt]
I know this is a year old, but I couldn't resist. No, Matt, he is an atheist. There are very few people who refer to themselves as "atheist" who think there is zero chance of there being a god of some sort. David, as well as myself are both agnostic (we don't know) but also atheist (we don't actively believe). Most self defined agnostics are also atheist, but from my experience, many of them thinks it's more likely there is a god, don't care at all, or simply want to avoid conflict.
http://proofthatgodexists.org/ just awnser truthfully and i'm SURE you'll convert. :)
To jesse reeves,
The website's proof fails because it uses two different definitions of the term "absolute truth." When it asks if "absolute truth" exists, it defines absolute truth as being true for all people, at all times, everywhere. When it asks if the statement, "I do not know if 'absolute truth' exists," is true, it is using absolutely to express strong agreement.
The statement, "I do not know if 'absolute truth' exists," only needs to be true for me, at this time, in this place.
The rest of the questions are quite clever and use consistent definitions. The final proof could use a few more premises to formalize it in the "knowledge" portion, and the "logic" portion works if you accept the absolute truth idea, but I don't. Sorry.
to David,
Convert you? OK, you asked for it...
I am an Ex-Mormon (like Kate, but I was born into it) and, since leaving that church, I have found it necessary, for the sake of my own sanity, to write down my thoughts on the nature of God and religion.
After listening to your explanation of the terms in the podcast, I realized I am an agnostic theist. By which, I mean that, while I do not know and cannot prove the true nature or existence of God, I believe in a God, who's nature I am in the process of learning, because I have anecdotal evidence in my own life and because it makes me feel better than the “one shot and you're done” atheist view point. I have developed a “[My] Articles of Faith” (shamelessly parodying the “Articles of Faith” included in the Mormon scriptures) to explain my position:
“1. [I] believe [that] God the Eternal Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost [are metaphysical constructs created over the course of tens of millennia by humans who were trying to make sense of their relationship with their Creator.]
“2. [I] believe that [people] will [suffer] for their sins, [either in this life or the next (or the one after that into infinity if necessary), but may also suffer for the sins of others. If so, they will learn something that is essential to their own betterment.]
“3. [I] believe that all [people] [will] be [reunited with God to the extent they are willing to accept it.]
“4. [I] believe that the first principles of [Ultimate Happiness] are: first, Faith in the [general goodness of sentient beings]; second, repentance [by the person who did wrong to the person who was wronged and forgiveness by the person was wronged to the person who did wrong]; third, [love for every individual within one’s sphere of influence]; and fourth, [hope for the ability to love All Life.]
“5. [I] believe that [if] a [person] [were to be] called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, [it would not keep said person from making a mistake, or a misinterpretation, and, indeed, any occasion where on such a person has claimed to be incapable of ‘misleading the people of God’ is, at the best, a mistake, or, at the worst, a lie to get gain.]
“6. [I] believe [that the act of organizing a religion creates opportunities for someone to be given authority who does not deserve it, much in the same way as organizing a government, and that Jesus of Nazareth, if such a person actually existed, had no interest in organizing a new religion (and neither do I).
“7. [I] believe [that] the gifts of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues and so forth [can happen but are unnecessary and, therefore, never occur. They can be misinterpreted as well as faked.]
to David, cont...
“8. [I] believe the Bible to be the word of [some humans who were struggling to record deeply spiritual experiences in a manner that could be understood by their children and the word of other humans who were seeking to confuse and control their fellow beings.] [I] believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of [Joseph Smith Jr. of Palmyra, New York, 1805-1844. I prefer to believe it was the product of a paranoid delusion rather the only other possible explanation (see item 5).]
“9. [I] believe [revelation comes to each individual as the said person is able to receive it. It cannot be communicated between mortal beings without losing essential information.]
“10. [I] believe in [a Spiritual] gathering of Israel [in the sense that ‘Israel’ refers to All who are willing to be part of it. Such a gathering takes place in this life within minds and hearts when competing parties are able to set aside assumptions about truth and falsehood, right and wrong, and see the situation from the other party's point of view.]
“11. [I] claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of [my] own conscience, and allow all [persons] the same privilege, [but I, also, believe I have a responsibility to proclaim my beliefs and communicate my spiritual experiences as clearly, and honestly, as is possible, so hearts may be touched, minds might be changed, and lives may be made better.]
“12. [I] believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law, [excepting in cases where the laws in question are contradictory or discriminating. In such a case, I will do what is necessary for the law to be changed.]
“13. [I] believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to [All]; indeed, [one] may say [I] follow the admonition of Paul – [I] believe all things, [I] hope all things. [I] have endured many things, and [I] hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, [I] seek after these things.”
14. Baptism is a symbol of the subjugation of one's own beliefs and ideas about God below those of another person or group of people. I hear by renounce my baptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, performed at the age of eight, and declare my refusal to participate in a similar ceremony in any other church or religious group.
15. The traditions in which I was raised which I still accept as true and/or honorable include, but are not limited to: gathering weekly to worship God and conduct discussions of theology and behavior; to seek guidance for one's own behavior and decisions through prayer, fasting and discussion with others; taking the symbols of bread and wine (water, grape juice) to remember God's infinite capacity to forgive as dramatized in the story of Christ, let go of past mistakes, and commit to making better choices in the future; the singing and playing of songs of praise to God; and gathering at odd times during the week to enjoy each other and have fun.
Post a Comment