A Christian response to atheism

[saukhasi]

Hello, I am a Christian and I wish to present my views of Christianity and atheism, and I look forward to you sharing yours too!

On existence:
Although abiogenesis is a tested hypothesis, and by definition, intelligent design is not testable, abiogenesis does not scientifically disprove that there is no creator/designer. Abiogenesis is proven: yes, it can happen, but it is not testable in a sense that it did happen. There is no way to scientifically prove that either creation or abiogenesis happened, and therefore, the choice remains open to the inquiring mind.

Secondly, if we are knowledgeable about nature, nature can be very good. Fruits smell great. Flowers look nice. Sex feels good. Although none of these are significant, they pose the question: why are some things in nature so wonderful? Darwin’s question on how flowers evolved remains one of the 125 scientific questions to be solved today.

On accuracy of scripture:
   Increased knowledge has also supported parts of the Bible. For example, Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning, God created the world. In actual fact, the original Hebrew version reads God created “heaven and earth”, which is a contradiction because the earth (land) was created on the third day. However, the Hebrew words for heaven and earth had connotations of “space”, and “stuff” â€" matter. Therefore, translated scientifically and according to original context, the first line of the Bible reads: at t = 0, a great source of energy blasted forth space and matter, which doesn’t sound as odd with our knowledge of modern science. Secondly, we come to the question â€" why does matter have to be created so early? If God is energy, He should be able to create matter right when He wants without this previous batch of matter. We come to our second point â€" God creating by speech. Although it would sound ludicrous a few centuries ago, now we know that sound energy to matter is not at all odd. Also, this explains the previous batch of matter that was needed, as sound energy is compression of matter. Moreover, it fits how matter is viewed by the string theory â€" not as points but vibrating. Conclusively, according to the Bible itself (Daniels), the times have not yet come and the mysteries are yet to be completely unlocked.

On evil:
The Bible has an extremely simple answer for the evils on this world: God gave the most neutral thing one can give, free will. God respects us as individuals and therefore, a lot of suffering and evil does not hold God accountable but rather human beings. God simply respects our choices. However, there will be a time when God gives us the justice we long for; therefore, Judgment Day is not some terrifying event as portrayed in movies, but a day of joy. Finally, I am human and of course I wish that we could see justice on a daily basis and of course I want God to protect me from pain inflicted by others â€" and that is why Christians long for the day Jesus comes again.

On religious evil:
There is no doubt that many churches are evil. However, the Church is not Christ Himself, and therefore in some ways it must be imperfect. Secondly, as we all know, religion is powerful. The name of Christianity, along with other religions, can become tools in hands of evil people. Therefore, there are more fake churches/religious organizations than we think. This does not prove anything about Christianity or religion, only that there tends to be a weakness/need in mankind that many of us look to fill.

On heaven and hell:
Who is going to heaven and who is going to hell is up for God to decide, not Christians. We can only hold onto the promise that God gave us, but we do not have the authority to condemn people to hell. Here are my apologies for immature Christians who ever spread this message (of course, I’ve spread that message, too). Premature judgment is the exact sin of eating the fruit, so the Bible does not support the simplistic message that “If you are Christian you will go to heaven, if you are not you will go to hell.” In the gospels, Jesus describes many who performs miracles in His name as unrecognized by Him. In the end, it is faith in that Jesus died for our sins that counts. Why does that count? Here is the logic: if we want to live with a righteous and just God we must be righteous so we do not diminish in the justice of the God. Therefore, God came to die for our sins, and at once all the sins of mankind are cleansed, and as long as we don’t say “no, that hasn’t happened”, then it is true to us and we will be saved.

What about those people who have never heard of the Gospel, or have heard twisted versions, or are disabled, etc.? The Bible clearly states through the parable of the three servants that God will only expect as much as He has given. Therefore, if we are not given a chance to know, God definitely will not expect us to know.

Overall, conclusion:
People generally dislike the Bible being used by Christians as scientific or logical text, because that is bringing faith to the level of science and logic, mixing them together. It is the same with using logical or scientific arguments to disprove God, because that is bringing logic and scientific data to the level of faith. Finally, there is no way to scientifically or logically prove that 1. Our findings of scientific evidence are complete and 2. That our knowledge is absolute enough to draw absolute conclusions from incomplete data and evidence. All in all, to believe these conclusions about there not being a God as absolute would require scientifically untestable belief in that our findings/data/evidence are complete and faith in that human knowledge is complete enough to draw absolute conclusions that will need no further modification with time. Some may choose to have faith in the Bible instead of that. Therefore I look forward to more discussions between the two parties of faith, and thank you for your time!

[Erinos]

abiogenesis
n : a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter

Most atheist do not believe in abiogenesis. Things don't exist just because some impulse of nonexistance ceases. Everything has a cause and effect. Now most people have said "Well, what caused the universe to exist then?". Well, something has to exist. "Nothing" can't exist, because if it did, what would have started it all? God? What started God? Why would something so intelligent exist by it's self? Is God a product of abiogenesis?

In the beginning the Earth began as a twinkle in the Solar Nebula's eye some 4.5 billion years ago and it - along with the rest of the planets, asteroids, meteors, comets - formed, it is thought, through the tendency of matter to clump together, ever more until finally there were substantial bodies, the planets and their moons, sweeping up all left-overs in their orbits. During this era, approximately one billion years long, the newly-borning Earth was pummeled mercilessly by these left-overs. This was the so-called "Hadean Period" (and well named at that!), a "hell-ish" time indeed when the Earth's surface was periodically broiled, flash-fried so to speak. Incoming asteroids of sufficient size would actually vaporize, themselves and the part of the surface they impacted and this would turn into a seering plasma that would tsusami around the globe - not a pretty picture.

No contradictions, see?

[Tom62]

Your explanation in "On accuracy of scripture" sounds too far fetched to me. Genesis and all other parts of the bible  don't provide anything that is scientifically useful.

[saukhasi]

to erinos: if God had a creator, than that creator would be God. In your successive statement, you are talking about the beginning of earth, and the Bible the beginning of the universe.

to Tom: true, and it's not presented as support.

see ya!

[Tom62]

The "on accuracy of scripture" paragraph about Genesis, reminded me about a short story of Isaac Asimov, called "How it happened". For those of you who are interested, here is a link http://www.sumware.com/creation.html

[Big Mac]

Hello, I am a Christian and I wish to present my views of Christianity and atheism, and I look forward to you sharing yours too!

Nice to meet you, you're welcome here as long as you behave. I'd suggest looking up onlyme's post and seeing what "not behaving" is in case you are curious.

On existence:
Although abiogenesis is a tested hypothesis, and by definition, intelligent design is not testable, abiogenesis does not scientifically disprove that there is no creator/designer. Abiogenesis is proven: yes, it can happen, but it is not testable in a sense that it did happen. There is no way to scientifically prove that either creation or abiogenesis happened, and therefore, the choice remains open to the inquiring mind.

Not true at all my friend. Creationism cannot be used as science because one cannot create a deity in the lab and make it create things like some sort of freakish science experiment. We may never find out what happened in the begining but the scientific ideas sure sound more logical than someone magically making everything

Secondly, if we are knowledgeable about nature, nature can be very good. Fruits smell great. Flowers look nice. Sex feels good. Although none of these are significant, they pose the question: why are some things in nature so wonderful? Darwin's question on how flowers evolved remains one of the 125 scientific questions to be solved today.

Those things feel good because they're wired into us as positive stimuli. In reality they just give off an odor, create friction, and have a nice lot cast on the electromagnetic spectrum. The good thing about it being wired into us is that it ensures survival. If you don't eat, have sex, use flowers to get sex, etc. you and the species will die off.

On accuracy of scripture:
   Increased knowledge has also supported parts of the Bible. For example, Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning, God created the world. In actual fact, the original Hebrew version reads God created "heaven and earth", which is a contradiction because the earth (land) was created on the third day. However, the Hebrew words for heaven and earth had connotations of "space", and "stuff" – matter. Therefore, translated scientifically and according to original context, the first line of the Bible reads: at t = 0, a great source of energy blasted forth space and matter, which doesn't sound as odd with our knowledge of modern science. Secondly, we come to the question – why does matter have to be created so early? If God is energy, He should be able to create matter right when He wants without this previous batch of matter. We come to our second point – God creating by speech. Although it would sound ludicrous a few centuries ago, now we know that sound energy to matter is not at all odd. Also, this explains the previous batch of matter that was needed, as sound energy is compression of matter. Moreover, it fits how matter is viewed by the string theory – not as points but vibrating. Conclusively, according to the Bible itself (Daniels), the times have not yet come and the mysteries are yet to be completely unlocked.

Oh? Which study did this come from? Is it peer-reviewed (did other scientists look at it and do their own examination on it?) or is it just something the Creationist crowd decided to put out?

On evil:
The Bible has an extremely simple answer for the evils on this world: God gave the most neutral thing one can give, free will. God respects us as individuals and therefore, a lot of suffering and evil does not hold God accountable but rather human beings. God simply respects our choices. However, there will be a time when God gives us the justice we long for; therefore, Judgment Day is not some terrifying event as portrayed in movies, but a day of joy. Finally, I am human and of course I wish that we could see justice on a daily basis and of course I want God to protect me from pain inflicted by others – and that is why Christians long for the day Jesus comes again.

I'm not understanding your exact purpose on this forum. Are you here to preach or witness? Just a shocker for you but most of us were Christians before we deconverted and became atheists. And read clearly, Judgement day is supposed to be a scary day because it states only 144,000 people will be saved (12,000 from each tribe of Israel, as in JEWS). It talks about burning in a lake of fire just for not believing in an outlandish story.

 

On religious evil:
There is no doubt that many churches are evil. However, the Church is not Christ Himself, and therefore in some ways it must be imperfect. Secondly, as we all know, religion is powerful. The name of Christianity, along with other religions, can become tools in hands of evil people. Therefore, there are more fake churches/religious organizations than we think. This does not prove anything about Christianity or religion, only that there tends to be a weakness/need in mankind that many of us look to fill.

Well it doesn't help it at all. That's not the reason most of us left Christianity. I left because the bible has clear examples of God being cruel to children, slaves, women, non-Hebrews, etc. Some examples are:

1.) Noah's flood! Imagine how many children were killed on that day, for what? Some sinful thing their parents did? Noah wasn't that better, he got drunk and naked and let his son see him that way. Man of God: 1.

2.) Ismael's mother, Hagar. She was a slave girl and was basically raped and when she has a kid, her mistress is jealous and beats her (probably quite horribly seeing as those sheep herders don't have medical knowledge so I'm sure her wounds had little or no treatment). So Hagar does what anyone who loves freedom (and doesn't follow the Bible's teachings on slavery, which it clearly says it is okay, more on that in a second) and runs off. God sends her back telling her that her son will be a bloodthirsty savage and so will his children and their children. Uplifting for someone who was raped and beaten and force to have a child. Men (and Women?) of God= 2.

3.) David was an adulterer and a murderer (Bathsheba, remember?). God forgives him but kills a baby. What did the child do? Why doesn't God do that to all children born out of wedlock if it pisses him off so much? Men of God= 3.

4.) The Old Testament laws are rather hilarious. Clothes of two fibers? Yoking an Ox and an ass on the same Yoke? Eating Ham, Shellfish, Shrimp, etc is bad (why did God create them then and why were there pigs in Israel to begin with? That's a pretty sadistic God). The point I'm getting at is this guy makes the universe in all of its infinite wonder and amazing splendor, but he cares what you had for breakfast? What the hell is that? And the laws are still in effect for you. Jesus said he came to uphold and fulfill the law, not destroy it.

5.) Back to the baby killing, so Moses (who was also a murderer, big time) is told by God to free his people (which there has been no historical evidence for Hebrew enslavement except the biblical account) and to do this, he'll torment the people of Egypt, who didn't elect the Pharaoh and probably hated the living shit out of that lazy asshole. So God turns the river into blood for a week. This raises some eye-brows here. How do you survive in the Sahara Desert without water for a week? Sure they had reserves, but I dought not for that long. That would have killed them pretty quickly before the week was over. Now let's fastforward and get to the part where God kills kids again. The Angel of Death goes and kills the first born of every home except the Jews who smear blood on their door. Makes me wonder why such a deity couldn't just know who was who. Also makes you wonder what those children did to God to begin with. So God kills them and finally the Pharaoh (whose heart was hardened by God to make these punishments happen) let's the Jews go.

I'd go on but this is long enough.

On heaven and hell:
Who is going to heaven and who is going to hell is up for God to decide, not Christians. We can only hold onto the promise that God gave us, but we do not have the authority to condemn people to hell. Here are my apologies for immature Christians who ever spread this message (of course, I've spread that message, too). Premature judgment is the exact sin of eating the fruit, so the Bible does not support the simplistic message that "If you are Christian you will go to heaven, if you are not you will go to hell." In the gospels, Jesus describes many who performs miracles in His name as unrecognized by Him. In the end, it is faith in that Jesus died for our sins that counts. Why does that count? Here is the logic: if we want to live with a righteous and just God we must be righteous so we do not diminish in the justice of the God. Therefore, God came to die for our sins, and at once all the sins of mankind are cleansed, and as long as we don't say "no, that hasn't happened", then it is true to us and we will be saved.

Question: Why does an all-powerful creator of the universe need to send himself for himself to die (which wouldn't be a big deal to such a powerful being) to change something he did to begin with?

What about those people who have never heard of the Gospel, or have heard twisted versions, or are disabled, etc.? The Bible clearly states through the parable of the three servants that God will only expect as much as He has given. Therefore, if we are not given a chance to know, God definitely will not expect us to know.

Okay but what happens to deceived people? God doesn't say they're going to be okay, he says anyone who doesn't accept his son goes to hell. It's that simple, there is no other way to interpret it. There is no wiggle-room. None!

Overall, conclusion:
People generally dislike the Bible being used by Christians as scientific or logical text, because that is bringing faith to the level of science and logic, mixing them together. It is the same with using logical or scientific arguments to disprove God, because that is bringing logic and scientific data to the level of faith. Finally, there is no way to scientifically or logically prove that 1. Our findings of scientific evidence are complete and 2. That our knowledge is absolute enough to draw absolute conclusions from incomplete data and evidence. All in all, to believe these conclusions about there not being a God as absolute would require scientifically untestable belief in that our findings/data/evidence are complete and faith in that human knowledge is complete enough to draw absolute conclusions that will need no further modification with time. Some may choose to have faith in the Bible instead of that. Therefore I look forward to more discussions between the two parties of faith, and thank you for your time!

The burden of proof for God is on you. Science isn't having a theory about "The Pink invisible Zombies that may not inhabit Pluto" it makes tests and theories based on what is here and now and testable. God is not testable, he even says not to test him. So scientifically God is a flop unless he shows up and starts talking to us and telling us to vote Nader.

We don't have faith in religion honey. And we don't have faith in Science. We have knowledge of Science and can work it out so we can trust it a lot better. That's a rather rude assumption.

[saukhasi]

"I left because the bible has clear examples of God being cruel to children, slaves, women, non-Hebrews"

- here is the answer: read the Bible in context. if you read everything in context, then things will be more clear to you. Now, about God taking lives away: He is the sustainer of life. To take a life away is no more than stopping His mercy. So He is called murderer? Also, if you read the Bible in context, it's not like after they die everything ends, or they'll be sent to hell for sure.

I would love to go on, but please give me some time. I would encourage you to read the Bible in context, not just react negatively to anything that doens't pass your logic on first attempt, because we humans are limited. here's just one more to show you what I mean:

" only 144,000 people will be saved " - yes, saved from the tribulation, not saved from hell.  Other Christians have been raptured and therefore will not be there for the period of tribulation, so this in no way would mean only 144000 jews are going to heaven.

[Whitney]

I get a little tired of this "out of context" claim.  In what context can you say the bible says no such thing about slavery being okay.

[Big Mac]

I have read the bible probably more thoroughly than you have. There are countless stories where men of wanton violence, lust, gluttony, idolatry, racism, etc. are glorified for their sinful actions and God magically forgives them but not people who disobeyed unjust things (such as Hagar) or Ishmael (what the helll did he do to deserve a fate of being a wild man?). Maybe I'm wrong about the Revelations part (doubtful but I'll give you that because I'm not in the mood to kill brain cells and read the buy-bull right now).

The reason we are "limited" when it comes to the buy-bulls logic is because deep down we (except for the hard core, inbred, stump jumping, goat humping hicks) all know it is patently stupid and insanely stupid.

[Tom62]

If you leave out all the bad parts of the bible, only one or two pages remain. Truth is that the bible is more about hate, violence, intolerance, cruelty, racism, stupidity, etc. etc. than love.

[Big Mac]

Exactly. That and there's so much rape in it, what the hell is that about? It's like a soap opera to trump all soap operas. Or it's the General Hospital or Days of our Lives of religions

[saukhasi]

"There are countless stories where men of wanton violence, lust, gluttony, idolatry, racism, etc. are glorified for their sinful actions and God magically forgives them but not people who disobeyed unjust things (such as Hagar) or Ishmael (what the helll did he do to deserve a fate of being a wild man?)."

- these people are not perfect. If they were all perfect you'd be complaining about the validity of the Bible too.

- these people will be judged. If GOd specified all the judgements and lessons He had planned for them, you'd be complaining about the Bible focusing on punishments too much too.

- for Ishmael, it is a prophecy that he will be a wild man. Where in the Bible can you find support that "he will be a wild man" is due to God and not his own free will? It is not some kind of judgment God just imposed on him. Hence I say, read the Bible in context. I have read the Bible 12 chapters a day for several months. ANd I have to say, the more I read the more think make sense - just as you would expect with a book that has lasted for so long. If it just didn't make any sense, we Christians would probably be making changes or additions to it a long long time ago.

But thank you all for your honest replies, and I hope we continue this wonderful discussion!

[McQ]

"There are countless stories where men of wanton violence, lust, gluttony, idolatry, racism, etc. are glorified for their sinful actions and God magically forgives them but not people who disobeyed unjust things (such as Hagar) or Ishmael (what the helll did he do to deserve a fate of being a wild man?)."

- these people are not perfect. If they were all perfect you'd be complaining about the validity of the Bible too.

- these people will be judged. If GOd specified all the judgements and lessons He had planned for them, you'd be complaining about the Bible focusing on punishments too much too.

- for Ishmael, it is a prophecy that he will be a wild man. Where in the Bible can you find support that "he will be a wild man" is due to God and not his own free will? It is not some kind of judgment God just imposed on him. Hence I say, read the Bible in context. I have read the Bible 12 chapters a day for several months. ANd I have to say, the more I read the more think make sense - just as you would expect with a book that has lasted for so long. If it just didn't make any sense, we Christians would probably be making changes or additions to it a long long time ago.

But thank you all for your honest replies, and I hope we continue this wonderful discussion!

You know...you keep telling us to read the bible in context like we're morons or something. You have already been told that many of us here have done just that.

Some of us have studied the bible and taken classes in Pauline Theology. Some of us have read through the ENTIRE bible several times, studying it carefully.

Some of us have taught bible study in churches.

Some of us may have even gone to college for theology.

Now, has it sunk in yet that some of us have already read the bible IN CONTEXT?

As for your assertion that the bible hasn't been changed, you are sadly mistaken. It was pieced together over time, and there is more than one version out there. I don't mean more than one translation, I mean more than one version.

And the more I studied it, the LESS it made sense with the real world.

We can have a "wonderful discussion" as you put it if you pay attention to what people here have said to you. Try not to ignore the responses given you and repeat the same assertions over and over.

Deal?

(edited to correct typo)

[Whitney]

I'm not even sure what is meant by "in context."  Sometimes when you read a verse in context it ends up conflicting with what is said elsewhere in the Bible.  By reading "in context" would that mean that when these conflicts occur you pick which one you like better or which one is supported more often in the Bible and go with that interpretation?  For example, this came up in a discussion the other day, 1 Tim 4:10 seems to conflict with Romans 10:9 (and other verses).

[saukhasi]

Here is what I mean by reading in context:

There needs to be an assumption that the Bible is right. (Why assume it has to be wrong? If it is assumed to be wrong why read?) So when something doesn't makes sense, you find other verse that would relate to the topic, or pick out similar key words. Then you synthesize a conclusion based on the Bible being about a God who is love.

For example (in case you think I'm just trying to be didactic):
Many people read the part about God ordering murder of the tribes of Canaan, but they have not read that one verse where it says 'God will wait, as their sins have not reached the degree of punishment', before they concluded God was an irrational murderer of those who simply did not worship Him. By the way, that wait was more than a hundred years. And you could clearly see the degree of evil from the story of Sodom; they weren't just heathens. Then some would say oh that's unfair to Abraham then, just because God wants to wait they have to be slaves. Well, God is actually bringing Israel into one of the most nourishing civilization at that time to grow from 70 people to however many thousand. So why become slaves? it is obvious in the Bible israelites did no want promise land, a better place God had for them. There had to be some way to discourage them before they mingled with the Egyptians and their idols. then why the 10 disasters, and why hardening of the Pharoah and killing of sons? Again, show weakness of Israel AND give Egypt a full demonstration of Jehovah's powers to save them from the deception of Satan, which actually could manifest fully in the physical world. And if you take the Bible to be true death is simply a transition point, and there is no indication whatsoever that those first born sons are sent to hell. They will be judged on what they were given. There is no indication of them going to heaven either, just in case one of you wants to argue. And why kill the weak of the Canaan tribes? Again, death is a transition point, and it is much better to live and grow up to be a person who burns your own children, or live among the people you know have killed your entire race. Why send Israel to kill for God? because it requires faith in that the God of the other tribes are fake. This is a direct choice for Israelites, so it would be fair that this "chosen people" do not get special privileges. And also, it is faith in that God will protect them, because they were a lot weaker than those tribes.

So there you have it. I hope you can understand what i'm trying to say. There are even those who think only 144000 Jewish people will be going to heaven when right after that the Bible says there are countless from many nations and races to thank God for His salvation. Anyway, I have more, but just in case you haven't noticed I was not so rude as to come in here to give you all a lecture on the Bible. my point was to show that if you actively deny atheism, you need to acknowledge some faults in the aguments in the faith you have in the completeness of your evidence and our intelligence to interpret. thanks!