I have written in this blog for years, making what I believe are cogent, logically-consistent, and rational arguments against religion, and especially fundamentalist religions. I've posted the same reasonable arguments on forums and on Facebook. And it always seems that no matter what I say or how well I seem to have made my point, I get replies from those who just don't seem to understand my point at all, or who just reject it out of hand with no valid rebuttal.
And I have been asked on many occasions why I bother. I'm obviously not changing any minds. Those who believe have been brainwashed and deluded and they deny the facts and evidence against them, or they twist it around to make it better fit their dogma. So what's the point? Why do I continue to harp on the fundamentalists?
There is more than one answer. For one thing, I do enjoy a good debate; it helps to strengthen my mental faculties. It's a way to exercise the mind. But that only happens when the ones I'm debating make valid rebuttals - points to actually ponder and then try to refute. That kind of response almost never happens. Blind faith and delusion are all I get in return.
The main reason I continue to post my blog entries and reply on the forums is that I know that there are those out there who are just taking in all the arguments. They don't comment and they don't reply to posts. They just read. I know this because several of them have put in friends requests on Facebook and I don't recognize their names from any forum. They've just been "listening." Sometimes they will comment in their friend request, so I know they have paid attention to my points and that those points have resonated in their minds. And that is why I continue to write and make my case against religion, particularly fundamentalist Christianity. Islam is probably the most dangerous religion on Earth today and many of its adherents are the most highly deluded. But I come from a Christian background and there are many more Christians in this country than Muslims. So I mainly stick to debunking the Christians.
And to those who are among the fence sitters when it comes to faith or to those Christians who have become disillusioned with your faith, take heart. There are lots of you out there. My advice, as always, is simply to listen to the rational part of your brain. It's not the devil; he doesn't exist. It's not your conscience. It's simply common sense knocking. Let it in.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Facing the Tipping Point as a Christian
A very recent poll reports that 91 percent of Americans believe in God. That is compared to 51 percent of people in the world. So the logical conclusion from that is that nine percent of Americans are atheists. Pollsters may point out, though, that there may be some “not sure” votes in there. Other polls show that 16 percent of Americans do not have a religious belief. Contained within this 16 percent are atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and simply those claiming no official religious affiliation. But I claim that all 16 percent of these people are atheists by the strictest definition. What’s more, I believe that the number of atheists in America is far greater than even the most generous interpretation of the poll numbers.
First, let’s define what it means to be atheist. When it comes to a god there are only two possibilities: Either you believe in God (or a god, or gods) or you don’t. What about the one’s who answer “I’m not sure” to the question of “Do you believe in God”? Well, those who believe in God are called theists. That’s the definition of the word. So if someone asks you if you believe in God and you answer with “I don’t know,” then you are not a theist, because theists would all answer “yes.” Since you didn’t answer yes, then you are not a theist. And, by definition, if you’re not a theist, then you’re an atheist.
Of course, there are different degrees of atheism. Some atheists actively believe that there is no god. These kinds of hard atheists can not only answer “no” to the question, “Do you believe in God”? They can answer “yes” to the question, “Do you believe that God does not exist?” It’s an active belief in the non-existence of any god. Other atheists (though they may call themselves agnostics), the ones who are not sure, will answer “I don’t know” to the question, “Do you believe that God does not exist?” This person is still an atheist, because he has the same answer to the question about whether he believes that God does exist. And, as previously stated, if you can’t answer with a “yes” you are an atheist.
Some people will call themselves agnostics, secular humanists, or freethinkers in an avoidance of the word “atheist” because of the negative connotation that comes with it. But they shouldn’t be afraid of the word, because it simply means, by definition, a lack of belief in a god. There should be no political or ideological baggage associated with it.
So with that in mind, and using the technical definition of the word, all those 16 percent of Americans who are not active theists are atheists, whether they call themselves that or not. But what about my contention that there are even more atheists than will admit to it, using the real definition?
I contend that it has something to do with a tipping point moment that people would really like to avoid. Let me give you an example: Before I entered college I had to take a survey put out by the Admissions Office. I attended Franklin College of Indiana. It is affiliated with the Baptist Church, but its educational program was secular. At the time, I was a Christian, but certainly not an evangelical one. I believed most of the bible, but I knew all the stories in the Old Testament that dealt with worldwide floods, talking snakes, and living for days inside a fish were allegories. They were not to be taken literally.
There was one question on this survey that had me stumped. It asked, “Do you believe in the Second Coming of Christ?” The response choices were only “yes” or “no.” At that moment I had to make a choice. Was I a REAL Christian or a Christian in name only? Real Christians, even mainline ones, believe in some kind of Second Coming. But I had always feared predictions of the end of the world and Jesus’ return when I was a child. And there were several of them that had me worried. So I didn’t want to justify that fear by marking “yes.” I also wasn’t really sure if I believed it or not. On the other hand, if I marked “no,” that was admitting to myself, and to God, that I didn’t believe that part of Christian dogma. And if God does exist, I may have condemned myself to hell at that very moment.
So how did I answer? I left it blank and pretended I had not been asked that question.
It is my belief that there are many Christians out there who are Christians in name only. People tend to know for sure if they are a Muslim or not, or a Jew or not, or even a Catholic or not. And, although most Protestants are probably truly faithful (After all, most fundamentalist religious zealots are Protestants.) many Protestants choose that category only when no other category seems to fit. They don’t want to take on the term atheist, but they know they are not a Muslim, Jew, or Catholic. So on surveys and forms they pick Protestant. Maybe they only go to church once or twice a year. Maybe they don’t go at all. Maybe they pray only when they’re in deep trouble. Maybe they never pray. But they are still counted among the Protestant Christians. They are still part of that 74 percent who are theists. But by the strict definition of the word, they are not. They are atheists. They just will never be counted as such.
If you are one of these non-descript Protestants who simply choose to be Protestants because you don’t want to cross the tipping point, maybe it’s time to face the reality. Next time, choose what you really, truly believe. Unless you can stand tall and say proudly that you believe that God is real and involved in your life, then you are either an atheist or a deist. And really, in practical terms, there just isn’t much difference. So don’t wimp out; cross the tipping point and come down on the side of reason and rational thought. Be counted as one of the atheists.
First, let’s define what it means to be atheist. When it comes to a god there are only two possibilities: Either you believe in God (or a god, or gods) or you don’t. What about the one’s who answer “I’m not sure” to the question of “Do you believe in God”? Well, those who believe in God are called theists. That’s the definition of the word. So if someone asks you if you believe in God and you answer with “I don’t know,” then you are not a theist, because theists would all answer “yes.” Since you didn’t answer yes, then you are not a theist. And, by definition, if you’re not a theist, then you’re an atheist.
Of course, there are different degrees of atheism. Some atheists actively believe that there is no god. These kinds of hard atheists can not only answer “no” to the question, “Do you believe in God”? They can answer “yes” to the question, “Do you believe that God does not exist?” It’s an active belief in the non-existence of any god. Other atheists (though they may call themselves agnostics), the ones who are not sure, will answer “I don’t know” to the question, “Do you believe that God does not exist?” This person is still an atheist, because he has the same answer to the question about whether he believes that God does exist. And, as previously stated, if you can’t answer with a “yes” you are an atheist.
Some people will call themselves agnostics, secular humanists, or freethinkers in an avoidance of the word “atheist” because of the negative connotation that comes with it. But they shouldn’t be afraid of the word, because it simply means, by definition, a lack of belief in a god. There should be no political or ideological baggage associated with it.
So with that in mind, and using the technical definition of the word, all those 16 percent of Americans who are not active theists are atheists, whether they call themselves that or not. But what about my contention that there are even more atheists than will admit to it, using the real definition?
I contend that it has something to do with a tipping point moment that people would really like to avoid. Let me give you an example: Before I entered college I had to take a survey put out by the Admissions Office. I attended Franklin College of Indiana. It is affiliated with the Baptist Church, but its educational program was secular. At the time, I was a Christian, but certainly not an evangelical one. I believed most of the bible, but I knew all the stories in the Old Testament that dealt with worldwide floods, talking snakes, and living for days inside a fish were allegories. They were not to be taken literally.
There was one question on this survey that had me stumped. It asked, “Do you believe in the Second Coming of Christ?” The response choices were only “yes” or “no.” At that moment I had to make a choice. Was I a REAL Christian or a Christian in name only? Real Christians, even mainline ones, believe in some kind of Second Coming. But I had always feared predictions of the end of the world and Jesus’ return when I was a child. And there were several of them that had me worried. So I didn’t want to justify that fear by marking “yes.” I also wasn’t really sure if I believed it or not. On the other hand, if I marked “no,” that was admitting to myself, and to God, that I didn’t believe that part of Christian dogma. And if God does exist, I may have condemned myself to hell at that very moment.
So how did I answer? I left it blank and pretended I had not been asked that question.
It is my belief that there are many Christians out there who are Christians in name only. People tend to know for sure if they are a Muslim or not, or a Jew or not, or even a Catholic or not. And, although most Protestants are probably truly faithful (After all, most fundamentalist religious zealots are Protestants.) many Protestants choose that category only when no other category seems to fit. They don’t want to take on the term atheist, but they know they are not a Muslim, Jew, or Catholic. So on surveys and forms they pick Protestant. Maybe they only go to church once or twice a year. Maybe they don’t go at all. Maybe they pray only when they’re in deep trouble. Maybe they never pray. But they are still counted among the Protestant Christians. They are still part of that 74 percent who are theists. But by the strict definition of the word, they are not. They are atheists. They just will never be counted as such.
If you are one of these non-descript Protestants who simply choose to be Protestants because you don’t want to cross the tipping point, maybe it’s time to face the reality. Next time, choose what you really, truly believe. Unless you can stand tall and say proudly that you believe that God is real and involved in your life, then you are either an atheist or a deist. And really, in practical terms, there just isn’t much difference. So don’t wimp out; cross the tipping point and come down on the side of reason and rational thought. Be counted as one of the atheists.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Signs of the End
What are some of the signs of the end of days, or the Second Coming? Ever since I was a child I’ve heard people tell me that we are living in the last days because the signs the bible speaks of are being fulfilled daily. And here are some of the things they mention:
“There will be wars and rumors of war.” Even as a child, I knew that there had always been wars. The Old Testament is full of war. There has never been a time throughout history that has been totally free of war and rumors of war. If this is a sign of the end of time it is no wonder that every generation of Christian thought that theirs was the last.
“There will be famine and disease.” Ok, there is famine and disease in the world today. But is it any worse than it has ever been? Actually, no. The pestilence, famine, and horrendous death caused by poverty and poor living conditions are bad in places. But those places are fewer and farther between than at any other point in history. Just consider the bubonic plague. It wiped out a third of the population of an entire continent during the Middle Ages. And there were probably Christians who believed that Christ’s return was being heralded. Consider, too, the debtors’ prisons in England that existed in the 18th and 19th centuries. Consider mandatory child labor in the U.S. prior to the introduction of child labor laws. And consider the famine and pestilence that spread across this country during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. I think today we actually have it quite good, in comparison.
“The earth will shake and there will be natural disasters in diverse places.” Yes, we still have earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, and tsunamis. But it’s not like we ever didn’t have those natural disasters. Consider the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in Italy in AD 79. It killed more than 10,000 people. That occurred back when Christianity was still very young. I’m sure many early Christians thought that was a big sign of the end, because most first-generation Christians thought Jesus would return before they died. Even Jesus, himself, predicted the coming of the Kingdom of God within the lifetimes of many of his disciples. His was the first end-of-the-world prediction in the Christian era and the first of many to be wrong. Then there was Krakatoa in Indonesia that erupted and killed 36,000 people in 1883. It produced the loudest explosion in recorded history. I know there were many who thought that was a sign of the end. Tsunamis, earthquakes, and floods have occurred in all past eras. Are they occurring more frequently today? Not according to the USGS and NOAA. Since the world is more populated now, with many more large, sprawling metropolitan areas, and since we now have instant worldwide communication, more people are affected and more people hear about the disasters that do happen. But there are no more of them now than there ever has been.
“There will be false prophets and apostasy.” Well, Harold Camping is certainly a false prophet. I’m tempted here to point out that since prophesy itself is a sham, all prophets are false. But there has always been so-called prophets and soothsayers and today is no different. Consider Nostradamus. He has a large following even today because, just like the prophecies of the bible, some of them sound pretty good if read from a position of hindsight. As for apostasy, that’s actually a good thing. It means people have started thinking more rationally, unless they leave one religion just to join another. But there has always been apostasy, too. A new religion can’t be founded unless its founders leave the religion they were once in. Paul had a terrible time with apostasy, which is why he had to write so many letters to the Corinthians and others. Today’s apostasy is no more insidious than it has been throughout history.
So are the signs of the times really anything new or different? If you are a conservative Christian, the zeitgeist might be to expect Christ’s Second Coming very soon, surely within your generation. But looking at the signs, none of them are new. None of them are even particularly more pronounced or troubling than what they were in the past. They are only new to some because they don’t know their history well enough.
Many Christians don’t look for signs of the end but take a stance of watchful waiting. But, seriously, what are they waiting for? It has been 2000 years folks. Jesus is not coming. Jesus died two millennia ago. He’s still dead, as is everyone else who ever lived in those days. How many more failed predictions and unfulfilled signs will it take before people come to their senses?
“There will be wars and rumors of war.” Even as a child, I knew that there had always been wars. The Old Testament is full of war. There has never been a time throughout history that has been totally free of war and rumors of war. If this is a sign of the end of time it is no wonder that every generation of Christian thought that theirs was the last.
“There will be famine and disease.” Ok, there is famine and disease in the world today. But is it any worse than it has ever been? Actually, no. The pestilence, famine, and horrendous death caused by poverty and poor living conditions are bad in places. But those places are fewer and farther between than at any other point in history. Just consider the bubonic plague. It wiped out a third of the population of an entire continent during the Middle Ages. And there were probably Christians who believed that Christ’s return was being heralded. Consider, too, the debtors’ prisons in England that existed in the 18th and 19th centuries. Consider mandatory child labor in the U.S. prior to the introduction of child labor laws. And consider the famine and pestilence that spread across this country during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. I think today we actually have it quite good, in comparison.
“The earth will shake and there will be natural disasters in diverse places.” Yes, we still have earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, and tsunamis. But it’s not like we ever didn’t have those natural disasters. Consider the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in Italy in AD 79. It killed more than 10,000 people. That occurred back when Christianity was still very young. I’m sure many early Christians thought that was a big sign of the end, because most first-generation Christians thought Jesus would return before they died. Even Jesus, himself, predicted the coming of the Kingdom of God within the lifetimes of many of his disciples. His was the first end-of-the-world prediction in the Christian era and the first of many to be wrong. Then there was Krakatoa in Indonesia that erupted and killed 36,000 people in 1883. It produced the loudest explosion in recorded history. I know there were many who thought that was a sign of the end. Tsunamis, earthquakes, and floods have occurred in all past eras. Are they occurring more frequently today? Not according to the USGS and NOAA. Since the world is more populated now, with many more large, sprawling metropolitan areas, and since we now have instant worldwide communication, more people are affected and more people hear about the disasters that do happen. But there are no more of them now than there ever has been.
“There will be false prophets and apostasy.” Well, Harold Camping is certainly a false prophet. I’m tempted here to point out that since prophesy itself is a sham, all prophets are false. But there has always been so-called prophets and soothsayers and today is no different. Consider Nostradamus. He has a large following even today because, just like the prophecies of the bible, some of them sound pretty good if read from a position of hindsight. As for apostasy, that’s actually a good thing. It means people have started thinking more rationally, unless they leave one religion just to join another. But there has always been apostasy, too. A new religion can’t be founded unless its founders leave the religion they were once in. Paul had a terrible time with apostasy, which is why he had to write so many letters to the Corinthians and others. Today’s apostasy is no more insidious than it has been throughout history.
So are the signs of the times really anything new or different? If you are a conservative Christian, the zeitgeist might be to expect Christ’s Second Coming very soon, surely within your generation. But looking at the signs, none of them are new. None of them are even particularly more pronounced or troubling than what they were in the past. They are only new to some because they don’t know their history well enough.
Many Christians don’t look for signs of the end but take a stance of watchful waiting. But, seriously, what are they waiting for? It has been 2000 years folks. Jesus is not coming. Jesus died two millennia ago. He’s still dead, as is everyone else who ever lived in those days. How many more failed predictions and unfulfilled signs will it take before people come to their senses?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)