Powered By Blogger

Translate

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Religion - The Most Powerful Drug Ever Created

Often when life gets too hard, people turn to drugs and alcohol as a way to escape the hardships of life. It numbs them so they don’t have to worry about their problems, and no longer have to think about the trouble they might be in or how bad their life has become. But when you think about it, isn’t that exactly what religion offers?

Many times people turn to drugs and alcohol when scared, lost, or depressed, but people are turning to religion for the same reasons. Life can be hard and scary at times, and it is natural to want to find comfort and religion does just that. It is why there can be so many variations of religion and all work for the ones who believe it. It doesn’t work or improve their lives because it is true, it works because it numbs them from the pain and harshness of reality. We all are aware of our mortality and that can be a scary thing to think about. So in order to overcome that fear people prescribe to a religion. If we are taught a religion from an early age, we have been addicted ever since we have had the ability to think. (It is why many atheist say religious indoctrination of children is child abuse; it is basically addicting them to a drug at an early age that will cause delusions for the rest of their lives.)  

The pill people take every day called religion numbs them to reality. They don’t see how much suffering is going on in the world. For example, many know children are dying in Africa every day, but because they think God has a plan, they don’t realize how tragic it really is. They don’t have to think about the problems of the world because to them it is all God’s plan, and this life is just a test to see who deserves heaven and who deserves hell. It is sad to think how many people live the one life they will ever have addicted to this delusion.

It is extremely difficult for those who are addicted to this drug to quit. Just like with any addiction the best way to get rid of it is to replace it with something else. So in order to stop taking religions pill, they must have a good reason to do so. It is comforting to think there is a God in control and heaven is in our future, this delusion makes it extremely tough for anyone to even want to consider losing their belief. Since no religion is right and they all have their flaws, it is easy to stick with the one you have always known because it seems to work. The only way for addicts to quit is to introduce them to reason, logic, and science so they can determine if their beliefs are true. However, for those who don’t care whether their beliefs are true and just want to feel good, this will have little to no impact on them.

Drug users will deny they are addicted and come up with excuses for why they don’t have a problem. Religious people do the same when shown evidence of the harm their beliefs have caused, but many have no problem pointing out the problems in other religions. People become so blind and numb to the harm their beliefs have caused and make up excuses such as, “they weren’t a true believer”. Of course, many who follow a religion are good people and are a positive influence but it doesn’t mean their belief is true; it is their same belief that is giving others a reason to be hateful and violent toward others. The irony is that those who are not “true believers” actually just believe it more than they do. They are basically overdosing on their religion of choice, and it causes them to be completely irrational. If a belief is true, that does not happen. Just as the right amount of a drug can make you feel good, too much of a drug will kill you, and those who have overdosed on religion are the fundamentalist and religious terrorist.

So should religion be illegal? No, just as alcohol and other drugs are legal and the harmful drugs are illegal; the same should go for religions. For religions that are for the most part benign and help people cope with their fears should be allowed, but it doesn’t make them true. Just as someone who is prescribed a drug to feel better shouldn’t give it to their friends, religion shouldn’t be forced on anyone either. People who are drug free and eat healthy feel great, and it should be encouraged for people to eat healthy doses of reason, logic, and science in order to live better and more rational lives. Reality is much more fascinating than any religion, and because people will no longer have delusions, they will be amazed at the things they will learn and discover.

Religions which are obviously harmful such as Muslim extremists or the KKK should be illegal but will simply never go away even if it were because it is too powerful of a drug. Simply taking their religion away will only make them go crazier unless they are given something to replace it with. Just like those who don't stop doing illegal drugs because they are so strongly addicted. This is why religion should not be encouraged and instead we must encourage people to base their beliefs on reason and logic and not on what makes them feel good.

People shouldn’t stop believing their religion because Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris or anyone else tells them to. Instead, they should take an honest look at what they believe and decide for themselves if it is really true. The best way to examine our beliefs is by using the scientific method which is proven to work and because it works it has allowed us the ability to create amazing things such as airplanes, satellites, television and all the other countless things we enjoy today. People need to learn to think for themselves and not follow a belief because it makes them feel good. If we want to be right, we must be willing to be wrong. If we can do something as simple as that, our world would be a completely different place, and if we can’t, we should be extremely jealous of the generation that can.

56 comments:

  1. Ted,

    What did you replace "religion" with since obviously you disdain the term? What is your definition of religion? If I remember correctly atheism is considered a "religion" since it is understood to be a belief system.

    You mention in your last paragraph the phrase "by using the scientific method which is proven to work" we should what...decide for ourselves what is true?
    What if your definition of true conflicts with mine or Hitlers or Stalins. Who ass the final say?

    What is the scientific method regarding religion? And more importantly what is "true" and what is your basis for truth since there is no god to establish an absolute truth. Is truth just an arbitrary point of reference that moves with the tide of popular belief or is a solid non miving foundation point that doesn't waiver when pushed? Use your scientific method to answer that question. I look forward to your reply.

    By the way what drug do you use to calm you down and help you escape the "hardships of life"?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I appreciate the comment and questions.
    So my definition of religion is “the belief and/or worship in a god or the supernatural” If you were to look up the definition in Webster’s dictionary you would see something very similar if not exactly the same. So using that definition atheism is not a religion. Theism is the belief that a deity exist and refers to the doctrine of that god. So atheism means not theism, since “a” means “not” that’s why it is called “a”theism meaning “not theism”. I agree, it can be confusing since there is a term for the lack of a belief. We don’t have terms for people who don’t believe in UFO’s, ghost, bigfoot etc other than “skeptics”, so it would be easier to understand people who don’t believe in a god if the word atheism or atheist didn’t even exist and we just used the term “skeptic” for atheist. Hopefully that clears up those terms for you.

    About the scientific method and what we should do, I think we should use the scientific method to guide us in our knowledge and not take things on faith. You asked “What if your definition of true conflicts with mine or Hitlers or Stalins. Who has the final say?” Well you do realize that those who believe in different religions have that exact same problem, and that is a huge problem. This is why I say we should use science to determine what is true instead of faith based religions. So I say believe what the science says whether that is a certain religion or lack of one, if your religion is correct the science should support that. But unless there a suddenly new discoveries the science will not lead you to a religion since there is only one correct answer in science.

    So you asked “what is true?” That’s a very broad question and not sure what you are asking, but my basis for truth is that there should be overwhelming evidence to support the claim before considering it to be true. Since science doesn’t point to the existence of a god, there is no absolute truth. I obviously don’t know which God you believe in, but if you were to believe in the Judeo Christian God, you would have to believe that slavery, stoning misbehaving children, and women are inferior to men and etc are moral actions. I don’t see how believing that those actions are acceptable behavior that society should strive for. It is dangerous to think a god can establish absolute truth when that god condone those behaviors not to mention there are thousands of gods and how would determine which god is real? Thinking that way is the reason many of the wars in history began. I think we can do better than this as a society.

    But I think this 2 min clip answers it more eloquently than I can. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjpqeZirDqU

    And I don’t use any drugs to escape the hardships of life, I just use my knowledge and understanding of the world to help guide my decisions. Hope that answers all your questions, if not please re-ask whatever you want me to clarify. Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ted,

    Actually you didn't answer them at all but thank you for your response.

    Hitler and Stalin and Osama Bin Laden all used their "knowledge and understanding of the world to help guide - their - decisions! Does that make them "right"? If you say Yes then you believe that what they did is OK. If you say no then you are judging them which is rather hard to do if there is NO ABSOLUTE truth or right. On what basis do you judge them?

    You appear to be saying that if a person believes in a Judeo Christian God then they must also believe in "slavery, stoning misbehaving children and women are inferior to men." Why? God allowed many things to happen because of the evil in men's heart. I wouldn't even dare to comprehend God's thoughts or ways. If He actually is God then by definition he would be beyond my comprehension.

    If there is no God and there is no absolute truth then on what grounds do you state that anything is true or not true? If there is no absolute how do you even dare to communicate if words, meanings and all things are not based on some form of absolute. Does that mean that 2+2 will not always be 4? Think about it.

    You further state that we should allow that, "Since science doesn’t point to the existence of a god, there is no absolute truth." Science then must be your God since only then only science can dictate what truth is. Unfortunately there is a conflict, because some scientific beliefs conflict with other scientific beliefs. All scientists do not believe in global warming, does that make it true or not true. NO. They are just postulations based on their respective research. They are not so bold as to call them beliefs or truths they just call them "theories" The true, if we might use that word, measure of The steps of the scientific method are to:
    Ask a Question
    Do Background Research
    Construct a Hypothesis
    Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
    Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
    Communicate Your Results


    That is rather hard to do to a supreme being, wouldn't you agree? Does that mean a supreme being, GOD, does not exist just because he doesn't fit into our laboratories? I think we would be rather presumptuous if we thought so.

    You mention in your reply that science is the purveyor of truth and we should rely on science to tell us what is true. If you would care to study history you would have difficulty following that belief system. Science at times told us that "bloodletting" would remove the illness from an individual. It actually caused many deaths. Science at one time told us the world was flat. Their truth changed. If you study Fahrenheit and many other strong Christian scientist you would find their discoveries to be irrefutable. George Washington Carver, a brilliant scientist, discovered the miracles hidden within the peanut and claimed that God gave him the wisdom to discover such things. Do we call these "scientist" crazy or mad because they believed in God? Do your own research.

    Do you believe that 100% of all scientists must "believe" something for it to be true or is there some magic number that satisfies the equation for truth?

    See my next comment... I ran out of allowable space.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ted, ...my continuation below...

    What does your research show about how many atheists have made great scientific discoveries? Galileo searched the stars because of his belief in God and order in the universe.

    You fail to also study history carefully. You must be young since our schools no longer teach truth but change history or leave it out in order to control the populace. What do science and what do you say about the person, Jesus? Was he real or are billions of people fooled? Where did the Bible come from? Why has science been unable to prove conclusively that God does not exist? Is it possible that mankind really doesn't know everything and that possibly there might be a God?

    If there is no truth other than what science "proves" then how can we have evil and what definition does science put on evil?

    I would be interested in knowing why you reject or hate God? I think I saw on your site that you state that you were at one time a Christian? What caused you to no longer accept anything about religion and Christianity in particular? Did your parents cause it or are they still believers and now in your eyes fools for their silly beliefs?


    You mention that atheism is not a religion. The courts disagree with you! See case below.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    LAW OF THE LAND
    Court rules atheism a religion
    Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted: August 20, 2005
    1:00 am Eastern

    © 2011 WND



    A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
    "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.


    The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

    Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."

    "Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.

    The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

    Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."



    Read more: Court rules atheism a religion http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895#ixzz1deO6XzNl

    I guess you must be religious after all!!!

    Have a great day!

    ReplyDelete
  5. You said I didn’t answer them AT ALL? I would disagree, you just must not have liked my answer so didn’t accept it. So hesitant to respond to these questions, since I feel like I’m just wasting my time but I’ll respond so anyone else reading might get something out of it.

    First, I believe Stalin was atheist, but Hitler was catholic and obviously Bin Laden was Muslim (radical Muslim but still Muslim). There is a lot that can be said about this, but basically bad people will do bad things no matter what they believe and taught, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things. Bin Laden’s knowledge and understanding of the world was based on religion, Hitler did not do things in the name of Catholicism but it obviously didn’t keep him from doing what he did. For Stalin, like I said bad people will do bad things no matter what.

    I am saying that if people get their morals from the Bible than why wouldn’t they think “slavery, stoning misbehaving children and women are inferior to men” is moral? The Bible condones those behaviors. So if you don’t believe those are moral, you are getting your morals from somewhere else.

    Yes there is no absolute truth, if there was and you admit you can’t comprehend God’s ways or thoughts than how could there be? We state what is true and not true to the best of our ability by looking at the evidence, which is why 2+2 will always equal 4 based on the overwhelming evidence of that.

    Your right, not all scientist do agree that global warming or climate change is real. This is because there is no absolute truth, they have to look at the evidence and do test to come to their conclusion. Since man is fallible, it is likely they can come to different conclusions. But an overwhelming amount of scientist including the most credible ones agree that climate change is real.

    I really don’t think it is that hard to use the scientific method to discover if God is real. I think people just don’t like the conclusion that science comes to, so they say it can’t be done so they can feel they still have a good reason to believe. We could test people who say they can talk to God and ask them questions they couldn’t possibly know such as “what is in a box” that the testers know but the subject does not, and test similar to that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. About science being a purveyor of truth, it is not a way to absolute truth, but it is the best way we have to come as close to the truth as possible. I don’t know if it was science that said bloodletting would remove illness or that was just superstition. But it was science that discovered it didn’t work. And if it wasn’t for science, you wouldn’t be able to ask me these question on this blog, wouldn’t be able to travel in a car or airplane, talk on the phone, etc. So to say science doesn’t work is absurd. If Carver said God gave him wisdom to discover the secrets of peanuts, then he may well have believed that but I would say he was delusional when it came to that. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t smart or a good scientist, just means he gave credit where credit wasn’t due.

    I don’t think it matters how many scientist believe something to be true or not. How many people believe something does not determine what is true. Simply looking at the evidence is how you decide whether it is a valid claim or not. And if scientists are doing their job correctly they are most likely going to agree.

    I believe there is a possibility that Jesus is based on a man who existed, but the claims have been exaggerated over the years. So yes, billions of people are fooled, you do realize billions are hindu, billions believe Jesus was a prophet and Mohamed was Gods last prophet, billions believe in ghost, no matter what is true billions are fooled either way.

    Science has been unable to prove God doesn’t exist because you can’t prove a negative. Science only allows us to discover what does exist, not what doesn’t. It is those who believe in God who have the burned of proof to prove he does. To quote Hitchens,” that which can be asserted without proof, can also be dismissed without proof.” And yes, it is more than possible that man doesn’t know everything and we don’t, and because we don’t we could also be wrong that a God exist. So until we prove the existence of God there is no reason to believe he does exist.

    My definition of evil is irrational behavior. But evil is a word created by religion to insert the presence of satan. Which atheist don’t believe exist either so evil isn’t a word I like to use.

    To know why I am no longer Christian you can read this which is my story. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8355065/how_i_converted_from_christianity_to.html?cat=34

    I also just created a new post called “Is atheism a religion”. So check that out here for my answer, and if you have a comment on that topic please post it there. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ted,

    It seems I struck a nerve based on your response, however, I appreciate your willingness to continue the discussion.

    Before I digress and bring up some basic points in our previous conversation, I just read your story of the conversion away from Christianity to whatever you are as a "free" man.

    You state at the end of your story that,
    "I am atheist and now free from religion and can make decisions for myself based on logic, reason, and compassion. I am able to think for myself more now than I did before and for that I am very thankful."

    Please answer these points before we continue.
    What is your basis for logic, reason and compassion? Does it come from science or it it somehow inherant in mankinds genetic structure?

    If you do not believe in a God does your belief system begin with evolution? If so what is evolution by your definition?

    Sincerely,

    Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  8. No nerve was struck, I’m just a little skeptical that you were being serious. A lot of times atheist will pretend to be Christian and ask silly questions and it is hard to tell which ones are genuine and which ones are just messing with ya. I’ll assume you are being serious from here on.
    So my basis for logic is basically not taking things on faith and making sure whatever I believe has evidence to support that belief. For reason, just being fair and sensible and looking at all sides of an issue and going with the one that leaves me with the least amount of questions. Compassion, basically treating people the same way I would want to be treated no matter what they believe, look like etc.
    And I don’t have a belief system, I do believe in many things but that is not a system. I make each decision on what I believe based on evidence, there is no doctrine I follow. So no, evolution has nothing to do with anything, it is just one of the things I believe to be fact. Just like I’m sure you believe the earth orbits the sun - that surely wouldn’t be anything to base your life on.
    I don’t see the purpose of you asking me these questions? If you are just interested in how atheists make their decisions, I guess feel free to keep asking questions. But if you want to prove to me a god exist just show me your evidence of it. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ted,

    I am extremely serious about this subject. The reason I am asking these questions is to find out where you are coming from in your thought process and your belief system. I don't care how atheists make their decisions because all of the ones I have spoken to in the past when faced with facts become illogical and arbitrary in their responses and their decision making.

    I am interested in delving more into what makes you believe what you believe. In order to do so I must ask questions so we both can find out what you really believe. If you are willing to do that and be totally honest in your response I will proceed. If not then you are afraid of what you might find out about your belief system and we cannot have an honest and fact based discussion. Reality can be un-nerving when looked directly in the face. Are you prepared to face the real facts by searching for the truth?

    You can rest easy about God. It is not my job nor my calling to prove anything, including that God exist or doesn't exist. If there is a God the facts will show the result of his existence. If not then what difference does anything make?

    Let me know if I should proceed?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don’t believe that the atheists you have talked to in the past have been illogical and arbitrary when faced with facts. I’m guessing they weren’t really facts or you just didn’t like their response because it didn’t fit with what you wanted to hear. I would be extremely interested in what facts you presented to them which resulted in their illogical response. So if you can remember any of those facts please share, I’d love to hear them.

    Now if you are interested in what I believe, then I think the conversation should be more about what I don’t believe that you do and why. Otherwise this could go on and on without a purpose. Also you will need to stop saying I have a belief system, since I don’t have one. A belief system is based on faith, and I don’t take things on faith.

    I am definitely not afraid of what I might find out if we have an honest discussion. When I was Christian I was afraid to be honest and dig into the issues for fear that what I had believed for so long might not be true. That was un-nerving. So being an atheist there are only positives to questioning what I believe to be reality because if I can prove I’m wrong that’s good news for me. So for me to find out a God does exist, is not scary for me like you try and make it sound.

    So yes, I’m prepared to face the real facts. However, you say “It is not my job nor my calling to prove anything, including that God exist or doesn't exist.” I wish it were - if that is not your purpose in talking to me I don’t understand what this discussion is about. But I’m still open to discussing whatever it is you’d like to discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ted,

    Evidently there is a matter of semantics that needs clarification. You tell me I "will need to stop saying I (you)have a belief system, since I (you)don't", yet you say you BELIEVE in no God, you BELIEVE that atheists cannot be illogical and arbitrary, you BELIEVE that only atheistic scientist are correct in their findings, you BELIEVE if Christian scientist make scientific discoveries and they claim God helped or inspired them they are delusional (Have you actually ever spoken to a Christian scientist?), you believe that because an atheist and a Christian had a debate and you didn't BELIEVE the Christian did a good enough job that God no longer exists. You BELIEVE in evolution.

    That all sounds like a belief system. We can call it your "world view" if you prefer. It doesn't matter to me. Scientists have a belief system. They have to believe something in order to pursue what they believe will happen in order to create their hypotheses, test them and then explain their findings.

    You take things on faith everyday. Faith means you BELIEVE something will happen. I have faith that my car will start every time I turn the key in the ignition. I don't lose my faith that it will happen just because one day it doesn't. I determine the cause and have it fixed. "Religious" faith means you believe that God is a force behind all things that occur and that this force is consistent and orderly and as a result of this ordained order in the universe you have a legitimate right to Believe that the car will start each time you turn the key. If you don't want to call it faith then let me know what "word" you wish to use.

    You seem extremely touchy about any implications that you might still have some "religious" connections to a God. I understand that you emphatically deny God exists even though you said earlier that he might exist. It sounds more like you consider yourself an agnostic, but you can clarify which one you choose by giving me your definition of both.


    If we are not using the same vernacular then we cannot possible have a meaningful dialogue. Can we agree on these points?

    Are you really an agnostic that doubts that there is a God rather than an atheist who knows there is no God?

    Have a nice holiday.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, there are things I believe, but that doesn’t mean it is part of a belief system. Like I said belief systems are based on faith. I agree “world view” is much more accurate.

    I don’t say “I believe in no god” I say “I don’t believe in a god” while to you this may look the same, it is actually very different. If I was to say “I believe in no god” that’s makes it sound like I have evidence that no god exist. But since we can’t prove things don’t exist I would not say that. I say “I don’t believe in a god” because of the lack of evidence for a god.

    Also I never said atheist cannot be illogical and arbitrary, everyone no matter who they are and what they do or don’t believe can be illogical. We are all very susceptible to being illogical, that is why science has been such a good tool to learning how things really work. Because science is not based on emotions, faith etc, science doesn’t care what we want to be true.

    I also never said “only atheistic scientists are correct in their findings” Christian scientists, Muslim scientists, Hindu scientists etc. can all have findings that are correct. However, you are right that I think they are delusional for claiming their God helped them. What determines if a scientist's findings are correct is based on the science not their belief or lack of belief in a god.

    When you said, “Scientists have a belief system. They have to believe something in order to pursue what they believe will happen in order to create their hypotheses, test them and then explain their findings.” That’s not true, they suspect something might be true and before they believe it to be true they test it to see if it could be true. If it passes they continue to test it. If they believed something before they tested it, they would not be a credible scientist.

    You say I take things on faith every day, I disagree. You used the example of having faith your car will start when you turn the key. That is not faith, faith is believing something will happen when you don’t have evidence and there is a ton of evidence that shows your car will start. One, it has started before and at any time you can test it to make sure it is working. Two, scientist and engineers put in many hours to make sure they sell you a car that starts. Three, when you bought the car the manufacture probably gave you some kind of promise or warranty saying it will. To say this is faith is completely ignoring the evidence.

    I’m sure I did say a god could exist, because like I have also said you can’t prove a negative (something that doesn’t exist) and can only prove a positive (something that does exist). So I’m completely fine with saying a god could exist, also fine with saying bigfoot could exist or that a celestial teapot may exist. But there is no reason to believe in any of them until there is evidence for it.

    Sure you could say I’m agnostic but I’m also atheist because I am not a theist – which is someone who believes in the existence of at least one god. Some atheist may tell you “they know there is no god” but I think most would just say they don’t believe due to lack of evidence. So if you think atheist means “they know there is no god” that is not accurate. We are not as arrogant as you may think we are. We are very open-minded and for most atheists they follow the evidence to guide their knowledge of the world.

    I agree, if we are not using the same vernacular then we cannot possible have a meaningful dialogue. That is why I’m trying to point out words you are misusing so you aren’t building an argument around words that don’t represent me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. No response? Just when I thought he had a point to be made....

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have plenty of responses left. I also have a job and a family and life which take time. Let's move on. And by the way what's makes you think I'm a he. Are you biased against women and think they don't know enough to argue intelligently?

    I have two questions I would like to have answered before I jump into the thick of battle. Yes this is a war. If you remember your bible lessons some think this is a war to determine who wins the souls of mankind. But that will be another topic later, if we determine whether or not you have soul.

    My questions.

    1. Did you at any time contact your bible school teachers and ask them for clarification on the topics you believe the atheists won in the debates you listened too?

    2. If so what did they say and if not, why?

    ReplyDelete
  15. In response to the comment made by Anonymous on Decemner 1, 2011 at 2:34 PM that was not me. I am the Anonymous that started this conversation from the beginning. If someone else wants to jump in please use a different moniker so we can avoid confusion about who said what.

    thank you

    ReplyDelete
  16. I did contact bible teachers. I even mentioned that a little in the article you read of why I’m no longer Christian. I contacted the church leaders from my church back home. I spoke with one through email and exchanged some lengthy emails for a couple months. Also set up a meeting with the head pastor their when I made a trip back home. Also spoke with many others in depth as well including family members and friends of family that felt they may be able to answer some of my questions. Also, I emailed some well respect pastors from TV that were recommended for me to listen to such as Joseph Prince but never heard back from any of them. I still encourage anyone who would like to discuss these issues to contact me.

    As for what they said, I wouldn’t know where to start; I would have to write you a book on everything that was discussed. But this is one of the big issues and verses that was a red flag for me that I was looking for answers on.

    Deut 20:10-15 “When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.”

    Of course the typical answer for this was because they were evil for not following their God, so God told them to get kill them. (of course the other nations didn’t follow their God, since he was made up by the Israelites, so how could they) So I asked the pastor, “Why would God tell them to do such horrible acts just because they were “evil” that doesn’t make the Israelites any better?” It is a terrible example for one, and to kill all the men then keep the women! Try and put yourself in that time and in the place of a woman. Men just murder your husband and now you have to live with his killer for the rest of your life? Does that seem like instructions given by a moral being?

    The best answer given by the pastor of my church was, “since man brought sin into this world, God needed to use man to get rid of it.” That answer was the best I got, and hopefully I don’t have to even explain why that is not sufficient. Plus, God supposedly used a flood at one point to get rid of sin so that answer already doesn’t make sense just based on that. So if he can use a flood to wipe out sin, he didn’t need to use “godly” men to do it for him. If the God of the Bible existed, and he wanted those other nations dead, he could have just snapped his fingers and killed them all or if he wanted them to suffer first just gave them a deadly illness.

    I know you weren’t directing this question at me, “Are you biased against women and think they don't know enough to argue intelligently?” But with verses such as this you can see why he/she would think you are a he.
    1 Tim 2:11-15 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”

    So if you are a she, God might not want you having this discussion in the first place.

    If you have a better answer for why God would give instructions to kill other nations, I would love to hear your answer as well.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ted,

    In order to prevent confusion I will refer to myself as Anonymous One and others may use anonymous in their reply.

    I can see why you became frustrated from a lack of qualified responses from your church leaders; however, if I truly believe in something I continue to search for reasons to support why I believe. I have encountered many situations where religious educators and preachers failed to respond correctly either through ignorance or misunderstanding. Sometimes through discussions and dialogue they discover their error and correct it. In other cases their pride blinds them to the truth.

    Maybe you really didn't believe 100% in God only in your particular religion. When your religion failed you, you turned against God instead of religion. We all have had doubts about life, death and everything in between. Darwin went to his church leaders and couldn't get answers, so he searched for them and discovered some of the great wonders and mysteries that were created. I commend you for your continued search and I believe you will find the answers if you are open to discovering the truth.

    Religion is not the answer. Jesus' main problem on earth was with the religious leaders because they corrupted what God had planned.

    Allow me a few days to find time to answer some of your questions. There are obviously many things that don't, in our minds, make sense. That doesn't nullify the reality of God or disprove God any more than it proves his existence.

    I'll get back to you in a few days. I don't need to use the bible for my belief in God since there are many other evidences of God’s existence. I believe the bible and will try to show what the basis is for some of the things that were done per your questions.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Take as much time as you need. But you say you don't need to use the bible for your belief in God, does that mean you will not be giving me an answer to why God gave the instructions I mentioned? Also, if you don't need to use the bible, than how do you know which god is the real one? Because there are thousands to choose from.

    To your comment, "if I truly believe in something I continue to search for reasons to support why I believe."

    Albert Einstein said, "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." and I completely agree with that! Otherwise how would someone who believes in Hinduism, Allah, Zeus, etc ever come to finding the true god if one exists?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ted,

    From Anonymous One

    I will at some point respond to your questions about God's direction. As far as my comment about not needing the bible to believe in God, there is much evidence pointing towards one God that fits the description of the Judeo-Christian God. More later on that subject.

    I also stated that I do believe the bible and I find that true science verifies what is in the bible.

    So in response to my question earlier, did you turn from God because of religion or because he doesn't fit into your moral value system or because science can't put the creator of the universe in a test tube and study him?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don’t see why you couldn’t have just responded to the question about God’s directions in this response. There could be many non-believers reading this that you can help save by clearing it up for us. If you have a good answer, the moral thing to do is tell us, don’t be shy.

    I know you stated that you believe the bible and that you find that “true” science verifies what is in the bible, but you haven’t given any evidence to support that claim. And when I point out how messed up the bible is you say you don’t need the bible for your belief in God. But if God is perfect and always moral, how do you explain the couple verses I’ve shown you? And there are plenty more I can provide that are just as immoral if you think those are the only ones.

    I didn’t turn from God, I just realized I was delusional thinking that a god existed. And I realized I was delusional by reading God’s “word” and seeing his “morals” and yes - also because science (which is unbiased) shows us there is no evidence of a god. If a god existed, he wouldn’t be so immoral to give us minds to think rationally and the ability to use science yet make sure that science can’t detect him. And if a god did do that, he wouldn’t be moral and there would be no reason to follow him. Might does not make right.

    So please just answer the question of why god would give such immoral directions. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ted,

    From Anonymous One,

    OK, I was hoping to get into some other points first but this will be a very good starting point!

    You are really hung up on the bible verses being immoral actions perpetrated by God aren't you? Let’s look at this logically.

    1. First of all, if there is no God, then how can something be immoral
    2. If someone (believes) that morality exists then who determines if something is immoral and why is it immoral?
    3. If there is no absolute right and wrong how can we have morality or immorality? Just because YOU believe it is immoral doesn’t mean that I or anyone else would have to agree. After all we can all make our own decisions, Right?
    4. What is the basis for determining if someone, including God, does something immoral?

    We can't discuss the verses being right or wrong, moral or immoral if we don't even have a belief system (world view) that has a solid unmovable definition and a line-drawn-in-the-sand absolute basis for good and evil, moral or immoral.

    You want me to explain why God would do something immoral when you don't even have an absolute value for morality, therefore no matter what I say are the reasons for God's directions, we have nothing to judge their morality against! Even courts of law have a standard they go by in determining guilt (immoral behavior).

    Show me your absolute value system then, we can discuss your off-the-point problem with God's directions and morality.

    If you wish to quote me get it right. I didn’t say I didn’t need the bible. I said, “I don't need to use the bible for my belief in God SINCE there are many other evidences of God’s existence”. The bible is a very important part of my belief system and isvnecessary for Christianity BUT it is God's word not a legal brief proving His existence, although it gives us plenty of proof as well.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I thought you said you wanted to look at it logically? You have left me so much to clear up not sure where to start. Using your logic, does that mean that radical Muslims flying planes into buildings because they are doing the work of their god is moral? There really isn’t any difference from Muslim terrorists and what the Israelites did when god gave them instructions to slaughter other nations. The only difference is science hadn’t given them planes yet to fly.

    This should answer 1-4. We get are morals based on what is preferable. You prefer to live over die, so if I was to do something that interfered with what is preferable to you, for example taking something that is yours, hurting you in some way, etc… that would be immoral. There is a lot of gray area and that is where discussion and debate comes in and is also why slavery seemed to be ok in the past, but as we progressed we realized it wasn’t moral because people were interfering with the lives of those slaves which was negative in their life (to say the least). Using your logic, you would have to say slavery is not immoral since god said it was ok and gave instructions for it. So do you think slavery is ok? And if not why?

    You would like to think that because I don’t get my morals from a god that we can’t discuss the verses I mentioned. This way you don’t have to give an answer trying to defend such immoral behavior. I guess if this is how you get your morals, then you think these verses were perfectly moral. If you think that, then I don’t see the point in talking to you about this because it shows you don’t value logic, if you don’t value logic then I’m wasting my time and there is nothing I could possibly say that would ever get you to think about your beliefs rationally.

    So I do not have an absolute moral system, like I said there are many things that have gray area. But I can say without a doubt that killing men and children, keeping the women as their property etc… is immoral and anyone who defends that behavior in anyway is delusional and immoral themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  23. And I have another question to ask you, please explain how you determine that the actions of Muslims terrorist are immoral and the Israelite’s actions are moral? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  24. From Anonymous One:


    All you need to clear up is to let me know what you base your morals on? It is pretty simple. You either have a basis that is founded on something solid or you don't! Do you have some document, some set of laws or what? If you don't have any basis then how can you say anything is immoral??? Logic requires a basis or beginning point that is solid and doesn't change with the tides. Logic says red is red even if you think it is blue.

    You say there are lots of gray areas. Which ones? Name one or several. If there are gray areas then what good is it going to do to discuss them if there is no right or wrong answer to judge them by? You can discuss until you are dead and still not have an answer, your beliefs just go with whatever the prevailing wind blows, as long as it is what you want to hear.

    According to your belief system you can't tell me why what the Muslim terrorists did was immoral. (What does immoral mean?)

    I can show you that my point of reference is an absolute. God says man cannot arbitrarily decide who lives and who doesn't live. That is the creator’s position of authority.

    They were not protecting their people or belief system they were just killing innocent people. Biblically that is wrong!

    You can't tell me why you believe slavery is wrong, except that some people decided, for them, it was wrong. So what? It has no basis so who cares and why would you care what someone else thinks?

    As a matter of fact you can't even tell me absolutely that anything is wrong because all you can say is, "we got together and discussed it and we decided it was wrong", just like we got together and decided that there is no god! Who made you God over someone else's beliefs??
    If our congress decided today that slavery is acceptable then does it mean that it is moral now?


    Try concentrating and answer my questions? You failed to answer any of them. The reason I didn't answer your question about the Israelites was pretty clear. If there is no absolute basis for right and wrong then there is nothing to discuss because you can't say a wrong was committed by God or anyone else!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Wow, how did my last response not answer your question? I said, “We get are morals based on what is preferable.” Meaning anything that causes suffering to someone else is immoral. That shouldn’t be too hard to understand.

    I’m glad you agree that what Muslim terrorist do is immoral, but they were protecting their belief system (at least their interpretation of it). They feel Americans care too much about gaining possessions and being famous etc. and we are heathens for that. So we (Americans) deserved to die just like the Israelites thought other nations deserved death for not following their god.

    I don’t see how you can say, “Logic requires a basis or beginning point that is solid and doesn't change with the tides.” If you really believed that, than I can only conclude that you think slavery, stoning unruly children, and slaughtering other nations (like the Israelites) is moral. That is all in a document from your “god”. So if you can’t understand how I get my morals, please answer why those things are moral and maybe it will show me the path to righteousness.

    ReplyDelete
  26. From Anonymous One

    OK, I get it; you make up your morals as you go along in life. They are subject to change and you are not accountable to anyone for your morals, correct?

    You say you get your morals from "what is preferable" (that means whatever you prefer) then why does it bother you that I and others get their morals from what we prefer, which is Christian teachings or even Muslim terrorists’ beliefs.

    On the one hand you tell me it is OK for you to have morals based on preference but then you tell me if I have a moral belief that is different than yours I am delusional and that I don't have a right to have my "morals based on what is preferable" to me. It must be nice to be the one in charge.

    You told me several weeks ago that you would like to see an example of an atheist's argument that was arbitrary and inconsistent. Look in the mirror at your last statement.

    It sounds not only biased but arbitrary and irrational and inconsistent. It's OK for you and your atheist friends to make the rules but not for me, even if I don't "prefer" yours.

    According to what you state then, I would have to conclude that if you (atheist) think it is "preferable" to have morals that allow for slavery etc. then you can do it. If your belief is that a certain race of people like blacks and Jews are not people (Hitler's belief) then you would also believe that they are not suffering except from a rudimentary brain stem function but not like a human being! If that is your preference then who is to determine if you are wrong, after all if you believe it is "preferable" it must be OK?

    Answer this rationally and I'll go back to your original problem with God being immoral according to your preferences and some selected bible verses.


    You state you believe "anything that causes suffering to others is immoral". How would you define suffering?

    Are your friends and parents “suffering” as a result of your decision to not only reject their belief in God but to also tell them they are delusional. You then stick the knife in deeper and sell T-shirts that ridicule their beliefs and their intelligence. (yes, I checked out some other stuff on your website. I believe one shirt you sell said “If you are not intelligent enough to believe in science try religion! Ouch!) If I was them I would be suffering and I would consider your acts of hatred very immoral per your definition.

    ReplyDelete
  27. So I apologize if my statement “We get are morals based on what is preferable. You prefer to live over die, so if I was to do something that interfered with what is preferable to you, for example taking something that is yours, hurting you in some way, etc… that would be immoral.” I that wasn’t clear enough, I should have added “what is preferable to life” not just "what we prefer" like you made it sound.

    I have answered all of your questions, you may not have liked the answers i've given but I did answer them, and I really don’t see the point in answering anymore of your questions until you answer the one I asked over a week ago which is “Why god would give such immoral instructions such as slavery, and slaughtering nations and keeping the women for themselves.”

    It is only fair that when I ask a question you answer and not keep ignoring it. And I feel that we are not going to get anywhere since you have already said "if I truly believe in something I continue to search for reasons to support why I believe." That says to me that you are not concerned about what is true and only care about what you want to be true. I care about what is true, so if you don’t then I don’t see any reason to continue this discussion. But if you want to continue, you must answer my question if you ever want a response from me.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous One Says:

    Let me first of all state that the only reason I am involved in this conversation is that I believe the real truth sets people free from bondage. God doesn't make you feel guilty, He makes you aware of your guilt and provides a means of absolving that guilt, i.e., freedom to be moral, not freedom from the guilt of immorality. If I can in some way help you and others to understand absolute truth, then I have done what I believe God wants me to do. Whether they or you believe is between you and God? He doesn’t need me to speak for Him but He for some reason has placed me in this position for now. If I didn’t believe in God and His desire for you and others to know the truth then I would have no reason to move forward in our discussion. What would be the point?


    I will try to answer your question even though there is no clear or absolute understanding of what moral or immoral is. Based on our conversations, it's a moving target.

    If:

    suffering is the requirement for something to be immoral (your definition)

    and there is no absolute truth (your statement)

    then the statement that morals come from what "is preferable for life" (your statement) isn’t absolutely true since "there is NO absolute truth" (your statement).

    It, morals, can also change at any time based on what someone believes "is preferable for (their) life", Correct?

    Just want to make sure I understand your world view, even though it contradicts itself, and according to your own words (see above), nothing can be absolutely true.

    Please give me the bible verses that made you decide there is no God and I will give you a definitive answer.

    One other question (multi part) if you don't mind.

    Now that you are free from:
    the bondage of religion,
    its' evil damaging drug-like effects
    and are no longer being abused by its' tenants,

    how has your life improved?

    Now that you are able to think freely and determine your own destiny, what are you doing now (or can do if you choose), that you didn't or couldn't do before, without being laden with guilt by the delusional Christian belief system that you were taught?

    I look forward to your response and to providing answers to your primary question(s).

    ReplyDelete
  29. I have been very consistent and don’t see how you think my statements have been contradictory; I think you just want them to be so you aren’t even trying to understand it. I want to clarify it for you but I feel it would be a waste of time and will get you off track from answering my question. So once you answer I will clarify if I need to.

    You are saying you get your morals from God, meaning you must think slavery, killing unruly children and slaughtering other nations is moral because God gave instructions for those actions and he wouldn’t give immoral instructions, right? You can find the instructions for these here - Lev 25:44-46, Exodus 21:17(but recommend reading all of chapter21), Deut 20:10-15.

    You said, “I will try to answer your question even though there is no clear or absolute understanding of what moral or immoral is.” But you say there is absolute morality, and all I am asking you to do is answer why these things are moral from your perspective. Because to me they are clearly immoral, so please correct me on why these are moral.

    If your goal is to convince me these things are moral than we are done with this conversation, and your God is not moral and if a moral god does exist - you are worshiping the wrong one. But the good news is, you won’t be going to hell for this mistake because there is no evidence for a hell. A moral god would not hide himself from you and then send you to hell for not believing in him. So don’t be too freaked out.

    I will be happy to answer your last question when you answer mine. I don’t want my answer to get you off onto another tangent. But I do want to answer it, even though I think I answered it at the end of the piece you read about how I became an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm not the "Anonymous" that's been writing but I have read some of your posts. It's been a few years now but I was once in a confused state myself. I feel you have had some trauma in your life that has hurt you more than you realise. A good source to help you with this is Receiving by Faith...http://www.creflodollarministries.org/Broadcast/Broadcast.aspx I wish you well...be blessed and step out and see what God can really do in your life. MJ

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thanks for the comment, I am not confused and actually see things and understand the world now better than I ever have. I have not had any trauma in my life, but if I have it would be understanding that all my life I was delusional for believing in a god that didn't exist. Facing that reality was a little difficult but I definitely prefer reality to fantasy.

    I do not need to receive faith, faith is what people use when they don't have evidence for believing. And I value evidence over faith and yo should too, otherwise how do you decided which religion to follow. There are around 30,000 different sects of religion and faith is the reason people believe in them, not because they have evidence of it being true.

    If you are no longer confused, than you are welcome to answer the same question I asked "anonymous one".

    ReplyDelete
  32. Let me jump in for a moment. First, I'm a member of the clergy who no longer believes in the bible. I've done extensive research over many years and the glaring results points to the bible as being a very flawed document. Ted pointed this out, but it was met with a response out of the bible. You can't prove anything from the bible by using the bible. To prove a statement from the bible you need to bring in supporting evidence from other areas. (science, history, archeology etc). The argument that morals can't exist without god is baseless. As a general principle, humans know innately right from wrong. You don't have to tell a toddler that taking his friends candy is wrong. They know it. They sneak around the couch and hide to eat it. Animals also support this theory. They care for one another, punish theft, and the like.
    This subject is very expansive and can't be addressed in such a confining forum. If you are honestly seeking truth, then I challenge you to get out of your box. Read from a large variety of positions. Don't just continue to feed your philosophies by only reading those who agree with you. A good place to start on this subject is Sam Harris' book, "The Moral Landscape". Don't be afraid to leave the saftey of christian authors. If your faith is as strong as you say, then you have nothing to worry about.
    ~Lynn- member of the clergy project

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ted,

    From Anonymous One

    You said, “all I am asking you to do is answer why these things are moral from your perspective. Because to me they are clearly immoral, so please correct me on why these are moral.”

    You are also asking why should you be believe in a God who would condone such immoral activities.

    Since you did not respond to my questions about your worldview in my previous response I will presume you agreed with the points I presented and have reiterated to some degree below.

    In order to respond to your questions I will need to preface my response with what I believe you are asking and what you are stating.

    You have decided to no longer believe in God because:

    You believe the bible verses you gave me are directives from God.

    Therefore, God cannot be moral because you believe these are immoral actions. You have not stated why you think they are absolutely immoral.

    You believe that everyone and each society has a right to make their own moral value system.

    God is immoral based on what you believe is immoral:

    Therefore, you do not want to believe or have chosen not to believe He exists because He does not conform to your belief system of morality.

    God does not have the right to determine what He believes is moral.


    You believe these alleged directives from God are immoral because:

    Morals are based on one’s belief that an action is moral if it “is preferable to life”, (your words) Only you have the right to determine what is preferable, correct??

    And the action taken as a result of the directives are immoral if suffering is involved. (your words, although you don’t discuss what is suffering)

    Even though morals are not absolute and vary with each society and individual:

    God must be held accountable to our definition of morality, even if our definition may change depending on what we believe at any given point. There are no absolutes, right?


    If I understand your world view correctly as stated above; then, I will present my answer based on my presupposition that there is a God and that God is not only moral but is the standard I use for determining morality on any issue.

    I will try to have a response for you within a week. It may take longer.

    Since your belief or non-belief in God and therefore your eternity hang on finding an acceptable answer, I want to make sure I present a logical, rational and methodical response to your questions.

    You asked me to provide an answer based on my beliefs. It will be up to you to determine your response. I believe you have honestly searched for truth in the past, but have now become more and more biased against God and any form of religion. If you allow your bias to cloud your reason then you will not believe anything I present.

    If you fail to see the reason and logic in my argument then you will have a difficult time finding truth anywhere and will definitely not find what you want here,

    I believe there are absolutes and standards we use to judge any action. If you do not see these truths in my upcoming response then your belief in God is no longer a mind issue.

    As a result, the truth may never be visible to you because you have chosen to harden your heart to God.

    Stay posted…I will return!

    ReplyDelete
  34. I really shouldn’t be responding since you haven’t answered my question yet, but I’m being lenient. I didn’t respond to your understanding of my world view because I just want you to answer the question. So I’ll clear up what you misunderstand about my world view.

    There is no absolute truth, but what is “preferable to life” is not my preference but what is preferable/best for humanity as a whole. And there is no contradiction there with “No absolute truth”. Because science is discovering new things all the time and when new information presents itself than we can and should re-evaluate things. Those things will not change drastically but will only continue to refine our morals and our view of the world.

    To say I have hardened my heart toward God or any religion is ridiculous. Why aren’t you a Muslim, or Mormon, or any other religion other than your own? Have you hardened your heart to those? Or is it because you grew up in a family that was Christian and the majority of your peers were Christian? Have you studied other beliefs to make sure you are making the right decision? Because if you can’t answer the simple question about the bible that I’ve been asking for a couple weeks now, you really need to re think your beliefs.

    I don’t think you have hardened your heart toward those other beliefs, I think you have just ignored logic and reason because it is comfortable for you to believe in your God.

    If you really thought that there is absolute truth and it comes from your God, than you would have answered my question a long time ago with, “yes slavery is moral, killing unruly children is moral, and slaughtering nations that don’t believe as you is moral”. You would have to answer it that way if you really got your morals from God.

    Do you think you know better than your own God? I would say you do, and because you know better you are struggling to reconcile these actions. And that should be proof that morals do not come from god. Those instructions and the entire Bible, were written by men who had an extremely narrow world view and for all the things they didn’t have answers to such as “why does it rain? Why does the sun come up routinely?, why is the air blowing? (wind) etc,” their answer was it must be a god. And that is why there are so many different gods that developed throughout the world.

    The morals you think came from God, are actually morals from men who thought they could communicate with God through sacrifices to keep him happy, to thoughts that popped into their head that they thought were God speaking to them. This is why those verses and the Bible is not a moral guide. Sure there are some good lessons to learn from the bible, but that is because they were doing the best they could to come up with morals that would make society better. But we have surpassed those morals and the fact that you don’t believe slavery is right is evidence of that.

    You have access to knowledge that the men who wrote the Bible couldn’t even imagine, and you have never met anyone in your life with a world view as narrow as those who wrote the bible or were written about in the bible.

    I don’t foresee you agreeing with me, but if you do great. If not, then I’ll keep waiting for your answer.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ted,

    From Anonymous One December 25, 2011

    You stated in your response December 11, 2011 7:47 pm that “if your goal is to convince me these things are moral than (sp) we are done with this conversation”.

    You tell me you want to know about these verses and then you qualify any response I might make by saying you already know the truth and any other response will be discarded. Wow, it sounds like a very deep rooted problem in dealing with things you don’t want to hear.

    You also tell me there is no absolute truth but you have already made up your mind that there is an absolute truth about these verses.


    I thought you were open minded and wanted to know the truth, even if it may be in opposition to your present belief system. Maybe you are not really as open and free as you claim?

    I also find it very difficult to believe that you just happened to hear two people (that you didn’t know) debate Christianity vs. atheism and then made a choice based on what (?), eloquence of speech. You then discussed this with a few others and then changed your entire belief in what your parents and others taught you, for I presume a lot of years? There has to be more to the story that isn’t being told!

    Regarding the bible verses in question (My answer is in the following pages), you already by your own definition of morals (“preferable for life as determined by the society”) have agreed that they were moral actions.

    You then tell me that morals depend on what is best for the society except in this case.

    You need to make up your mind on what you really believe and what you want!

    My goal is to help you understand the history of the society you are questioning and to show you why I believe what I believe. The decision from there is up to you. If you are afraid to search for the truth then so be it but don’t claim that you gave up on God because you proved he didn’t exist or that someone was afraid to discuss the facts with you.

    The reality and morality of God

    In order to discuss this in a rational manner I must first preface my answer with this fact. In my world view there are absolutes based on a God that created the universe and placed it in order. Therefore it has logic, consistency and absoluteness. Following this, I presuppose the existence of God and following that presupposition I find that logic works, consistency is a part of life and there are absolutes.

    In the atheist world view the presupposition is that life just happened (evolution) and that over millions of years, accidents and genetic mutations (evolution) occurred that caused the world and life as we know it today to exist. There is no controlled order to the universe, it just happens to work. Correct me if I’m wrong but that is my understanding.

    In the words of atheists “we are free because life is meaninglessness”. In an article dated 9-7-2004 Robert Meyer discusses Gould’s (a prominent Harvard atheist)theory.

    “Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments. He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."

    As a result in their (atheists) world view, occurrences are merely that, just things that happen… Therefore everything is based on what and how they see life and what they believe and what their society believes at a particular moment in time. There is no meaning to life!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Continued from Anonymous One

    December 25, 2011

    The Answers

    The bible verses in question that you believe are immoral:

    Leviticus 25:44-46
    Exodus 21 all of chapter 2 but specifically vs. 17
    Deuteronomy 20:10-15

    Point One

    Clearly these are actions that are not pleasant, but that is not the question. The question is, “are they commands from God and are they moral actions?”

    Let’s take the first part, are they commands from God?

    In Deuteronomy we find a historical study of the Israelites (pre-Christ) after they left Egypt, where they were held in captivity for years. How did they get there? A brief review of history will help us understand the situation and circumstances surrounding the verses in question.
    This book was written by Moses the leader of the Israelites.

    See Wikipedia “Deuteronomy
    “The book consists of three sermons or speeches delivered to the Israelites by Moses on the plains of Moab, shortly before they enter the Promised Land. The first sermon recapitulates the forty years of wilderness wanderings which have led to this moment, and ends with an exhortation to observe the law (or teachings); the second reminds the Israelites of the need for exclusive allegiance to one God and observance of the laws he has given them, on which their possession of the land depends; and the third offers the comfort that even should Israel prove unfaithful and so lose the land, with repentance all can be restored.”


    Joseph, a son of Jacob, was sold into slavery by his brothers because they were jealous. Joseph through following God became the second in command in Egypt and brought his family to Egypt. AS their number grew Pharoaoh became concerned and turned them into slaves.

    Israelites were slaves for many years in Egypt,
    Mother put Moses in a basket to save him,since all children 2 years old and under were being slaughtered.

    Raised as an Egyptian prince,
    His adoptive father was pharaoh who according to Egyptian lore represented the gods.

    He found out his mother was Jewish,
    He killed an Egyptian to save an Israelite slave,
    Ran away,

    Finally met God in the desert at the burning bush,

    Went back home to Egypt to help his people get freedom,
    His adoptive father pharaoh ruled over life and death and defined morality,

    Israelites eventually freed after death angel came through Egypt,
    Crossed the Red Sea

    God gave Ten Commandments so people would have guide lines. (Atheists don’t want guidelines they must be held accountable to, except those they make.)

    Moses judged the people
    His father-in-law told him to get help judging

    Selected others to help and set up the laws by which his people would be judged known as the Law of Moses.

    Deuteronomy means the second law.
    The law set forth by Moses stated that if a son was a drunkard and unruly and would not respond to authority then if he was found guilty he would be stoned to death. (The accepted method of capital punishment at the time)
    Reason for penalty. It was given to keep others from disobeying the laws

    God did not give the laws in Deuteronomy, Moses did.
    We find no direct statement that God told the people or Moses to make a law that says kill your son for being a drunkard etc. Did he allow them to make it and enforce it…yes, we are free beings to choose good or bad?

    It was not an immoral act; it was the action of a son breaking the laws of the society he lived in (approx. 6th or 7th century BC). The son was not a child. The son was a drunkard and unruly and it obviously was not a first time offense. He disobeyed rules of the society. Since he was brought before a trial of the elders he was old enough to be held accountable for his actions. He was found guilty and condemned to die. Those that stoned the man’s son to death were not immoral in their actions any more than we could find our judges and jurors immoral for finding someone guilty of a crime against the laws of the U.S. and sentencing the guilty party to death by whatever means the court approved per the laws.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Continued from Anonymous One

    December 25, 2011

    The person flipping the electric chair switch, or inserting the needle with poison or releasing the gas in the death chamber are not held liable and found guilty of any immoral action. It is their responsibility to do so in order to maintain order in our society.

    The Israelites had laws that governed their actions just as every society does. There was a penalty for breaking them.

    Are these laws always what God wants, no but because of man’s rebellion from God we live in a corrupt and evil world. That doesn’t make God immoral for allowing it; no it just makes us free to do what is right or wrong! You do the crime you do the time or in some cases you die!

    If we say God is guilty of an immoral act then we would have to say that the President of the U.S. is guilty, as well as our courts and even the citizens that vote the people in that make our laws.

    We might as well take the guilt all the way back to the beginning and say God was immoral for making people that had the ability to become immoral!


    If you do that you open up a huge can of worms because you stated that morals are not absolute and individuals and societies have the right to create their own moral value system!

    The Israelites did just that, so how you say they were immoral at the time they did it? You weren’t there. You don’t know what and why they had their rules anymore than you probably understand all of the rules/laws of the U.S. If you use that concept then every time we make a new law we should go back and condemn those under the old law. After all we would find them guilty today of breaking the old law, even though their actions were not guilty or wrong at the time they acted.

    If you want to really find out what was God’s direction; then read about the prodigal son. This is a perfect example of God’s grace and love for those that sin against Him.

    Regarding Leviticus Chapter 25.

    God didn’t tell the people to “make” slaves but told them to go out where slaves were a part of another society and buy them…not to make someone a slave, especially their own people. He added the provision for the slaves ultimately to be free, something they didn’t have under their former masters.

    Leviticus 25: 43-46

    Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
    44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

    Was this God’s perfect plan? No, but he did make certain rules or laws for the Israelites to follow if they decided to take for themselves slaves. He even gave them guidelines if they wanted to sell themselves due to poverty.

    Verses 47-49
    47 “‘If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the foreigner’s clan, 48 they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Continued from Anonymous One

    December 25, 2011

    Slavery was an accepted and moral part of the societies living during this time period. God allowed man to dominate another man because of their refusal to obey God’s original and perfect plan.

    We cannot go back in time and condemn others for their actions. We can say, that in our society today in the U.S., slavery is unacceptable and we now have laws against it.

    Should we find God guilty of immorality or deny His existance for allowing our former presidents and others in America the right at the time they did so to have slaves, of course not.

    There are many things that were done in the past and that are being done today that are immoral. Without an absolute standard of morality (right and wrong) then by what guidelines do we judge anyone?

    The Atheist Motive for the Non Existence of God

    It is obvious from the quote by Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) a well-known atheist and brother of the atheistic evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley who advocated for a drug-fuelled utopia. He was also obviously known by the well known Harvard atheist Steven J. Gould, a major proponent of atheism in the U.S.

    He said “I had a motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning… the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”

    He, like most atheists, didn’t want moral constraints placed on his immoral activities. He liked his own rules better…should I presume you do too?

    If everything is “meaninglessness” then one cannot feel bound or hindered by some type of non-changing moral system. If you are just another evolutionary by product then enjoy being an animal and let the strongest survive and kill the weak. Mate with whomever and whatever you want. What difference does it even make if the majority of your society disagrees; after all there are no absolutes about anything!

    Deuteronomy 20

    War and the rules that govern it.

    God does not want man to war against man but they will because they want dominion over others…just like today and throughout history. In this verse He gave the cities and the men the opportunity to give up peaceably and told them what would happen if they didn’t. They chose to continue disobeying God and God set the rules of engagement and to whom the spoils would go. Those spoils included the women and children. Immoral today?

    It depends on which society you talk to and again in your own words, societies and people have a right to make up their own morals, just like you are doing today!

    Do I think the actions were moral? Against God’s ultimate standard, no, but because of their hardness and refusal to obey Him it happened. There are always penalties for disobedience to the authority in charge.

    Deuteronomy 20: 12-18

    12And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
    13And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
    14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
    15Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Continued from Anonymous One

    December 25, 2011

    God promised the Israelites a special land. The land at the time was controlled and inhabited by people that rejected God and His laws. It was the custom to kill the males so that they would not rise up in the future in rebellion if they failed to surrender. It was their choice.

    verses
    16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
    17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
    18That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

    These particular people God wanted destroyed because of their partuclarly evil ways and wickedness. He did not want the Israelites to become like them or be influenced by them. They committed a crime against God and the punishment was death!

    Quote from W. Max Muller: Referring to the Amorites (all of these tribes were linked)

    "God did not want His people to be associated with this evil people! To the apocryphal writers of the first and second pre-Christian century they are the main representatives of heathen superstition, loathed as idolaters, in whose ordinances Israelites may not walk (Lev. xviii. 3). A special section of the Talmud (Tosef., Shab. vi.-vii. [vii.-viii.]; Bab. Shab. 67a et seq.) is devoted to the various superstitions called "The Ways of the Amorites." According to the Book of Jubilees (xxix. [9] 11), "the former terrible giants, the Rephaim, gave way to the Amorites, an evil and sinful people whose wickedness surpasses that of any other, and whose life will be cut short on earth." In the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (lx.) they are symbolized by "black water" on account of "their black art, their witchcraft and impure mysteries, by which they contaminated Israel in the time of the Judges."



    Exodus 21:17

    17 “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."

    My thoughts:

    This was a very serious crime at that period of the Israelites history. To curse someone was to acknowledge demonic powers and call upon those powers to inflict someone with suffering. It is not the same as we think of cussing or cursing today. You are looking at a law from a middle-eastern society over 3000 years ago. Why are you picking on something that happened so long ago. The New Testament brought grace and changed the old laws.

    If you want to quote old laws then try closer to home. We have laws still on the books that are ridiculous.

    I would consider some of today’s laws extremely immoral. You seem to be bothered about children, drunkards and babies being killed. Why aren’t you out protesting the policies of abortion in China and the U.S.?!

    Oh, I forgot, our country decided it was for the benefit of the majority to kill unborn babies right into the third trimester. Check out the facts!
    According to our own government statistics over 50 million babies were killed from 1973 until 2008!

    I guess Hitler and Stalin and Linen weren’t so bad after all compared to what our government allows!

    The U.S. has killed enough babies to relace the population of California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana today. I’m sure with your worldview you don’t have a problem with that, since it wasn’t directed by God, or do you agree it is immoral as well?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Continued from Anonymous One

    December 25, 2011

    The life of Moses who made the laws.

    He grew up under Pharaoh, knew their laws, there were no prophets guiding them to God. Israeli people knew about Father Abraham and their society rules set up years earlier.

    Ten Commandments from God

    Law of Moses from Moses

    God allowed them to make rules for their society, just as He allows us to do. Does that make God immoral if we make immoral laws – no?

    Our society says abortions are legal. Is that immoral “yes” but not according to the law.

    You create something...a golf club…someone uses it to kill…are you immoral as the creator?

    Or let’s get closer to home, your parents created you (like it or not you didn’t evolve). You decide to become an atheist and further decide that all Christians are delusional and should be killed for the good of the society (Hitler and the Jews, Stalin, Lenin and the Russian people), so you start killing Christians. 51% of society agrees with you, therefore it “is preferable for the majority of the people”.

    Is it an immoral act or not? Suffering must be cast aside for the sake of the majority. There will always be some that claim they are suffering but we must look out for the best for the majority.

    According to Ted Musk IT WOULD SEEM TO BE PERFECTLY MORAL!!

    Yet, you want to condemn God because He doesn’t fit in to your world view regarding something that happened thousands of years ago.

    I hope this provides you with some insight into the verses you are having trouble with.

    Think about WHAT you believe and WHY you believe.

    Were you really a Christian or just someone from a Christian home that saw things he didn’t like?

    Does your lifestyle now reflect a moral decision that you made that conflicts with Christianity?

    Did some alleged Christian’s lifestyle make you think Christians are hypocrites?

    There are lots of problems with the world and no one, including Christians and atheists, is perfect.


    Some questions to think about.

    Why are you so determined to be an evangelist for atheism?

    Why do you feel so adamant about pressing your beliefs on someone else?

    What is the point in convincing someone that God doesn’t exist?

    Do you get some strange pleasure in it?

    Do you expect them to be eternally grateful for removing their hope and replacing it with “meaninglessness”?

    If there are no absolute rights and wrongs then what are you trying to prove?

    I have difficulty understanding the hatred that atheists have for God and Christians in particular. Please enlighten me with your wisdom and knowledge that guides you on this misdirected journey.

    Can your scientists show “hope” or the “concept of truth” in a test tube or prove it using the scientific method?

    They have searched for years and haven’t found life anywhere in the vast universe, except earth, but they continue to spend billions of dollars in the “hope” that it is out there somewhere! It sounds like they “believe” without having empirical evidence, so get them straightened out also.

    Concluding statement:

    In your worldview there are no absolutes or truths; therefore no laws of logic, no moral absolutes, no uniformity of nature or the universe, no true understanding of reality, no cause for belief or unbelief, no ability to reason and without reason no cause for our discussion.

    Sincerely,

    Anonymous One

    Please take your time and review my points carefully before you respond.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ted,

    Just another short note-there is no neutral position. You are either for God or against Him. You can't just say neither because you don't believe He exists. He demands justice and offers grace. All have sinned and all will be judged. Many men have sought to be god. Grace is provided by the only God that became a man.

    I sincerely hope that you will remember your life when you were a believer. You mentioned that it was great which leads me to think you really want to believe. Reason and logic only point to one God.

    Anonymous One

    ReplyDelete
  42. That is a lot to respond too and a lot of twisting my words and making assumptions that I need to clear up. Because there is so much, I’m not going to take the time to respond to everything or even waste time clearing up things you have twisted. But if I don’t respond to something that you were really looking forward to hearing my response please let me know and I’ll make sure to do that.

    But you said maybe I’m not as open-minded as I think I am. But I have at least shown that I can change my mind on a subject that I felt very strongly about. I have changed my views on many things, and did that by looking at the evidence, facts, and thinking logical about it. I remember I use to despise Richard Dawkins for saying God doesn’t exist and people are delusional for believing in one. Years later when I actually looked deeper into the issues I changed my stance. (and no, there is no hidden story behind me becoming an atheist like you may think)

    I do appreciate you answering the question I’ve been asking. Here is the main problem I have with the answer. You said, “God allowed them to make rules for their society, just as He allows us to do.” That does make him immoral. You said you have a family so I assume you have a child. I would hope you wouldn’t give you child rules for killing someone just because you can’t control their behavior. Giving them rules to do so is only condoning the behavior.

    If a moral god existed and didn’t think slavery is moral than giving rules for that behavior is not moral, and by not saying slavery is wrong it only made this behavior continue longer and made the problem worse. If your god was really all knowing he would have known that by giving rules to this it would only make the problem worse.

    Plus, you have been arguing that there are absolute moral truths, but then you say back 2000 years ago those actions were acceptable because of the time they were living. If you say that, than you can’t also be arguing there are absolute moral truths, because what is immoral today would also be immoral back then, because they are absolutes.

    Again you asked me many questions, and one I feel needs a response is, “Why are you so determined to be an evangelist for atheism?” First I don’t personally press my “beliefs or lack of” on anyone unless they bring it up. Second, I do so because (faith – believing in something without evidence) is very dangerous. We wouldn’t have had events like 9/11, the Spanish inquisition, and countless other horrible actions based on what people thought were moral actions due to their faith. There are 30,000 sects of religion, that means even if you are right about your God, then there are still thousands of other religions that exist and their faith says they are right. So how does anyone come to the correct world view if faith is there way of deciding what is true? If you think I’m just critical of Christians you are wrong. And if Christianity is correct, then my little blog here is no threat to you, and can perfectly defend itself with evidence of it being true. We may disagree on many things but this should be one we do agree on. It is also why I wrote and post this http://discoveringreason.blogspot.com/2011/09/are-religious-leaders-given-too-much.html . If you care about the truth you would promote this idea and try and implement it in your church. I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.

    Again, I wanted to keep this short, so if there is something I didn’t respond to that you really wanted me to let me know and I will do so.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ted,

    From Anonymous One

    You ask for a response and an answer and I gave it to you. I'm sorry you failed to comprehend what I wrote. Take some time and read it again.

    Just because a society doesn't have absolute moral truths doesn't mean there aren't any! It just means the society in question doesn't have any, just like most societies today. Your logic doesn't work. That's like saying since an apple tree doesn't have any apples on it, it can't be an apple tree.

    You tell me faith is very dangerous.

    Question 1.
    Why is faith dangerous and on whose authority do we know that it is dangerous if there are no absolutes in your world?

    You have faith in scientists that have faith, without evidence, that there are life forms on other worlds.

    Question 2
    Does that make you or the scientists dangerous and what empirical proof do you use to make that decision?


    Question 3
    How do you define dangerous if there are no absolutes to gauge dangerous by?

    You say there are no absolute truths but then turn around and say it is absolutely true that faith is dangerous. You talk like there are no absolutes but use absolutes in your speech. You can't have both.

    Show me some scientific empirical evidence that explains dangerous.

    Yes, there are many things you didn't answer but I can see we need to take one at a time.

    Answer these few questions and we can move on.

    PS
    I'll check out your site on religious leaders but if you want to point out some hypocrites in the religious world there are plenty. That doesn't prove or disprove anything except man is basically wicked and needs redemption. I would never use a hypocrite to prove something!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ted,

    From Anonymous One


    Questions 4 & 5.

    How and on what basis can you possibly claim that since God gave mankind a free will that He is immoral?

    Do you have some empirical evidence from science that proves that theory?

    Please answer these 5 questions.

    ReplyDelete
  45. These questions have not been answered by Ted.

    This discussion has temporarily moved to "Are religious leaders given to much credit etc" Go to top right of this blog and click on that link to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Ted,

    You provide some very thought provoking reflections in this post. It sounds like you have given these things a lot of consideration. I would be interested to hear more about how you arrived where you are in your thought processes. Do you have another post I could read where you talk more about the path you have taken that led you to these conclusions?

    A great line I heard in a movie was “the forced introspection that crisis brings.” Was it crisis that forced you to do this deep thinking? If you will permit me to try and read between the lines, maybe you have experienced some of this first hand. My share of suffering has certainly forced me to do some thinking, and I always come out different on the other end. Going through a good deal of it right now as a matter of fact.

    I share your viewpoints in some important respects. Religion is often very shallow, the opiate of the masses, which puts it in the same category as drugs and alcohol, at least sometimes. Something to drown the pain for a few minutes. I agree it’s very hard to see it when you are on the inside, just like it’s hard for a fish to be aware he is wet.

    I am in early mid-life right now. When I was 17, my father, who had raised me devoutly Christian, said “Son, my God is not your God.” Needless to say I was caught off guard, stunned and shocked. When asked to interpret his statement, he explained that if I was going to be a Christian I needed to search it out for myself and not just go along because that’s the way he’d raised me. To borrow your words, it was “extremely tough for [me] to even want to consider losing that belief.” (Powerful Drug, paragraph 4) It was hard at first, but I think you would agree it was one of the wisest things he did for me. You probably have not met a lot of Christians who think like that.

    Instead of telling me not to question the Bible, he taught me to question everything. Instead of telling me to close my mind and “just have faith”, he did what you have already praised – he ‘introduced me to reason, and logic.’ (Powerful Drug, paragraph 4). I was left with questions like, “What about 17 year old Muslims whose devout fathers taught them instead to follow Allah? Who is right? How can I know?”

    Where I ended up at the end of my search is beyond the scope of these few paragraphs, but I will be happy to share more if you are interested.

    I would like to respond to your question, “So with everyone claiming their religion is correct, how do we put our beliefs to the test in order to discover which one is true?” (Religious Leaders, paragraph 3) I propose we adjust the wording slightly – and I think you’d agree this is within the bounds of scientific reasoning – to say “With everyone claiming their religion *or nonreligion* is correct, how do we put our beliefs to the test in order to discover which one is true?”

    I have just discovered a curious website, www.godlessprolifers.org, homepage of the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, "... because life is all there is and all that matters, and abortion destroys the life of an innocent human being." In stark oppostion there is Dr. Henry Morgantaler who, according to philosopedia.org, is an atheist, is one of the founders of the Humanist Association of Canada, and “has expressed pride in having performed 65,000 abortions.”

    How does one apply logic and reason to these opposing atheistic, nonreligious views, “to discover which one is true?”

    One last question – are you *sure* that logic, reason, and science lead you to truth?

    Tea Tree

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hi Tea Tree,

    I did write an article about how I became an atheist. I should probably post it on here since I get people asking that a lot. But you can read it here, http://voices.yahoo.com/how-converted-christianity-atheism-9048295.html?cat=34 (and to be clear, I used the word converted because yahoo was looking for conversion stories) When in reality all that happened was I realized my belief in God was false and no longer believed it due to lack of evidence. A better title would have been “How I Overcame My Delusions and Discovered Reality”.

    But to answer your other question, no, there was no crisis that lead me to question my faith. It was just due to being curious what others believed and why. I’ve always been curious about why other people do what they do and I’m surprised it took me as long as it did to question my own beliefs as strongly as I did a few years ago. But when you live in a bubble like I was living in it is easy to not question your own beliefs. I never really knew an atheist, was always around others who believed as I did and all this only reconfirmed my own beliefs/delusions.

    That is pretty rare for a Christian parent to encourage you to question a shared religion. So where do you stand now, are you Christian? Atheist? Other? Just curious on your current view.

    So for your abortion question, that could be a long answer. But the short answer is that the word “atheist” doesn’t describe anything about someone other than “do they believe in a god”. So just because someone is atheist doesn’t mean they are pro-choice. However, since most atheists make decisions based on facts and evidence they are more likely to come to the same conclusions on many issues.

    So your question, “How does one apply logic and reason to these opposing atheistic, nonreligious views, ‘to discover which one is true?’” First, I don’t think there is an answer that is “true”, but one decision is more favorable than the other. I’d recommend reading The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris, it is perfect for this question.

    Second, it is an extremely gray issue and there is no clear right or wrong answer. At the surface, it seems clearly wrong to have an abortion, but I think when digging deeper it becomes less clear. Issues such as, would the mom’s life be affected (meaning could she die while giving birth), can the parents provide for the child (and if not is it fair for society to pick up the slack), would the child’s quality of life be affected, earth is already over populated and food supply is going down while demand for food growing.

    There are obviously even more issues to consider (but I’m trying to keep this short), and once all these issues are taken into consideration if they even are, many people can come to a different conclusion even if they believe in a God or not.
    I do find it interesting that most republicans who are pro-life don’t like the thought of paying higher taxes to help support those children whose parents can’t afford them. Example: healthcare, food stamps etc… and the fact that anyone who is against these ideas and also pro-life shows me they are not fully thinking through their stance and only looking at it from the surface.

    And for your last question, “are you *sure* that logic, reason, and science lead you to truth?” I’m as sure as I can be, and if there is some other way that is better we haven’t discovered it yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ted,

      What do you mean by "one decision is more favorable?"

      Is it more favorable to the girl who keeps getting pregnant, the soon to be dead baby, or those of us paying the bills? Who cares?

      I don't care if it is more favorable to the girl. Why should I pay for it? Why don't we just kill the women that keep getting pregnant and the guys that impregnate them and save us all a lot of money? We should at least sterilize them and give them the bill! No more over population problems either!

      My science teacher says we all just evolved anyway so what difference does it make?

      Signed,

      Just Curious.

      Delete
    2. Ted,

      Lively discussion you have gotten going here...

      I could not find anything on this link: http://voices.yahoo.com/how-converted-christianity-atheism-9048295.html?cat=34.

      Can you help?

      Tea Tree

      Delete
    3. Ted,

      I am a Christian. To borrow a phrase, I try to be “fundamentalist without the attitude.” There is the way of living that Christ Himself taught, and then there is American Christianity. Unfortunately these two often have little in common. Part of the struggle to which I have previously alluded is trying to separate the two. It can be so hard to tell which is which, since I grew up inside the subculture of “Churchianity,” i.e., the so-called Christianity put forward by the American church in general.

      For example, I grew up believing a missionary is a white, middle to upper class, well educated, English speaker going to Africa to reach impoverished, starving black children who live in mud huts and wear rags. He does not just want to tell them about forgiveness. He wants to save them from being African, so they can be American like us.

      The older I get the more infuriated I become at the photographs that still depict this unChristlike arrogance. I need to take a couple deep breaths here – many missionaries go with pure motives, including when my father has gone on short term trips. But I would love to see photos of black missionaries talking to white children, or Korean children, or something besides a well groomed white man and a poor African child.

      Jesus did not come so white people could rescue starving Negroes. I remember when the light bulb went on and I realized we do not see Africans as our brothers, but as a charity project. My blood starts to boil even now, to think that I was taught as a child to be a sugar coated racist, and that I believed it for so long and never even knew it.

      Once a saw a painting of a “black” Jesus. I was mortally offended. Till I realized that all my pictures were of a “white” Jesus, which is equally odious. He was Jewish. Ever see a portrait of a Jesus who looked Jewish?

      Anyways, Ted, I still have a lot of baggage to work through.

      All that to say, I have no desire to defend Churchianity to you. I am quite captivated, however, by the Christ of the Bible. He knows how to draw a line in the sand. He never compromises truth, even when it offends. And He bestows compassion on the losers in society with uninhibited generosity. He can say to a guilty woman “I do not condemn you” (mercy and compassion) and “Go and sin no more” (upholds moral law) in the same breath. When I say I am a Christian, this is the Jesus Christ I am trying to follow.

      I had a bunch of other things to say but I’ll have to write back on another day.

      Respectfully,
      Tea Tree


      P.S. I couldn’t get the link to work that you gave me about your conversion story.

      Delete
    4. Ya, the ego’s on these people that think Americans are so much better than everyone else and somehow “God’s chosen people” are absolutely incredible. They have changed history into thinking Jesus was someone like them, when in reality he probably looked more like the muslims that they hate and consider their enemy. And the fact is we are all of African descent.

      If that is the Jesus you try to emulate that’s great. I would agree he was a good guy that was ahead of his time morally on most social issues but this doesn’t make him someone to worship/God. The reason being, the gospels weren’t written until 50-80 years after Christ’s death, and weren't even written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (authors back then often used a name of someone who would give instant credibility to their writings). Back then don't you think that it would be impossible to keep the story straight, we live in a time that info is so much easier to gather and we even have video cameras to record what people say and we still can’t get it right. But the story of Christ must not have been that exciting right after his death or they would have wrote about it sooner, it wasn’t until after many years of exaggerating the story that people finally thought it was something to write about. So it is absurd to think that the red letters in the Gospels are even what Jesus said when so many years went by before it was written. In today’s world it is hard to remember what someone said a week ago, now think about 50-80 years ago!

      If you just type into Google, “yahoo ted musk how I converted from Christianity to atheism” you should have no problem finding it. I’m sure one day I’ll post it on here. But if you want to learn about an even better conversion story much more detailed than mine, check out the Discovering Reason Facebook page and there is a youtube serious I posted a couple days ago that is excellent!

      Delete
  48. Just Curious,

    I hesitate to discuss this topic in this setting since there are so many different situations and we can’t treat them all the same. With each situation one could come to a different conclusion on what the right decision is. But when I said, “one decision is more favorable” I mean not just for the parents but also for the child and society.

    But I really don’t want to talk about this subject because it is not a black and white issue and there are countless variables. Being pro-choice doesn’t mean that the person likes abortion like conservatives like to paint it, just means it is an option in tough situations. I will say if someone is pro-life they need to also be ok with paying for those children that the parents can’t afford - especially in cases where the child has a severe illness and there are a lot of medical bills.

    I’ll take it that you were joking about killing the women and men who are getting pregnant. I agree with your science teach that we are evolved animals, but the difference is that we are conscience of ourselves and have created our own self-worth and meaning in life. For those that believe in God and that is their reason for being pro-life, I’d like to remind them that miscarriages happen every day. If those are acts of God then he is guilty of abortions as well (and lots of them). I know I wouldn’t have cared if I died in the womb since I wasn’t aware of the idea of life, but of course now that have been born it is a different situation.

    Hope that helps,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ted,

      I wouldn't kill or harm someone but I do have trouble understanding the difference in killing babies (unborn) and killing someone else (born) if it is just a matter of convenience or what is favorable. I saw an article last week about some doc that had killed over 65,000 babies. They'd hang me if I did that.

      Just Curious

      Delete
    2. Just Curious,

      Like I said this is a subject with a lot of gray area, so I can completely understand why you don’t understand the difference in abortion or killing someone who is living outside the womb and it is not my goal to convince you one way or the other.

      But I’m curious; do you think it is wrong for a mother to abort a baby even if she could die during birth? Let’s even say she is a single mom, pregnant with her second child and there are life threatening conditions with this pregnancy. What is the moral thing to do - continue the pregnancy and if she dies there are 2 children without a mother, or have an abortion so that the child she already has doesn’t lose a mom?

      I think if we look at abortion in a simplistic way then it seems like the moral position is to be pro-life, but I see that as being morally lazy and painting the issue with too broad of a paintbrush. I think it is morally wrong for a child to lose their mom when it could have been prevented. I also see it morally wrong for someone to bring a life into existence and then not be able to take care of it properly.

      I think too often when people think of abortion, they think of it as an easy way out for a couple who were being irresponsible, and they forgot about the other situations that occur.

      Delete
    3. Hey Ted,

      I'm not saying one way or the other but it seems like we have gone way past the argument about the mom dyin when we let docs kill babies up the last minute!

      I don't understand when you say its morally wrong to bring a life into existence and not be able to care for it. You telling me I have to know how my whole life is gonna work before I can have a kid or I'm not moral. No way.

      If we evolved so great then why can we have kids when were just 12 or 14?

      I my science tacher don't make sense either. We just evolved as a accident but we have some kind of value or purpose? Don't see how that fits.

      Just Curious

      Delete
  49. Hi Just Curious,

    I’m not saying someone has to know what their future will be like, but they should at least know if they are capable of providing for the child. And clearly there are many parents who cannot, many children are neglected, not feed properly, abused etc… and children who grow up in these situations are more likely to be uneducated and become criminals later in life. And then they are more likely to have children which they also can’t take care of. Of course there are exceptions, but those are exceptions and not likely to happen. It would be great if there was a big enough need for adoption, but there isn't and many kids would grow up without families.

    Sure, years ago people would have kids much younger, but the world has changed. We are no longer just hunter-gatherers; plus we didn’t live as long back then so it was beneficial to have children at a young age. So we have to realize the world is much different than it used to be.

    But like I said, this is not a black and white issue, but these are all things that need to be considered, so I’m open to hearing your opinions and how society would be if more and more children grew up with unfit parents.

    ReplyDelete