Gott Mit Uns: Open Letter to Atheists and Theists

[DemianHawthorne]

Glad to see my thread is getting some good responses.

I dont' necessarily agree with everything you say here, but the general idea is pretty close to what I believe.

I do think you demean people with faith too much. Just because someone believes in God does not mean they cannot be rational and intelligent. It is primarily, IMO, those who believe in the literal word of the Bible who are guilty of irrational thought.

Religion, not faith, is the enemy here. Most people of faith whom I know can still understand and promote the idea of evolution, both of man and of the universe, my own father among them. Should I belittle him because he still believes in a Supreme Deity? Not at all! It's only when he parrots the doctrines of the Catholic Church that I question him, respecfully.

There have been many respected, highly intelligent scientists throughout history who believed in God. There still are. There are, and have been, many physicians who believe in God and miracles, despite there being no physical manifestation of a soul in the bodies they deal with every day. This doesn't make them evil or stupid. Quite the contrary.

Surprisingly, a very powerful weapon against the zealots is the Bible! It is my experience that those who most deeply believe in the literal word of the Bible have very little true understanding of it. The Bible is filled with contradictions and most of those people tend to pick and choose among the versions which most appeal to them. And of course, it is only the particular version of the Bible which they happen to own which is the one true version: all others are heresy. Yet when you point out that the Bible is merely a translation of older texts and potentially filled with mis-translations and mis-spellings, they claim that God prevents such problems from actually happening. So how is it that there can be so many versions?

No, don't hurl your wrath at people who believe in God, but at those who cannot tolerate any belief other than their own narrow, narcissistic faith.

I never said religious people or people with faith couldn't be intelligent. Some of the smartest men who ever lived where theists after all. What I meant to say, if it wasn't clear was "How many people do you know who despite their religion are extremely intelligent?".

As for religion and not faith being the enemy here. I disagree. I have a problem with both faith and religion because all faith is is believing in something without evidence because you want it to be. Faith is the idea that desire = truth and to me, this is a very dangerous belief. Also I wasn't hurling my wrath and I apologize if it came off like that. I just like to debate and share my views. I tried to keep this fairly tame compared to some of the things I have said. o_O

You don't think theist don't ask those questions? I could list numerous books written by Christians about just those subjects. The various catechisms of the orthodox religions are a reflection of just the questions you accuse us of not asking. But you, in your infinite ignorance, actually thonk people of faith cannot ask questions.This indicates to me you have not truly looked for the answers to the questions, you decided you didn't like the answers.

Why is that when anyone speaks against religion, they are ignorant. Why is there this curtain around faith that makes it immune to dissection and criticism just like any other belief. Also, I do believe you misunderstand because you see to an atheist we he have to discover for ourselves why we are what we are. Why we exist and why we do the things we do. In other words, what is it that makes us us. As a religious person this is impossible to do. Yes you can "ask questions" but because of your belief you cannot help but arrive to the answer of God. If you believe a God created you and existence than the areas of the purpose of life and the purpose of your life cannot escape from this omniscient being. You can question perhaps WHY God created us but it cannot change the fact some infinite powerful being created us and thus has all the answers.

We can agree on that, which is why Christians have debated them for centuries, and before us other people of faith. Truth sets us free, and God is not the answer to these questions. The answers are much more profound than the ones you end up with because the only true answer you have is "I don't know." Those of us with faith don't believe God is the answer, but that he has the answers. A bit like your own belief at one time in your own parents. Faith is not a blind acceptance that God is the be all and end all, but the acceptance of not knowing. One of the best songs I have ever heard says "Maybe questions tell us more than answers ever will." That was written by a man of faith, and spoke to my heart in a time of crisis to assure me that faith is stronger than the storms.

But that's just it! Human begins are amazing creatures when it comes to figuring things out. Will we be able to answer every question before our species dies out, not even close but it shouldn't hamper us from reaching for the stars, but the believe in a deity would merely hold us back, especially when rules and regulations get added in on top.

Now I get it, this isn't about people of faith, it is about your uncle. If you have a problem with him being homosexual you need to deal with your feelings and not try to blame everyone else on the planet.

That's a joke right? I'm homosexual myself. =) Well, I like dominant women but as far as dating goes, guys only.

Now you are spouting ignorance. Grow up. If you were any more intolerant I could nominate you for some type of award.

The root of every inhumane act is religion? Then how do you explain the inhumane acts of animals? Or are you one of those people who think animals do not behave cruelly? If you are I will simply ask you to watch a cat toy with a mouse at some time in your life. Even when the cat is hungry and is going to eat the mouse it does not simply kill it.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how anything I said was ignorant. All of the things I cited above have really happened. The point of the last paragraph however was to show that religion is NOT where we get our morals from since the religious are just as capable of murdering, killing and genocide as anyone if not more so.

[Thorne]

What I meant to say, if it wasn't clear was "How many people do you know who despite their religion are extremely intelligent?".

I've known many. My father is one of them. I also socialized with a remarkably intelligent priest for a time. I didn't agree with his religion, but he didn't push it on me, either.

As for religion and not faith being the enemy here. I disagree. I have a problem with both faith and religion because all faith is is believing in something without evidence because you want it to be. Faith is the idea that desire = truth and to me, this is a very dangerous belief.

I disagree. Faith is believing in something for which no evidence is available. That doesn't make it wrong, provided that the belief conforms to known facts. It's when you maintain faith in an idea despite evidence to the contrary that faith becomes dangerous.

A person can have faith that he can fly simply by flapping his arms. There is no inherent danger in that faith until he actually tries to test it. Gravity's a bitch! But a person having faith in a God in Heaven is not, per se, dangerous. And there is no way, to date, of proving or disproving his belief.

Also I wasn't hurling my wrath and I apologize if it came off like that.

Sorry, the term "wrath" was being used metaphorically and not intended as an accusation.

[TheShadow.]

Why is that when anyone speaks against religion, they are ignorant. Why is there this curtain around faith that makes it immune to dissection and criticism just like any other belief. Also, I do believe you misunderstand because you see to an atheist we he have to discover for ourselves why we are what we are. Why we exist and why we do the things we do. In other words, what is it that makes us us. As a religious person this is impossible to do. Yes you can "ask questions" but because of your belief you cannot help but arrive to the answer of God. If you believe a God created you and existence than the areas of the purpose of life and the purpose of your life cannot escape from this omniscient being. You can question perhaps WHY God created us but it cannot change the fact some infinite powerful being created us and thus has all the answers.

Not anyone, just the ignorant ones that assume that faith makes people stupid. Your very statement that I cannot think for myself and question who I am and why I am here disregards the fact that religion is an attempt to answer those very questions. The answers may not be right, but they cannot be dismissed simply because you don't think religious people can think.

And I have a question for you, why are you assuming I believe God is omniscient? Who is the one jumping to conclusions without proof? You need to stop assuming you know my position and ask me before you try to attack it, that is the major fault of all atheists, you already think you know me so you don't listen.

But that's just it! Human begins are amazing creatures when it comes to figuring things out. Will we be able to answer every question before our species dies out, not even close but it shouldn't hamper us from reaching for the stars, but the believe in a deity would merely hold us back, especially when rules and regulations get added in on top.

Prove it. Otherwise I won't even attelpt to respond to so specious an argument.

That's a joke right? I'm homosexual myself. =) Well, I like dominant women but as far as dating goes, guys only.

And how does that change the fact that you don't like your uncle?

I don't see how anything I said was ignorant. All of the things I cited above have really happened. The point of the last paragraph however was to show that religion is NOT where we get our morals from since the religious are just as capable of murdering, killing and genocide as anyone if not more so.

That's because you said it, but turn around what you said and try me saying the exact opposite. You would decry it as ignorant and intolerant, so the label applies just as well to you. If you don't like it I would suggest your working on your opinions. Me, I expect people to be bigoted and narrow minded.

[Thorne]

why are you assuming I believe God is omniscient?

Whether you believe it or not is a matter of your own faith. However, the Catholic Church and, I believe, every major Christian religion, has that principle as one of their basic tenets: God knows everything; past - present - future.

[TheShadow.]

Whether you believe it or not is a matter of your own faith. However, the Catholic Church and, I believe, every major Christian religion, has that principle as one of their basic tenets: God knows everything; past - present - future.

Irrelevant to my position though. The man addressed me and thought I was silly for believing in something I don't believe in.

You don't have to be able to see something to know it exists. You can't see oxygen, but just try living without it. The atom has been proven to exist, through many detailed, and repeatable, scientific experiments. We know from experimentation that, if you combine certain atoms under certain conditions you will get the same result every time.

I've heard people who claim that something which seemed miraculous to them proves the existence of God. For example, someone surviving an accident which, by all rights, should have killed them. But there are far too many accidents in which someone who should have survived doesn't. Why didn't God intervene there?

I've heard people who claim that God must have created the world because it's just too complex to have developed on its own. Yet when confronted with the all too frequent breakdowns of those complex systems, something an infallible God should have been able to avoid, they place the blame on Satan. Why is it that anything bad that happens has to be Satan's fault, and not God's?

No, I'm afraid that we can never prove that God exists until the time that he stands in front of the world and proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that he does. But by the same token, we can never prove that he does not exist, either. It is, and always will be, a matter of faith.

Funny, where did I try to prove God exists? the thing is, that is not my job. Either he exists, and I am fine for believing in him, or he doesn't and I am wrong. Doesn't really matter unless I am right that he exists but wrong about who he is.

Anyway, the purpose of my post was to illustrate that people believe in a lot of things that they have no proof of except that people tell them it is real. On the other hand, I have built a homemade cloud chamber, and have proven to my satisfaction enough of the theories surroundin nuclear physics to accept them as real. Yet people stand up and call themselves skeptics yet blindly accept what scientists say, believing that they are better than me. Witness the OP in this thread as an example. I wonder if he ever thought to question science, or simply accepted them blindly and without question.

Bit ironic, don't you think?

[Thorne]

Funny, where did I try to prove God exists? the thing is, that is not my job. Either he exists, and I am fine for believing in him, or he doesn't and I am wrong. Doesn't really matter unless I am right that he exists but wrong about who he is.

I didn't mean to imply that you did try to prove it. Obviously you must believe there is enough evidence to justify your faith in God, but that does not mean you have to try to prove his existence.

Actually, I think from what I'm seeing here that you and I are approaching the same point of view from different sides. We believe what we believe and don't feel the need to prove our positions to anyone. The real difference between us is that you believe in God, and if you're wrong you lose nothing. I don't believe in God, and if I'm wrong, I'm screwed!

Anyway, the purpose of my post was to illustrate that people believe in a lot of things that they have no proof of except that people tell them it is real. On the other hand, I have built a homemade cloud chamber, and have proven to my satisfaction enough of the theories surroundin nuclear physics to accept them as real. Yet people stand up and call themselves skeptics yet blindly accept what scientists say, believing that they are better than me. Witness the OP in this thread as an example. I wonder if he ever thought to question science, or simply accepted them blindly and without question.

Bit ironic, don't you think?

Well I, for one, don't necessarily take scientist at face value. I always try to make certain that one scientists claims have been checked, double checked and triple checked by those considered responsible, and then I do my best to understand what has been stated. That's not always easy so yes, I do sometimes have to make the assumption that those dozens of scientists who have corroborated the data are right. Still, I always reserve the right to change my opinion pending receipt of new data.

I remember when cold fusion was being touted in the newspapers as the greatest breakthrough in scientific history many years ago. Scientists, those with the resources and the training, immediately set about trying to duplicate the results, working quietly and diligently. For my part, while I would have liked to see something like that work, I do know enough science to have had serious doubts.

It's true that we all have to take some things on faith at some point. We have to pick and choose our battles. I prefer to place more faith in a system that at least tries to correct itself through repeated experimentation and peer review than in a system whose only source of "data" is a book which has undergone numerous rewrites and translations after being written down from an oral history handed down through generations of "believers".

[TheShadow.]

I didn't mean to imply that you did try to prove it. Obviously you must believe there is enough evidence to justify your faith in God, but that does not mean you have to try to prove his existence.

Actually, I think from what I'm seeing here that you and I are approaching the same point of view from different sides. We believe what we believe and don't feel the need to prove our positions to anyone. The real difference between us is that you believe in God, and if you're wrong you lose nothing. I don't believe in God, and if I'm wrong, I'm screwed!

I agree with that, mosy of my response to you was based on your replies to what I said anyway, and was not about disagreeing so much as clarifying my position.

And as far as you being screwed, not necessarily. As I often tell pepole when they try to pin me down about who will go to heaven, that is a management decision. I can actually point to Bible verses that indicate that everyone will be given a second chance to make a informed decision about following God, which really drives a lot of people nutty. They really go apeshit when I tell them that I really don't think anyone will actually go to heaven.

Well I, for one, don't necessarily take scientist at face value. I always try to make certain that one scientists claims have been checked, double checked and triple checked by those considered responsible, and then I do my best to understand what has been stated. That's not always easy so yes, I do sometimes have to make the assumption that those dozens of scientists who have corroborated the data are right. Still, I always reserve the right to change my opinion pending receipt of new data.

I remember when cold fusion was being touted in the newspapers as the greatest breakthrough in scientific history many years ago. Scientists, those with the resources and the training, immediately set about trying to duplicate the results, working quietly and diligently. For my part, while I would have liked to see something like that work, I do know enough science to have had serious doubts.

It's true that we all have to take some things on faith at some point. We have to pick and choose our battles. I prefer to place more faith in a system that at least tries to correct itself through repeated experimentation and peer review than in a system whose only source of "data" is a book which has undergone numerous rewrites and translations after being written down from an oral history handed down through generations of "believers".

I understand, but if you examine all of the evidence you might find that that book has been proven to have existed essentially unchanged from a much earlier time than most believe, and is actually pretty reliable as far as things that can be checked.

[Thorne]

if you examine all of the evidence you might find that that book has been proven to have existed essentially unchanged from a much earlier time than most believe, and is actually pretty reliable as far as things that can be checked.

I have heard many different opinions about that, and I'm fairly well convinced that there is not all that much of the Bible which has remained unchanged. In the first place, the Old Testament is a conglomeration of morality tales, primarily, based on old oral histories and then the Torah. But there have been numerous revisions and translations and revisions of translations. The basic stories are the same, but many of the phrases, which may have meant one thing in Aramaic, meant something slightly different in Hebrew, and more different in Greek, then in Latin and then in English. It's like playing that old children's game of telephone, where each person has to pass on a message to the next person, with each person translating from what he was told by the previous person.
Even the New Testament has been revised since the first writings, with the leaders of the Catholic Church picking and choosing among the various gospels in existence at the time, then tossing the one's they didn't like. That doesn't mean that the one's they selected were accurate, just that they sold the message the Church leaders wanted to sell.
And, while there may be some archeological evidence to corroborate some portions of the Bible, there is an awful lot of blank space, things which one would suspect should have left traces, but for which no tangible evidence has been found.
So we cannot say that the Bible is unchanged; we cannot show that many, if not most, of the happenings in the Bible, including most of the New Testament, ever took place; we cannot even prove that some of the most important characters in the Bible actually existed. How, then can we say it has remained essentially unchanged for thousands of years?
And all that aside, when so many people who profess to believe in the Bible can interpret it in so many different ways, how are we expected, rationally, to accept it as gospel? No, I think I'll have to pass on the Bible as an historical artifact and interpret it more as a morality play, a teaching tool for the rules of society.

[Belgarold]

I understand, but if you examine all of the evidence you might find that that book has been proven to have existed essentially unchanged from a much earlier time than most believe, and is actually pretty reliable as far as things that can be checked.

To add to Thorne's great post, many of the parables and stories were added to the Bible by monks as late as the dark ages.

The powers that were also left out many books (The Gnostic Chronicles) which actually had Jesus saying, (and I am paraphrasing, sorry), "I am god, but you are too."

It was decided to leave out the book that described Jesus as a child was voted out of the bible.

And, to me, when you consider that the books of the New Testament were written 60 years after the events, you have to wonder.

I am sorry but the statement that the Bible has been unchanged for thousands of years just doesn't hold water.

And for the record I am not an Atheist, I have a strong, personal belief in God. But I do not think the Bible is the end-all be-all of religious thought. TO me God speaks to us through many means and many people.

The Bible has many good things in it, but as THorne alluded too, it is way too easy to interpretation. And it seems to me, most organized religions, are based on a few verses and they easily ignore the rest.

[leo9]

And as far as you being screwed, not necessarily. As I often tell pepole when they try to pin me down about who will go to heaven, that is a management decision. I can actually point to Bible verses that indicate that everyone will be given a second chance to make a informed decision about following God, which really drives a lot of people nutty.

Which verses are those? I would have thought the First Commandment pretty much settled it.

However, a great many religions don't actually hold that you won't go to Heaven unless you "believe" right; their position is that what matters is that you lived a virtuous life, who you prayed to is a secondary or even lower matter.

Following the "right" religion might give you useful pointers as to the approved kind of virtue (whether to rub blue mud into your navel on the Solstices or the Equinoxes), but if you get it right by pure inspiration, you qualify just like a True Believer.

I understand, but if you examine all of the evidence you might find that that book has been proven to have existed essentially unchanged from a much earlier time than most believe, and is actually pretty reliable as far as things that can be checked.

As a matter of interest, which excluded books of the Apocrypha do you consider part of this unchanged and accurate book, and which of the ones that were removed from it within recorded history were never part of it?

Are you aware that some of the "things that can be checked" are the Roman records of the history of Judea, and they show no record of, among other things, the census that supposedly took Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, or the Massacre of Innocents? (To name only the events large enough, from the point of view of the Imperial government, to have certainly been worth recording.)

Enquiring minds want to know.

[DemianHawthorne]

Not anyone, just the ignorant ones that assume that faith makes people stupid. Your very statement that I cannot think for myself and question who I am and why I am here disregards the fact that religion is an attempt to answer those very questions. The answers may not be right, but they cannot be dismissed simply because you don't think religious people can think.

-sighs- Ok. Let me try this again. If something created the universe, it knows everything that is in this realm it has made. The same way if I programmed a computer game, I would know all the rules, objects and reasons within this world I have created. Everything in my world would have a reason whether for aesthetic or support or whatever. If there is a god, as you say that has created everything than just like the computer programmer, he too would know the inner workings of our existence, why we do what we do, why there are so many stars in the sky. Everything! Unless your believe in God is some form of a Spinoza God or a cosmic child playing with blocks for my argument let's just focus on a somewhat intelligent creator. Now this being true NO you cannot think for too long without hitting the barrier of a God because our existence cannot be random. It can't be chance when some divine creator is the reason for everything. Sure you can delve into science and why evolution happens or why atoms react the way they do but in the end their reason for doing the things, you can enjoy philosophy and ponder why things are but you will always know they do is because "God made them that way".

And I have a question for you, why are you assuming I believe God is omniscient? Who is the one jumping to conclusions without proof? You need to stop assuming you know my position and ask me before you try to attack it, that is the major fault of all atheists, you already think you know me so you don't listen.

No.. it's just that there are more brands and flavors of God and Gods than there are brands of Rice-a-Roni. It's too tedious to try and argue every one of them. However a large majority of believers in a deity believe it to be omniscient so it's a safe place to start.

Prove it. Otherwise I won't even attelpt to respond to so specious an argument.

"Hey! These things called stem cells are great and could really help us one day!" "NO! That is an afront to the lord! Banned!"

And how does that change the fact that you don't like your uncle?

I like my uncle fine, I just used him as an example.

That's because you said it, but turn around what you said and try me saying the exact opposite. You would decry it as ignorant and intolerant, so the label applies just as well to you. If you don't like it I would suggest your working on your opinions. Me, I expect people to be bigoted and narrow minded.

What exactly are you saying here? That atheists are just as capable of evil things? Of course they are, we are all humans. However there is a myth that the rules of religions such as Christianity or Islam are unique and their follows believe their morals to be divinely inspired and good. When they are not. All I was doing was showing that no religion is not where we get our morals from.

[TheShadow.]

-sighs- Ok. Let me try this again. If something created the universe, it knows everything that is in this realm it has made. The same way if I programmed a computer game, I would know all the rules, objects and reasons within this world I have created. Everything in my world would have a reason whether for aesthetic or support or whatever. If there is a god, as you say that has created everything than just like the computer programmer, he too would know the inner workings of our existence, why we do what we do, why there are so many stars in the sky. Everything! Unless your believe in God is some form of a Spinoza God or a cosmic child playing with blocks for my argument let's just focus on a somewhat intelligent creator. Now this being true NO you cannot think for too long without hitting the barrier of a God because our existence cannot be random. It can't be chance when some divine creator is the reason for everything. Sure you can delve into science and why evolution happens or why atoms react the way they do but in the end their reason for doing the things, you can enjoy philosophy and ponder why things are but you will always know they do is because "God made them that way".

Why would I believe that? The only way God would have total control over the universe is if he did write it on some sort of super computer, and then did not make any provision for randomness in it.

If I wrote a game that made certain decisions based on how many particles a detector had counted in the previous fraction of time I would not know exactly what was going to happen, and the more randomness I built into it the less I would actually know about all those details you want to insist I believe God knows.

Just because I believe in God does not mean that "God made them that way is the perfect answer to any question. What if God wants us to understand not just that he did something, but why he did it? Simply knowing he did it would then be only the first step on our path to knowledge, and would force us to ask questions that science blithely ignores.

No.. it's just that there are more brands and flavors of God and Gods than there are brands of Rice-a-Roni. It's too tedious to try and argue every one of them. However a large majority of believers in a deity believe it to be omniscient so it's a safe place to start.

It isn't safe, it is just easy, and that simply makes you lazy. And the fact that you cannot even admit that shows that oyu are essentially no better than a theist who simply says "God made it that way."

"Hey! These things called stem cells are great and could really help us one day!" "NO! That is an afront to the lord! Banned!"

Wow, yet the proudly atheistic government of Sweden is insisting that scientists consider the feelings and dignity of plants before conducting research into ways to improve their health and food value. So again you are wrong, it is not a belief in God that holds us back, it is stupidity.

What exactly are you saying here? That atheists are just as capable of evil things? Of course they are, we are all humans. However there is a myth that the rules of religions such as Christianity or Islam are unique and their follows believe their morals to be divinely inspired and good. When they are not. All I was doing was showing that no religion is not where we get our morals from.

Those so called myths are not based on the religion or teachings of the prophets, but upon man's basic desire to do evil. That is the simple fact you are ignoring. Or, perhaps because you do not believe in God, you reject the idea of evil also, which just makes you a fool.