It’s certainlhy written from a different perspective from what I’m used to, I’m sure I’ll be quoting it in the future and claiming I thought of it first —
I know you don’t care about these things, Nate, but you’re just 9 short of having added 200 new subscribers since the Kathy debacle last summer.
(Yes, Peter, it was 274 last summer – that’s from the near-eidetic memory we’ve been told I don’t have – “No brag, jes’ fact!” – Walter Brennan, “Guns of Will Sonnett” TV series, 1967-69)
I wish they’d all chime in and say something, instead of just lurking – well, not all at once, but you know what I mean. Of course it’s hard to tell how many of them are Mike.
“I wish they’d all chime in and say something, instead of just lurking – well, not all at once, but you know what I mean. Of course it’s hard to tell how many of them are Mike.”
Perhaps at some point they will, but if they are lurking it’s likely they’re exploring their doubts and aren’t confident enough to jump into a conversation as…heated…as these have sometimes become. But they are curious enough to follow. So that is, at least, something.
Hi Ruth, I don’t know if I’ve discussed with you before, but if not, g’day. I am a christian, but hopefully a friendly one.
I wonder if you know that there are also people reading on this and other similar blogs who read the discussion and move towards christian belief and not away from it? I know or or have read some who have moved from atheism/agnosticism to christianity, and others who have moved from doubting christianity to stronger christianity.
These blogs have more than one purpose! And sometimes the things people say give rise to reactions different to what they intend. I suppose I am as likely to be a victim of that as anyone, which is a salutary thought.
I think it works most the way you say with Americans because non-belief is still a minority (though growing) view there, but here in Australia where the majority are vaguely theist but practically non-believers, I think it goes much more equally both ways.
I wonder if you know that there are also people reading on this and other similar blogs who read the discussion and move towards christian belief and not away from it? I know or or have read some who have moved from atheism/agnosticism to christianity, and others who have moved from doubting christianity to stronger christianity.”
I am aware of this, yes. I know people go through a Dark Night of the Soul and sometimes come out of it with a stronger faith. I am not so much concerned that people have a particular outcome but, rather, that they truly think about what it is they believe. To me, that is the something. While there are some who come away with a stronger faith, it is usually a changed faith – one that is less concerned with black and white rules and judgement and more concerned with a spirituality. My concern and my sincere desire is simply that people truly think about the things they think about.
Ruth, I couldn’t agree with you more. One of the Greek philosophers said “the unexamined life is not worth living.” While that’s a pretty extreme way of saying it, it’s a quote that I’ve long identified with. I don’t think everyone has to come to the same conclusion about things. Just reaching a point of acceptance and thoughtfulness is usually enough.
“While there are some who come away with a stronger faith, it is usually a changed faith – one that is less concerned with black and white rules and judgement and more concerned with a spirituality. My concern and my sincere desire is simply that people truly think about the things they think about.”
Hi Ruth, yes I did get an email notification, if that is what you meant.
I agree with you here. I have been a christian for more than 50 years, and I have been thinking and re-examining my beliefs all along, and even more in the last 10 years when I have been active on the internet. And some of my beliefs have certainly changed, which I think is good.
I agree with you too that it is good that people think more about their beliefs – at least those for whom that sort of thinking “works”. Some people are just not like that, whether christian or otherwise, and they tend to be more experiential and practical in their beliefs.
My comments are usually aimed at helping people think from a good basis in evidence, which sometimes makes for good discussion and sometimes gets me into hot water. I’ll see you around.
Why do Christians ask us to have faith in their supernatural claims if the evidence for these alleged events is as strong as Christian apologists claim?
Think about that.
Historians don’t ask you to believe the historicity of any other alleged event in history…”by faith”. So why do we need faith to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth if the evidence for this event is as strong as Christians claim?
No. The truth is, Christians ask you to believe their supernatural tall tale by faith because they know that the evidence for its historicity is so very, very weak.
“Historians don’t ask you to believe the historicity of any other alleged event in history…”by faith”.”
“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Educated Christian Americans, Muslim Iranians, Hindu Indians, and atheist Japanese all believe that Alexander the Great captured the city of Tyre; that Caesar crossed the Rubicon; and that Roman general Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. No one is asked to use faith to believe the historicity of these events. So why are we asked to use faith to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus if the evidence for it is “good”?
Answer: It’s not good. In fact, its terrible; nothing but assumptions and second century hearsay.
Christians ask us to believe their ancient, supernatural tall tale based on very weak evidence, and, a jump into the dark (faith). And how do they get us to make this jump into the dark? Not by presenting us with more evidence, but by appeals to our emotions and/or our fears: Either by using, “Our almighty, all-knowing god will protect you and give you eternal life (security and hope)”, or, “Our righteous, just, and holy god will torture you for all eternity if you DON’T make the jump (using blind faith).”
It’s an ugly, manipulative, sadistic superstition, folks. Unfortunately, it is the superstition used by the largest cult on the planet.
My comments are usually aimed at helping people think from a good basis in evidence,
Helping? You?
That is the funniest thing I have read all day.
And with all the verifiable evidence available I am sure you have heathens and other assorted non- believers beating a path to your door and blog in such hordes you probably have to beat them off with a signed copy of Aquinas, right?
Bottom line. On average, unless people are having an emotional meltdown of some sort or are familiar with your flavor of god belief such ”evidence” is less convincing than trying to demonstrate how dog crap smells like a bunch of roses.
But unkleE may find the evidence convincing, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with him expressing his opinion. in fact, I often like to have it as another perspective.
No. The truth is, Christians ask you to believe their supernatural tall tale by faith because they know that the evidence for its historicity is so very, very weak.
Maybe there are a few Christians who feel this way. I think most believe that the evidence for their beliefs is very strong. I know I viewed it that way. In fact, I remember wondering how non-believers could be so dismissive of something like Hell, when being wrong about that would be such a terrible fate. And I felt like the evidence for Christianity was incredibly strong — I mean, how could anyone deny how well the Bible fit together?!
Of course, there was a lot I didn’t know. And I was actually one of the more studious members of the congregation I attended. I knew a great deal about what the Bible said, but next to nothing about how we got it, or the textual criticism that pointed out its flaws. While I still believed faith was necessary, I didn’t think it really took a whole lot. I guess I felt like that Norman Geisler book title: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.
I think a couple of things are key to changing the landscape of Christianity in America. I think it will help when more people realize that they know some great people who aren’t religious. That’s how public opinion has shifted so dramatically toward the LGBT community, and I have no doubt it will work for us too. Secondly, I think better education about science and Christianity will have a huge impact. Much of that is driven by public opinion too. As people interact more with non-believers, they start to hear more of the evidence against Christianity, and that should help give them a fuller picture of the issues. Some will eventually leave Christianity over it, a few will just double down and become more extreme, but many of them will shift toward a more moderate and accepting version of Christianity.
If the evidence for Christianity were good, faith would not be needed to believe it. Period.
Christians may believe that the evidence is strong enough for THEM to believe, but they tacitly acknowledge that their evidence is weak when they ask potential converts to believe utilizing faith.
This needs to be pointed out to Christians over, and over, and over again, politely, yet bluntly.
Yeah, I do agree with that. It should never be a bad thing to say “I don’t know” or “I’m not convinced” about a subject, especially when it admits that it can’t provide evidence for every single aspect of it.
“Maybe there are a few Christians who feel this way. I think most believe that the evidence for their beliefs is very strong.”
Hi Nate, I agree with almost everything you wrote in this comment. I have long pondered why it is that thoughtful people can view much the same evidence (though admittedly we have different personal experiences) and come to such polarised views. And it isn’t just about religion, but also politics and some ethical issues. I have been reading a bit by psychologists and neuroscientists about how we make choices and will be posting on it soon. It seems that we like to think we make rational well thought out choices, but in fact we make most choices intuitively, unconsciously and/or emotionally first and then sometimes rationalise later. And if we do rationalise, we need our intuitive side to actually make a decision, otherwise we tend to not choose at all. I’m thinking this interplay between analytical and intuitive, which is different for each of us, might help explain some of this.
“I think a couple of things are key to changing the landscape of Christianity in America. …. Some will eventually leave Christianity over it, a few will just double down and become more extreme, but many of them will shift toward a more moderate and accepting version of Christianity.”
As an outsider, my views on US christianity are very much second hand, but I and many other christians believe US christianity has to change too. And I think it will happen just as you say here. So to some degree we are on the same “side” here, although of course you have taken option 1 while I have taken option 3. And I think the change is already well progressed, though maybe less so in the Bible belt where some of you live.
Nate and UnkleE: Although I prefer a nation of kind, empathetic secular humanists, liberal Christians are my second choice.
That said, I ask all my skeptic brothers and sisters to consider doing the following: Every day, when you get onto your laptop or PC, do a google search for Christian blogs with posts on a particular fundamentalist Christian core belief, such as “You must believe in Jesus or you will go to Hell”. Go onto five of those blogs, and leave a brief, polite, on-topic comment that challenges the superstition in question with rational arguments and contrary evidence.
I believe that if all skeptics would do this, every day, seven days a week, Christianity would rapidly decline as people are exposed to the REAL Truth…or at a minimum Christians will become more liberal, more tolerant, and more humanistic.
I have long pondered why it is that thoughtful people can view much the same evidence (though admittedly we have different personal experiences) and come to such polarised views.
Nothing to ponder about. We just have to accept that different people have different views and there is no absolute right or wrong.
Case in point: Should we kill 3 to save 2?
Perfect knowledge will not be able to help us make the “right” decision. Even if you argue that the 3 are 99 years old and dying soon, while the 2 are babies, there’ll still be people who believe that we should keep the 3 alive and let the 2 die. Even if you argue that the 2 babies will grow up to be wonderful revolutionary leaders in their fields while the 3 old men were good for nothing drunkards, there’ll be people who believe that sanctity of life means we shouldn’t cut short another person’s life.
What happens if the ratio change? Kill 3 save 100, Kill 2 save 1000? Kill 1 save the world? You get the idea. We will never be able to come to a full consensus even if all the facts are laid out. Same evidence, different conclusion.
Finding Truth 
well when you put it like that it all sounds silly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s certainlhy written from a different perspective from what I’m used to, I’m sure I’ll be quoting it in the future and claiming I thought of it first —
I know you don’t care about these things, Nate, but you’re just 9 short of having added 200 new subscribers since the Kathy debacle last summer.
(Yes, Peter, it was 274 last summer – that’s from the near-eidetic memory we’ve been told I don’t have – “No brag, jes’ fact!” – Walter Brennan, “Guns of Will Sonnett” TV series, 1967-69)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, that’s cool! I didn’t realize it had changed that much in just a year.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wish they’d all chime in and say something, instead of just lurking – well, not all at once, but you know what I mean. Of course it’s hard to tell how many of them are Mike.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“I wish they’d all chime in and say something, instead of just lurking – well, not all at once, but you know what I mean. Of course it’s hard to tell how many of them are Mike.”
Perhaps at some point they will, but if they are lurking it’s likely they’re exploring their doubts and aren’t confident enough to jump into a conversation as…heated…as these have sometimes become. But they are curious enough to follow. So that is, at least, something.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Ruth, I don’t know if I’ve discussed with you before, but if not, g’day. I am a christian, but hopefully a friendly one.
I wonder if you know that there are also people reading on this and other similar blogs who read the discussion and move towards christian belief and not away from it? I know or or have read some who have moved from atheism/agnosticism to christianity, and others who have moved from doubting christianity to stronger christianity.
These blogs have more than one purpose! And sometimes the things people say give rise to reactions different to what they intend. I suppose I am as likely to be a victim of that as anyone, which is a salutary thought.
I think it works most the way you say with Americans because non-belief is still a minority (though growing) view there, but here in Australia where the majority are vaguely theist but practically non-believers, I think it goes much more equally both ways.
Thoughtful discussion is good. Best wishes.
LikeLike
Hi, UnkleE
I wonder if you know that there are also people reading on this and other similar blogs who read the discussion and move towards christian belief and not away from it? I know or or have read some who have moved from atheism/agnosticism to christianity, and others who have moved from doubting christianity to stronger christianity.”
I am aware of this, yes. I know people go through a Dark Night of the Soul and sometimes come out of it with a stronger faith. I am not so much concerned that people have a particular outcome but, rather, that they truly think about what it is they believe. To me, that is the something. While there are some who come away with a stronger faith, it is usually a changed faith – one that is less concerned with black and white rules and judgement and more concerned with a spirituality. My concern and my sincere desire is simply that people truly think about the things they think about.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi, UnkleE,
I replied to you but I don’t think you’ll get a notification.
LikeLike
Ruth, I couldn’t agree with you more. One of the Greek philosophers said “the unexamined life is not worth living.” While that’s a pretty extreme way of saying it, it’s a quote that I’ve long identified with. I don’t think everyone has to come to the same conclusion about things. Just reaching a point of acceptance and thoughtfulness is usually enough.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“While there are some who come away with a stronger faith, it is usually a changed faith – one that is less concerned with black and white rules and judgement and more concerned with a spirituality. My concern and my sincere desire is simply that people truly think about the things they think about.”
Hi Ruth, yes I did get an email notification, if that is what you meant.
I agree with you here. I have been a christian for more than 50 years, and I have been thinking and re-examining my beliefs all along, and even more in the last 10 years when I have been active on the internet. And some of my beliefs have certainly changed, which I think is good.
I agree with you too that it is good that people think more about their beliefs – at least those for whom that sort of thinking “works”. Some people are just not like that, whether christian or otherwise, and they tend to be more experiential and practical in their beliefs.
My comments are usually aimed at helping people think from a good basis in evidence, which sometimes makes for good discussion and sometimes gets me into hot water. I’ll see you around.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why do Christians ask us to have faith in their supernatural claims if the evidence for these alleged events is as strong as Christian apologists claim?
Think about that.
Historians don’t ask you to believe the historicity of any other alleged event in history…”by faith”. So why do we need faith to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth if the evidence for this event is as strong as Christians claim?
No. The truth is, Christians ask you to believe their supernatural tall tale by faith because they know that the evidence for its historicity is so very, very weak.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Historians don’t ask you to believe the historicity of any other alleged event in history…”by faith”.”
LikeLike
Educated Christian Americans, Muslim Iranians, Hindu Indians, and atheist Japanese all believe that Alexander the Great captured the city of Tyre; that Caesar crossed the Rubicon; and that Roman general Titus destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. No one is asked to use faith to believe the historicity of these events. So why are we asked to use faith to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus if the evidence for it is “good”?
Answer: It’s not good. In fact, its terrible; nothing but assumptions and second century hearsay.
Christians ask us to believe their ancient, supernatural tall tale based on very weak evidence, and, a jump into the dark (faith). And how do they get us to make this jump into the dark? Not by presenting us with more evidence, but by appeals to our emotions and/or our fears: Either by using, “Our almighty, all-knowing god will protect you and give you eternal life (security and hope)”, or, “Our righteous, just, and holy god will torture you for all eternity if you DON’T make the jump (using blind faith).”
It’s an ugly, manipulative, sadistic superstition, folks. Unfortunately, it is the superstition used by the largest cult on the planet.
Let’s double our efforts to debunk it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Let’s double our efforts to debunk it. yes, please do that!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
Helping? You?
That is the funniest thing I have read all day.
And with all the verifiable evidence available I am sure you have heathens and other assorted non- believers beating a path to your door and blog in such hordes you probably have to beat them off with a signed copy of Aquinas, right?
Bottom line. On average, unless people are having an emotional meltdown of some sort or are familiar with your flavor of god belief such ”evidence” is less convincing than trying to demonstrate how dog crap smells like a bunch of roses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But unkleE may find the evidence convincing, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with him expressing his opinion. in fact, I often like to have it as another perspective.
Maybe there are a few Christians who feel this way. I think most believe that the evidence for their beliefs is very strong. I know I viewed it that way. In fact, I remember wondering how non-believers could be so dismissive of something like Hell, when being wrong about that would be such a terrible fate. And I felt like the evidence for Christianity was incredibly strong — I mean, how could anyone deny how well the Bible fit together?!
Of course, there was a lot I didn’t know. And I was actually one of the more studious members of the congregation I attended. I knew a great deal about what the Bible said, but next to nothing about how we got it, or the textual criticism that pointed out its flaws. While I still believed faith was necessary, I didn’t think it really took a whole lot. I guess I felt like that Norman Geisler book title: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.
I think a couple of things are key to changing the landscape of Christianity in America. I think it will help when more people realize that they know some great people who aren’t religious. That’s how public opinion has shifted so dramatically toward the LGBT community, and I have no doubt it will work for us too. Secondly, I think better education about science and Christianity will have a huge impact. Much of that is driven by public opinion too. As people interact more with non-believers, they start to hear more of the evidence against Christianity, and that should help give them a fuller picture of the issues. Some will eventually leave Christianity over it, a few will just double down and become more extreme, but many of them will shift toward a more moderate and accepting version of Christianity.
LikeLike
If the evidence for Christianity were good, faith would not be needed to believe it. Period.
Christians may believe that the evidence is strong enough for THEM to believe, but they tacitly acknowledge that their evidence is weak when they ask potential converts to believe utilizing faith.
This needs to be pointed out to Christians over, and over, and over again, politely, yet bluntly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, I do agree with that. It should never be a bad thing to say “I don’t know” or “I’m not convinced” about a subject, especially when it admits that it can’t provide evidence for every single aspect of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
FYI, Nate: Pastor Bill is readying a response for you.
LikeLike
Thanks, Gary
LikeLike
“Maybe there are a few Christians who feel this way. I think most believe that the evidence for their beliefs is very strong.”
Hi Nate, I agree with almost everything you wrote in this comment. I have long pondered why it is that thoughtful people can view much the same evidence (though admittedly we have different personal experiences) and come to such polarised views. And it isn’t just about religion, but also politics and some ethical issues. I have been reading a bit by psychologists and neuroscientists about how we make choices and will be posting on it soon. It seems that we like to think we make rational well thought out choices, but in fact we make most choices intuitively, unconsciously and/or emotionally first and then sometimes rationalise later. And if we do rationalise, we need our intuitive side to actually make a decision, otherwise we tend to not choose at all. I’m thinking this interplay between analytical and intuitive, which is different for each of us, might help explain some of this.
“I think a couple of things are key to changing the landscape of Christianity in America. …. Some will eventually leave Christianity over it, a few will just double down and become more extreme, but many of them will shift toward a more moderate and accepting version of Christianity.”
As an outsider, my views on US christianity are very much second hand, but I and many other christians believe US christianity has to change too. And I think it will happen just as you say here. So to some degree we are on the same “side” here, although of course you have taken option 1 while I have taken option 3. And I think the change is already well progressed, though maybe less so in the Bible belt where some of you live.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said, unkleE. And I agree that in cases like this, we’re very much on the same side.
LikeLike
Nate and UnkleE: Although I prefer a nation of kind, empathetic secular humanists, liberal Christians are my second choice.
That said, I ask all my skeptic brothers and sisters to consider doing the following: Every day, when you get onto your laptop or PC, do a google search for Christian blogs with posts on a particular fundamentalist Christian core belief, such as “You must believe in Jesus or you will go to Hell”. Go onto five of those blogs, and leave a brief, polite, on-topic comment that challenges the superstition in question with rational arguments and contrary evidence.
I believe that if all skeptics would do this, every day, seven days a week, Christianity would rapidly decline as people are exposed to the REAL Truth…or at a minimum Christians will become more liberal, more tolerant, and more humanistic.
Please seriously consider doing this.
Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Unklee
I have long pondered why it is that thoughtful people can view much the same evidence (though admittedly we have different personal experiences) and come to such polarised views.
Nothing to ponder about. We just have to accept that different people have different views and there is no absolute right or wrong.
Case in point: Should we kill 3 to save 2?
Perfect knowledge will not be able to help us make the “right” decision. Even if you argue that the 3 are 99 years old and dying soon, while the 2 are babies, there’ll still be people who believe that we should keep the 3 alive and let the 2 die. Even if you argue that the 2 babies will grow up to be wonderful revolutionary leaders in their fields while the 3 old men were good for nothing drunkards, there’ll be people who believe that sanctity of life means we shouldn’t cut short another person’s life.
What happens if the ratio change? Kill 3 save 100, Kill 2 save 1000? Kill 1 save the world? You get the idea. We will never be able to come to a full consensus even if all the facts are laid out. Same evidence, different conclusion.
LikeLike