Entry 184, on 2005-06-16 at 16:51:14 (Rating 3, Religion)
I listened to a debate this morning regarding religious teaching in schools. A couple of schools here in New Zealand have closed down Christian groups, because most state schools are supposed to be neutral on the subject. New Zealand is theoretically a Christian nation, but less than 10% of the population actually attend church or any similar religious institutions.
I am definitely not a great supporter of religion. I think organised religion, including Christianity, is just plain stupid. Anyone should be able to see there is no literal truth in these teachings, and while there is often some merit in the philosophy, that can be gained without all the superfluous "baggage" of the religion.
On the other had, why shouldn't school pupils be able to set up religious groups if they want to? We don't want to get to the extreme situation which occurs in some US schools where mentioning Christmas is considered pro-Christian, and possibly insulting to supporters of other religions.
My kids have been exposed to Bible teaching in their school, and they seem to cope with it fairly well. The people who say that kids get taken in by religious propaganda (and that is what a lot of it is) are probably underestimating the kids' ability to think for themselves.
My kids ask me "is there a God?" and I answer "I don't think so, but some other people do". They will then say "I'm not sure at the moment" which is really sensible, I think. The exposure to Christian teaching has shown them that those beliefs exist but they seem to see it as something different from maths. Generally, what you maths teacher tells you is true - although, with the quality of teaching today, that's not always the case! But what your Bible teacher tells you is a story which might or might not be true. Fair enough.
So, surprisingly to many people who know me as an opinionated atheist, I actually support Bible in schools. The only thing I would like to see is some teaching of other religions as well, just so that the kids can get some balance.
Comment 1 (132) by Jeff on 2005-10-22 at 16:05:50:
Quite controversial site but very interesting :)! I'm really excited!
Comment 2 (211) by Stephen on 2006-06-16 at 22:26:52:
An interesting thought. However - to answer the question - where did I come from? and where do I go when I die? - cannot be dismissed quickly.
To conclude that the Universe "just happened" is plain stupid. The combination of events for something to come from nothing is not something I can consider. It is impossible.
Looking at the human form, the world we live in - it just cannot have happened.
History describes many important people - but there is only one person in history that is recorded as being crucified on a cross - and rising again 3 days later. If this did not happen then the Christian faith is worthless.
C S Lewis - started off as an atheist - he has written some very interesting and challenging books
I think that if a person seriously (historically and from writings) considers the death and resurection of Jesus Christ - then they are never the same again.
Comment 3 (212) by OJB on 2006-06-17 at 22:41:41:
You're right. Those questions aren't easy. Well, the "where do I go when I die" question is easy intellectually (we cease to exist) but difficult emotionally. "Where do I come from" can be answered biologically and socially. Did you view the question in a different context, though?
To say the Universe just happened is a serious hypothesis being considered by some really intelligent people. To say its just stupid just because you find it a difficult concept is rather self-centered.
There is no good evidence (outside the Bible which is primarily a religious, not a historical text) which even shows Jesus existed. To assume he was crucified and rose again is really stretching credibility.
CS Lewis was a writer of children's fiction. What relevance does he have?
If there was any real reason to believe the stories about Jesus were true, then you're right, it would change everything. The sad truth is that its all a big myth.
Comment 4 (219) by Michael Aprile on 2006-07-13 at 07:00:07:
I like how you are sensible in how you treat what people submit as worthy of thought and consideration for response. I do the same with my online magazine.
I noticed that you have replied there is no evidence (for various beliefs about Jesus' existence and other concepts) outside of the Bible and I find it hard to let that just go by casually.
First, I wonder why the "other than in the Bible" comment. It sounds as though you believe the Bible is not true or factual. I have provided a great deal of evidence (I have only begun to do the research - over the last 2.5 years) on my site www.lifeinthebible.com (strike that for this blog, but check it out for yourself, please) that is indisputable about the Bible being not only the foundation of all knowledge on every academic subject, but also being the best source for absolute knowledge.
As history, the best (and most well-respected) secular historians and archaeologists (some of which are also atheists) today agree that there is no more verifiable and accurate history available today than the Bible. Its authentication is impeccable. As matter of history, the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus was recorded by multiples of scribes, record keepers, and historians (only a few of which were believers or followers of Jesus). It is reported that there were over 500 eye-witnesses of this string of events. Take someone to court with 500 eye-witnesses and the judge will sit up and listen.
My question might be: Why would you believe that George Washington was President of the United States, when you did not see him yourself? For all you know, he is just a myth. Right?
I submit to you that the idea that Jesus was a real person who did exactly what the Bible, and many others, have reported is "a serious and [life-effecting] hypothesis being considered by some really intelligent people."[emphasis mine]
Comment 5 (220) by OJB on 2006-07-13 at 16:42:46:
Oh wow, your so-called evidence for the Bible at www.lifeinthebible.com isn't exactly convincing! Do you really think that those quotes which could be interpreted in many different ways really prove anything? I mean, that pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo about stars singing for example. If that's the best you can do, I suggest your evidence is pretty weak!
Apart from that, most of the Old Testament stories are based on earlier myths from other belief systems anyway. And I could take the text of any historical novel and find passages which could be interpreted as being prophetic in some way.
I can prove for a fact that most of Genesis is wrong. Have a look at my web site here.
Comment 6 (221) by Michael Aprile on 2006-07-15 at 03:35:43:
OJB. I really like exchanging ideas with you. I went to your website.
I find it interesting how you think. You say, "We know the age of the Universe because we can measure the distance to the most distant and ancient objects. Their light takes over 10 billion years to get here, so the Universe must be at least that age." So, by that reasoning: I know it takes me two days to travel from Texas to Kentucky. Therefore, Kentucky must be at least two days old. I am learning! But, what if "In the beginning, God created the heaven(s)...?" That would mean that the stars that were 10 billion light years away were created where they are in proximity to Earth in the first place. Hmmmmm??!!! If there is one thing I have learned about science and its so-called "knowledge" it is that it changes constantly. But, don't believe me, simply read its recorded history. The only thing that can be called absolute knowledge is that knowledge that does not change over time (or ever, for that matter).
Now then, the question is: Would you rather believe in so-called facts or knowledge that are not absolute (or those that will change over and over to some different conclusion with passing time) or would you rather consider a foundation for thinking (and perhaps believing) that is established upon absolute knowledge (unchanging, eternal fact)?
If you had ever studied Hebrew, you would have known that when Genesis refers to the creation of "heaven," it is not even referring to the ethereal heaven where some believe exist people with wings and harps, but rather two heavens (one below the water and the other above the water) that are the sky and space. I doubt that if you knew that you would have stated that they do not exist (even atheists concede that they do).
You contend that "the Old Testament stories are based on earlier myths," however, these so-called stories have been authenticated to the letter by many historians and archaeologists. No one doubts that they actually occurred or that the people in them existed. It is not healthy to select what authenticated history to believe or not to believe.
It seems like you need evidence of everything (within the confined limits of what you already know) before you will take the risk of accepting or believing it. I think it is wonderful that you want evidence. I am not sure what you define as evidence. For instance, I mentioned in my last comment how there were over 500 eye-witnesses (not at all believers, by any shake) who reported the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and you would not concede that as even plausible, let alone possible. Now that, by anyone's standards, is narrow thinking. I just wish that you would have given me the "[proof] by facts" that you said you have on your web site that "Genesis was wrong." All I read was your opinions and beliefs (conjecture, if you will) - there was no proof.
I am led to believe that the real question is not whether or not the Bible is the truth, but rather there is the honest question: if you did come to believe that what the Bible says is true, would there be anything you would have to change about your life.
I will leave you this time with the following question to answer, if you so wish (I realize you could refuse to even put this comment out on this blog). I will begin with some needed background and then conclude with the question.
In the book of Job, chapter 38 (which secular, non-religious historians date as to have been first written down a little over 3400 years ago), "God" is reported to have asked Job, "Have you entered into the springs of the sea? or have you walked in the search of the depth?" You can check my facts that de-pressurized diving helmets and suits did not come on the scene until the late 1800s or early 1900s and even then were not able to travel two or three miles down to the depth of the bottom of the oceans. Added to that fact is that no one had invented a light that would not implode if taken to those depths. It was reported in National Geographics Magazine, in 1997, that they finally developed a minature yellow two-man submergable that could explore those depths and that had powerful enough lights to endure the pressure and to light up an area down there that could cut through the emmence darkness to be able to see things. When they got down there, what they found was these springs or fountains (just as the author in the book of Job had reported). So my question is: How could the author of the book of Job know about these springs or fountains at the bottom of the ocean more than 3400 years prior to their discovery by oceanographers?
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
Comment 7 (222) by OJB on 2006-07-15 at 21:49:42:
You don't seem to quite understand what I am saying...
We know the galaxies exist because we see their light. Light travels at a certain speed and takes a certain time to get here. If the light got here it must have left that long ago. Therefore the galaxies must be at least that old.
To use your analogy: I know it takes me two days to travel from Texas to Kentucky. I have just travelled from Texas to Kentucky. Therefore Texas must be at least 2 days old. Do you get it now?
Let's get this sorted, then I'll deal with your other issues.
Comment 8 (223) by OJB on 2006-07-17 at 14:41:58:
I have moved this discussion to the discussion system on the pages involved...
Just click the "Discuss" button at the bottom of these pages.
Comment 9 (367) by Christian Blogger on 2007-03-01 at 16:12:16:
I totally agree with Michael Aprile and he is very smart. Honestly, you, OJB, sound like a four year old trying to explain the difference between blue and green. Your evidence really doesn't back up anything. Jesus Christ loves you and wants you to accept Him. The devil hates you and would do anything for you to die and go to Hell. Which one will you choose?
Comment 10 (368) by OJB on 2007-03-01 at 16:50:09:
You can make trivial comments like that as much as you want, but you aren't going to gain a lot of credibility unless you can show me where my arguments are wrong. I have shown that there is no good evidence to show that Jesus existed, and I have shown that the Bible is wrong. Please refute these arguments instead of spouting meaningless religious dogma. There is a third choice apart from Jesus and the devil, that is too accept reality and admit that neither really exists.
Comment 11 (371) by Anonymous on 2007-03-02 at 12:44:18:
The thing is that... they do exist. And also, if you believe that there is nowhere to go when you die, then why haven't you commited suicide yet? There.
Comment 12 (375) by OJB on 2007-03-02 at 17:33:04:
I don't follow your logic. Surely it is you who should commit suicide because you will go to "a better place". Why would I want to when I believe it will lead to my permanent lack of existence?
Comment 13 (379) by Anonymous on 2007-03-03 at 10:43:04:
Then what is your point here on earth?
Comment 14 (381) by OJB on 2007-03-03 at 16:08:12:
Who said he have to have a point? (or purpose might be a better word) Maybe we should just create our own reasons for existence, such as: helping our friends and family, being creative, advancing the human race. Why do we have to make up a point for existing if what we make up is just fantasy?
Comment 15 (383) by Anonymous on 2007-03-06 at 10:50:42:
I honestly don't understand why you would want to do all that you want to do if when you die it won't even matter. It won't really matter to you once your dead, in what you "believe", what you did here on earth. You'll be dead!
A while ago, I was reading up on your discussions with Michael Aprile and you kept on mentioning how you could prove Jesus didn't exist. Instead of telling me to go onto other sites and giving information apart from what you looked up, could you please tell me why I should believe that Jesus didn't exist.
Comment 16 (385) by OJB on 2007-03-06 at 11:37:49:
It may not matter to me personally, but it might matter to others. That's all we can really aim for. Making up myths about life after death doesn't change the hard reality.
Basically, my argument against the existence of Jesus is that there is no mention of him in historical records. The Bible mentions him, of course, but the accounts were written after the alleged incidents occurred, and the gospels copy from each other. Also, the Bible is primarily a religious text, so its accuracy and neutrality are highly suspect.
Historians of the time don't mention him. At least, there is no well accepted record. If he was such an amazing person, why did no one notice? Other people of the time get plenty of mentions. Then there's the fakery that Christians added to real historical records, like Josephus. Why did they need to do that?
Comment 17 (388) by Anonymous on 2007-03-06 at 13:03:46:
The Bible is not a myth.
Okay, now that we got the COMPLETE truth out, we can continue. Anyway, historical text, in the way you see Biblical text, is just the same as Biblical text apparently! "It's accuracy and neutrality are highly suspect." Who knows, maybe they wrote it afterword just like you say they did. Also, historians may not mention them because they thought he was a "good teacher" and not worthy of being wrote about. Unfortunately, that is probably true.
Comment 18 (391) by OJB on 2007-03-06 at 14:47:33:
No one said the Bible is a myth. Its a book with stories in it. Most are purely fictional (I can show you many errors on the first page). Some have elements of historical truth in them. Others might be basically factual.
Your arguments are really weak. Its like saying Gandalf really exists because someone wrote about him in a book but historians didn't bother mentioning his existence. You really need to do a bit better than that!
I'm not saying this proves Jesus didn't exist but can't you see that we should be just a little bit suspicious? Surely you can see that we should be suspicious if someone is mentioned in a book which is designed to reinforce belief in a particular religion, but that person isn't mentioned anywhere else.
Forget about your religion, and science, and everything else, and just use some common sense here!
Comment 19 (393) by Anonymous on 2007-03-06 at 15:29:07:
I think just to sum up what I want to say, well... here:
With the weak arguments, no they are not. I am questioning what you are saying. So if my arguments are weak, you are being hypocritical.
My common sense says that I would rather have a purpose in life and a hope in my life than just do something that won't matter in the end. Why don't you use common sense?
Comment 20 (395) by OJB on 2007-03-06 at 15:42:41:
There is no point in questioning anything unless you can bring some sort of evidence into the discussion to show why your criticism should be taken seriously. You have supplied nothing.
If you wanted to find out if something is true or not, which do you think (through common sense) would be more effective...
1. Believe what I want to believe because it nicer, or written in a book with no corroborating evidence.
2. Believe what is supported through the application of the laws of logic which have been used by philosophers and mathematicians for thousands of years. And to do carefully planned experiments which can be checked by other experts, to find out if a hypothesis is really true or not.
Comment 21 (396) by Anonymous on 2007-03-06 at 16:03:24:
Here, why don't you answer these questions:
1. Believe in something that keeps you going in life and that let's you have a hope in when you die.
2. Believing in something that man made up which leads you only to believe in something that won't get you anywhere.
Comment 22 (397) by OJB on 2007-03-06 at 16:16:29:
I agree that believing in the Christian myth is comforting, and if that's what you want, that's fine, go ahead. But I'm interested in what's true - that seems to be the difference between us. To find out what's true you have to abandon comforting ideas and have the courage to face the truth. If you don't have that courage carry on with your fairy tales, but don't try to convince someone like me that they are true!
Comment 23 (399) by Anonymous on 2007-03-07 at 09:53:52:
Okay, Christianity is comforting, but that does NOT mean it is safe or easy. We are being persecuted all over the world from people that hate us and want to see us dead because they are to afraid to face the truth. What is so courages about learning about the big bang? Let's see if you would still believe in it if somebody said they would kill you if you did. Like you said before, why would you want to kill yourself if it would lead to your permanent lack of existence? Right?
Comment 24 (401) by OJB on 2007-03-07 at 10:21:23:
Christians are being persecuted? Do you really believe that? Christianity is the dominant world religion, and it seems to be the initiator of persecution more than the target of it. Anyway, everyone is persecuted in various ways, so I don't think Christians are any worse off than anyone else. I really don't know how I would react if someone said they would kill me if I believed the Big Bang, so we are really just guessing there.
Comment 25 (402) by Anonymous on 2007-03-07 at 13:36:25:
Yes, I do believe that Christians are being persecuted! I am surprised you haven't heard about what happened in China and India and other places. Christianity is not the only dominant world religion. There is Buddhism, Islamic, Hinduism, and others. Some would do anything to get the others killed. I know everyone is persecuted in various ways, but to the point of death of what they believe in? I really don't think that is right.
Comment 26 (403) by OJB on 2007-03-07 at 13:43:45:
Well I won't argue with you except to say do some research on wars and other programs initiated by Christians. Start here. Of course, it doesn't actually matter, because what people believe, and what they are prepared to give up to support that belief is irrelevant. By that logic (or lack of) we could say fundamentalist Islam must be the greatest religion because suicide bombers regularly kill themselves for it!
Comment 27 (404) by Anonymous on 2007-03-11 at 13:05:37:
What do you think those suicide bombers do it in order to do?
Comment 28 (406) by OJB on 2007-03-11 at 14:33:47:
I don't quite understand your question. My point was that they are obviously convinced their beliefs are true because they are prepared to sacrifice their lives for them, yet I guess you probably don't agree with them. So just being convinced you're right and being prepared to make sacrifices accordingly doesn't prove anything.
Comment 29 (415) by Anonymous on 2007-03-13 at 08:29:48:
I really think that when the time comes, it will prove something. Maybe not to some, but to others, yes. I just really wish you would see how great it is to have a Savior. I really don't understand how you guys can make it through life! It is just so humbling to give your life to someone that can do anything, like create the earth and us.
Comment 30 (418) by OJB on 2007-03-13 at 08:52:16:
What "time" is this you are referring to? I suspect you won't prove anything with vague statements like that which can never be backed up with facts. Why do I need a saviour? What am I being saved from? When I hear that sort of nonsense it just tells me how out of touch with reality you really are.
Comment 31 (421) by Anonymous on 2007-03-13 at 09:05:08:
The "time" that I was referring to was the rapture or the day you have a gun pointed to your face saying that they would kill you if you were a Christian.
You need a Savior to save you from going to hell. We are sinners. You are a smart person, and I know that you know that we are sinners. We have all lied and been mean to our siblings or something. Romans 6:23-For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Also, now you call me a religious freak? Well, I just pray that God would give you the wisdom to understand what I am trying to tell you and I know that God will help you. None of us deserve Him but He gave His son to die on the cross for our sins. I know that you are a smart person, I just wish you would use it to believe in something worth believing!
Comment 32 (425) by OJB on 2007-03-13 at 09:12:19:
So this "rapture" you are referring to is the one which was supposed to be happening for around 2000 years now? The one which has been predicted hundreds of times but has never actually occurred? You'll perhaps excuse me if I'm less than totally convinced!
How can I think we are sinners if I don't accept sin (at least not in the Biblical context). People aren't perfect, of course, but just because some don't follow a few arbitrary rules written in an old book doesn't mean they should be stuck in hell for eternity!
I have never called you a religious freak, unless you are the same person I debated with when I wrote the "religious freaks" blog entry.
God will save us, gave is son, blah blah, boring. Not interested in myths. Show me the facts.
Comment 33 (427) by Anonymous on 2007-03-13 at 09:19:16:
The rapture CAN NOT be predicted! Jesus doesn't even know when it will happen! I thought you read the Bible to get your evidence! Well, apparently not because it says in Revelation and other books that nobody knows except God!
Yes it does mean that we should be stuck in hell for eternity. Jesus never sinned and He died for us so that we COULD go to heaven!
I am not the person you debated with in the religious freaks blog entry and I think you did imply that I was one because your definition on that blog entry is EXACTLY what you called me. You would think that you would know the definition YOU made up!
The proof that I have is that nobody can prove it wrong and that I have faith. You thought you could prove it wrong but apparently not, they are invalid and YOU didn't prove them wrong.
Don't be rude.
Comment 34 (432) by OJB on 2007-03-13 at 09:32:12:
You're right, it mentions that in several places in the Bible, but Christians have been predicting it for thousands of years anyway. Do you think its fair that just because I can't believe in something for which there is no evidence that I should spend eternity in hell? And this is supposed to be a loving god? I still can't find where I called you a freak. please state blog entry number and comment number. I have proved creationism wrong using logic and facts. If you want to ignore that and remain ignorant, because of your faith, I can't help you.
Comment 35 (435) by Anonymous on 2007-03-13 at 09:48:58:
A friend once told me that she was asked the same question about a loving God. She said to them this: "You have a mom right? She is probably nice and as sweet as she could be. Well, one day you happen to steal a candy bar and you were mean to your brother. She got mad and punished you. Does that make her a mean and awful mom?"
No it doesn't. Same with God. When we do something wrong, we DESERVE to be punished. That is exactly my point!
You defined a religious freak on the blog: "Another Religious Freak" under Comment 8.
Unfortunately, you have no logic.
Comment 36 (437) by OJB on 2007-03-13 at 10:32:45:
There's a major difference between a mother who uses purposeful and appropriate punishment to correct bad behaviour, and a god who condemns someone to an eternity in hell just because someone doesn't think he exists (especially when the god refuses to provide proof that he does exist). That god is more like an insecure dictator, determined to maintain his power by whatever evil is necessary, than a loving mother.
In fact, now that I think about it, even if I did think your god existed I would refuse to worship him. He's just an evil, incompetent bully, and deserves no respect at all!
Comment 37 (446) by OJB on 2007-03-13 at 19:38:35:
I defined freak as "Freak (n): eccentric, misfit; crank, lunatic." If this applies to you, then you are a freak. I specifically said not all Christians are freaks, and I never mentioned you in particular. So, does the definition (from a dictionary) fit you, or not?
Comment 38 (483) by Anonymous on 2007-03-17 at 08:52:35:
I guess I read the freak thing wrong and I apologize.
Well, back to the fact that you "think" that God is an evil, incompetent bully, and that He deserves no respect at all.
That was a very mean and hurtful remark. I honestly can't believe you said that. I know it is your opinion but some remarks can hurt others and I really do want to keep this a clean conversation. I really do hate that you said that.
Here let me ask you this question. It will answer most of my questions. Do you believe in love or hate?
Comment 39 (490) by OJB on 2007-03-17 at 11:56:27:
I believe that we should behave in positive ways towards other people wherever possible (call it love if you want). Unfortunately hate is a common emotion - as much amongst religious people as non-religious, I think.
I stand by those comments about your god, because the description seems to fit. Look at his (alleged) behaviour and its easy to see why. Torturing humans for the rest of eternity because of an (alleged) sin by one person thousands of years ago? Sending people to hell because they won't worship him? Pure evil!
Comment 40 (493) by Anonymous on 2007-03-17 at 13:02:41:
God is NOT evil. I have already explained that to you. Also, if you don't believe in Him, don't talk bad about Him.
Comment 41 (496) by OJB on 2007-03-17 at 18:59:01:
I have explained why I think god is evil (or at least would be if he existed). None of the explanations of this I have heard seem to be adequate. I would like to hear how you could justify a god sending one of his own creations to hell for eternity just because the person didn't think god existed (especially when god hides his alleged existence so well). Or how can god justify letting children suffer from cancer just because of some alleged sin by two people thousands of years ago.
Comment 42 (499) by Anonymous on 2007-03-19 at 06:54:43:
Jesus Christ died in order to save us for those sins that make us go to hell. Even you admitted that we sin. All we have to do is accept it and know that He died for four dollars worth of oil in thousands of years. That is the simplest answer I can give you.
Comment 43 (503) by OJB on 2007-03-19 at 07:58:29:
Its a simple answer all right, but is it valid? My question is this: if I don't believe in your god, do I go to hell or not? If I do, how has Jesus helped me? If I don't go to hell what do I need to do to be sent there? I ask this as a genuine question because Christians vary so much in their beliefs in this area.
Comment 44 (508) by Anonymous on 2007-03-19 at 12:24:11:
I am so glad you asked me those questions and there are many different religions that believe in different things!
If you don't believe, as harsh as it sounds, you do go to hell. This is because He has given us the chance to believe in this or not.
Jesus has helped those who choose to give their life to Him because He died for us. He has given us the chance and the option to believe. It is completely our choice.
If you believe in God, there is no fear of death. When Jesus died, He destroyed death completely, meaning that when you die you look forward to being in heaven! To answer your last question, let's say you did believe in Christ, just as an example, you have given your life to Christ. You are promised salvation. When Jesus died, He took all of the blame of our sins.
Did that answer your questions? If not, please ask away! I really do enjoy speaking with you about what you and I believe is true.
Comment 45 (509) by OJB on 2007-03-19 at 12:27:50:
So I am going to hell because I don't believe in God. How has Jesus helped me then? Do you think that demonstrates that God is good? Just because the evidence doesn't seem to show he exists I'm doomed to Hell for eternity. If that's a good God I would hate to say what an evil one would be like!
Comment 46 (513) by Anonymous on 2007-03-19 at 13:06:53:
Jesus as helped you. You are just not accepting Him. It's not His fault. God is the Almighty Judge and He has mercy, but He judges how He needs to. An evil God hates you, but God sent His son to save you, that shows love enough for me.
Comment 47 (516) by OJB on 2007-03-19 at 13:24:01:
Sorry. We will never agree on this. Your god is totally evil from my perspective. All of your convoluted stories which try to explain his evil behaviour just don't make sense. I can't accept god because there's no evidence he exists. What was the point in sending Jesus where there is also no evidence?
Comment 48 (520) by Anonymous on 2007-03-20 at 06:30:46:
When I look outside on a beautiful day with perfect weather, and I look at the trees and all around me, I just have to say that something higher had to create this. Something higher had to have come up with when the leaves come out of the buds and when the flowers bloom and when everything happens. It is so amazing how everything works and you just have to think about how could anything different do this. I wish you saw it the way I did and I just wonder how people face death when they wake up. Jesus took away death and sorrow. He is glorious and I guess what life really ends up to be is what you believed or had passion in all your life. I want to look foward to something when I die.
Comment 49 (523) by OJB on 2007-03-20 at 09:16:58:
When I look outside on a beautiful day I appreciate our Universe as much as a religious person would. I just don't feel the need to resort to superstition to explain it. Because I see myself as just part of nature (instead of something different like Christianity teaches) I think I experience the glory of nature as much as the (imagined) glory of a god.
Jesus didn't exist. Its all fantasy. You can make up fairy stories so you won't be scared of death, but I prefer to face reality. Reality is really not that bad.
Comment 50 (528) by Anonymous on 2007-03-21 at 01:30:22:
Unfortunately, reality is bad when you die and realize that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He did exist. Nothing can be completely disproved anyway.
Comment 51 (533) by OJB on 2007-03-21 at 08:13:36:
Nothing can ever be totally be proved or disproved. We just have to work with the best theories we currently have, while looking for new evidence which might support or negate those theories. That's how science works. No major theory has ever been completely replaced, but sometimes we find a new one which is a bit more accurate than what we had before (eg gravitation).
Currently there is almost no evidence that Jesus even existed. There is no good evidence for the supernatural at all: prayer doesn't work, there's no evidence of an after-life, we can explain the Universe using natural explanations, etc. Therefore, my current theory is that Christianity is just a myth. Show me the evidence and I'll change my mind.
Comment 52 (544) by Anonymous on 2007-03-22 at 00:48:45:
Exactly my point, you can't disprove or prove anything. So, why not believe in Christianity?
Yes, prayer does work. It is kind of hard for a non-Christian to tell. God answers those who calls upon Him with an open heart. Not some scientist trying to tell if He is there or not. There is NO WAY for you or any other scientist to see if prayer works or not. Not one way. Of course there is not evidence for an after-life. We're dead.
Here is an example of prayer working: My grandmother had been sick in the hospital and was not in good shape if you know what I mean. Well we went to our church every Sunday like usual. Except, my family talked about her during prayer requests and we had the church praying for her. My grandmother soon recovered from something huge.
That is so God. I know that other people recover from those things everyday without prayer, but it is all up to God. Honestly, you can't tell, it is impossible, if prayer is real or not if you don't believe in God. You just can't. So really, nobody can prove it wrong but a lot of people can prove it right.
Comment 53 (551) by OJB on 2007-03-22 at 09:24:35:
If I can't prove or disprove anything I could believe in Hinduism, or Buddhism, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Santa Claus. Why choose Jesus when all the options are there too?
My point is that there is a whole range of certainty, from just above 0% (nothing is totally impossible) to just below 100% (nothing is absolutely certain). I believe the theory which is closest to 100% as supported by empirical, objective evidence and logic.
There have been experiments done on prayer and the evidence shows it doesn't work. In one experiment sick people who were prayed for did slightly worse than others. In another slightly better. But it was all below chance level. Your personal experience is *not* totally worthless, but random recoveries from illness happen often, with or without prayer, so it isn't very strong evidence for prayer's effectiveness.
No one can prove its right. People are fooled by random statistical events all the time. If you want to believe in prayer without any logical reason fine, do so, but that isn't even close to any sort of proof of god.
Comment 54 (552) by Anonymous on 2007-03-22 at 10:11:45:
Personally I think there is something bigger than us but choose not to name it. For me Bible in Schools is not about religion but more about learning how to treat each other in a world that is increasingly violent and superficial - organised religion appears to me to focus entirely on who is right or wrong and who is better and even who owns the land. This has led to so much bloodshed and I thought that somewhere fairly prominent in the 10 commandments is the thou shalt not kill thing... maybe it is all in the "interpretation" that makes intolerance and belligerence okay for some and not others.
Comment 55 (554) by OJB on 2007-03-22 at 10:27:05:
Yes, it depends on how far you want to take the idea of "something bigger than us". Many people who are non-religious have commented on this (Einstein and Sagan for example) but one thing's for sure: if there is anything bigger than us it has no resemblance at all to anything described by current religious doctrine.
I mean, can you really imagine a supreme power mucking around with all the nonsense the Christians believe? He let evil get out of hand and drowned every one. Then it happened again so he sent his son who had to die to save us in some strange way. However this doesn't seem to have worked either, etc... Just childish nonsense.
Comment 56 (556) by Anonymous on 2007-03-22 at 14:25:22:
About the prayer thing, who prayed in those experiments. Honestly, you can't tell unless you are doing it for the right reasons. God knows our hearts. Also, we believe that Heaven is better than earth. If God's will is for us to go see Him, then He will let us pass. So, it really doesn't show anything if they got better or not. It completely depends on what He wants.
Comment 57 (557) by OJB on 2007-03-22 at 15:49:15:
The people doing the prayer were genuine. Apart from measuring the health status of the patient before and after there was nothing odd about the experiment. Why is it that whenever an experiment involving God shows negative results there is always some sort of vague excuse available, such as "God knows our hearts". If everything is to do with God's will, then why bother praying at all?
Comment 58 (558) by Anonymous on 2007-03-23 at 02:29:22:
We pray to ask for wisdom, strength, help, and to ask for forgiveness. Reading the Bible, praying, and worshiping alow us to "speak" with Him. You really can't understand unless you are a Christian, and that is why it is so hard to explain it to you. We don't use exuses. It is the truth.
Comment 59 (562) by OJB on 2007-03-23 at 07:37:11:
Oh I think I can understand all right, You live in a fantasy world which only makes sense if you already "buy in" to all the superstition and nonsense it entails. If God knows your heart, and knows what's best for you it would seem best just to let him get on with the job!
Comment 60 (563) by Anonymous on 2007-03-23 at 07:41:27:
Oh my goodness, you really don't know anything about it. Apparently, all you research is the facts and so when we get into prayer and worship you don't know it all. Is that why you are leaving those comments? Where is your proof for it?
Comment 61 (565) by OJB on 2007-03-23 at 07:46:21:
Yes, you're right. I do only research facts. Its hard to research prayer from the personal perspective you are referring to because every Christian sect has different ideas about it, and every individual seems to have a different opinion about it as well. Because its just a personal fantasy there is no consistency.
Comment 62 (575) by Anonymous on 2007-03-26 at 08:00:45:
People pray in different ways for the same reason. If you want to prove Christianity wrong then I would study the religion instead of the facts that prove it wrong so you know what in the world you are talking about.
I have a question for you, and yes, be honest. If there was no theory of evolution and science wasn't very advanced yet, what would you believe? What would you take into consideration?
Comment 63 (578) by OJB on 2007-03-26 at 10:30:41:
So to prove something wrong I should avoid studying the facts? Maybe that's the sort of thinking that's got you involved with Christian mythology, but surely you can see that if you ignore the facts you could end up believing anything!
I always support the best theory currently available. There were quite advanced theories created by Greek and Roman philosophers centuries before we had science (and before Christianity). I might support one of those. I've always been impressed by Lucretius, for example.
Comment 64 (583) by Anonymous on 2007-03-29 at 02:44:35:
I am sorry, I didn't mean instead of the facts, I meant to study the religion too and not just the facts. Christianity was around. According to the Bible, God created the earth didn't He?
Comment 65 (586) by OJB on 2007-03-29 at 09:13:17:
Its fine to study religion as a social phenomenon, and an interesting mythology. But it has no relevance at all to scientific questions such as the origin of the Universe or the evolution of life, and its these questions I'm mainly interested in. I have done some research on the origins and history of Christianity though, and yes, I have read parts of the Bible, too!
Comment 66 (590) by Anonymous on 2007-03-31 at 00:35:32:
Are you saying that it is not fine for me to study religion as a belief or as it really happened?
Comment 67 (594) by OJB on 2007-03-31 at 13:58:51:
Depends what you mean by studying. When I have seen Christians "studying" the Bible they are all just sitting around like brainless zombies accepting whatever nonsense they are told. That isn't really studying something. A little bit of skepticism would help a lot!
Comment 68 (595) by Anonymous on 2007-04-01 at 12:10:23:
What are you talking about? Just for the record, brainless zombies can't read the Bible. Anyway, we had to ask questions and try to do something before believing. It's not like we just read and accept. We are humans, we don't trust anything these days, but this is something I am willing to trust.
Comment 69 (596) by OJB on 2007-04-01 at 18:00:05:
In my experience many Christians do just that: "just read and accept". The general level of knowledge is abysmal. And the level of critical thought is practically zero. I really don't think many Christians do ask questions before accepting, because when I ask them simple questions they have no answers. Want to try answering my 5 simple questions to see how you do?
BTW. You say "we don't trust anything these days", then say "this is something I am willing to trust". So which is it?
Comment 70 (597) by Anonymous on 2007-04-03 at 00:28:24:
It is something I am willing to trust because I put my faith into it, and it has proven to me to be true. Sure, I will try to answer your questions but it may take me awhile.
Comment 71 (598) by OJB on 2007-04-03 at 08:05:36:
OK, its a bit off-topic for this thread, so could I re-direct you to a more relevant blog entry. My first question is in the comments here.
Comment 72 (624) by ChoccyFish on 2007-04-25 at 21:46:01:
Personally anything worth believing in is something worth debating - if you believe in something then you're prepared to explain and share why. When I teach Bible in Schools I say "Christians believe...". The Bible in Schools curriculum is really hot on this. No kid has to pray, only be respectful and sit quietly while I say a prayer, and the kids are free to ask any question they like. Fundamental to Christianity is choice - each person's free choice whether to get to know and love God or not. Good to know you respect choice too OBJ.
Comment 73 (863) by WF99 on 2007-09-21 at 11:02:49:
I do think that you're right on the money. Most religious parents should train up their kids like you do.
Comment 74 (868) by OJB on 2007-09-21 at 14:01:14:
I think religion should be taught in schools, but I would like to see all religions discussed and I would like to see no ritual (such as prayer) involved. It doesn't need to be a totally sterile discussion, it could be a lively and entertaining lesson similar to the way a great literary work might be taught.
Comment 75 (1605) by SBFL on 2008-09-02 at 23:04:51:
Now here's a true irony: OJB, an "opinionated atheist" actually supports Bibles in schools, but SBFL, an opinionated Christian, doesn't. Well I wouldn't say 'doesn't', rather than I don't really mind either way. If some PC freak starts waging a campaign to rid Bibles from state schools - even if they're only there as a token topic so that children can have the chance to learn about religions - I would probably fight back since that individual is taking things too far (no doubt due to some ulterior anti-Christian motive). However the reason I don't really care much either way is because growing in ones faith must come from the home. The parents are the ones responsible for bringing the child up, not the state. There are of course other alternatives, such as a faith-based school along the lines of your denomination (if available), the parish, the godparents and other similar facets in the wider community.
Comment 76 (1607) by OJB on 2008-09-03 at 08:45:51:
The problem with the parents bringing the child up in their faith is that the child is only exposed to one option. That's one reason I say there is no inherent truth in these beliefs: most people just believe what their parents did anyway. I know there are a few converts later in life, but not many. Richard Dawkins makes this point strongly in the God Delusion.
Comment 77 (1622) by SBFL on 2008-09-18 at 18:35:27:
I certainly don't expect the state to try and push children to choose a religion. That's what one could infer from your first sentence. Studying them for education purposes is fine but this is a far cry from taking part in one. A major difference. Lets not get them confused.
I disagree with the parents thing but have made the case in the "Convoluted Rationalizations" post, so won't continue it here.
Comment 78 (1631) by OJB on 2008-09-18 at 22:18:36:
Well I would never suggest that the state (or anyone else) should push any particular religion on another person. I was really suggesting the opposite: that they should make comparative religious studies (without any suggestion of relative merit or truth) part of the school curriculum.
I can't exactly remember your point in the other post but surely you would not disagree that there is a strong tendency for a child to follow the beliefs of his/her parents?
Comment 79 (1634) by SBFL on 2008-09-19 at 20:06:36:
I know but I was responding to the first sentence of your comment 76 in order to stop your digression. It worked as you came back to topic.
My goodness, it was only 2 weeks ago. Get back there lazy. Why would I want to start the same debate over again...are you trying to get this thread to 100 comments or something?!
Comment 80 (1646) by OJB on 2008-09-20 at 15:03:09:
Well getting to 100 posts would be cool but it wasn't my prime motivation! I did look back at your post in the other thread and maybe the reason I didn't recall it clearly was that it didn't really convince me greatly.
You claimed your social context when young introduced you to Christianity and you implied your continued following of the belief was more a rational decision. But it has been shown quite clearly that the influence is far stronger than that. Ideas introduced to children at an early age are very difficult to escape later on.
The fact that it doesn't matter what those ideas are (Christianity, islam, Hinduism, etc) shows that none of them have intrinsic merit. Its just the fact that people are exposed to the idea, not the idea itself, that captures their mind.
Comment 81 (1647) by SBFL on 2008-09-20 at 17:47:46:
I'm not out there to convince you. Just general debate for fun really.
Again I refer you to the "Convoluted Rationalisations" post. I have discussed the matter at length there. Sorry, but not interested in regurgitating discussions again here. Cheers.
Comment 82 (1648) by OJB on 2008-09-20 at 18:35:01:
I don't expect to change the mind of the person I debate with either. But these discussions fulfill three purposes to me: 1, they might give the other person something to think about even if they aren't convinced immediately; 2, they test if my own beliefs stand up to the scrutiny of others; and 3, well yes, the fun aspect!
I did look back at the your discussion on the other thread. My point was that I didn't find your previous comment there very convincing. I just don't think your point of view stands up to scrutiny. I guess you do.
Comment 83 (1650) by SBFL on 2008-09-20 at 19:19:56:
I never said you did.
Are you reading me right? My point being that I am not prepared to have the same debate running at the same time on different threads. Seems like a waste of time really. On this thread I made the rather humourous observation as per comment 75. You have decided to bring in a different but current discussion that is already running on another post. That's my point, not that you haven't read the other thread. Comprende?
Comment 84 (1652) by OJB on 2008-09-20 at 20:28:43:
No. You said you weren't here to convince me so I thought it would be nice if I said I wasn't expecting to convince you either, and then listed what I did expect.
OK, so we finish up the discussion here? And we're still a bit short of the 100 mark too!
Comment 85 (1655) by SBFL on 2008-09-20 at 21:17:00:
You may not have realised I said that in response to your first sentence in comment 80.
OJB[80]:"..maybe the reason I didn't recall it clearly was that it didn't really convince me greatly."
SBFL[81]"I'm not out there to convince you."
OJB[82]"I don't expect to change the mind of the person I debate with either. "
SBFL[83]"I never said you did."
Comment 86 (1659) by OJB on 2008-09-20 at 22:10:37:
Yeah OK. But if you could steer someone into a more positive consideration of what you think is a superior philosophy you would be happy about it, right? So if you convince me your beliefs had more merit than I currently give them that would be positive for you, I presume. But like me, its not exactly critical to your continued survival!
Comment 87 (1661) by SBFL on 2008-09-20 at 22:57:17: I guess so.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE
