I am responding to Colin Kirks column in Thursday’s The Daily ,“Religion unnecessary in all lives.”
No Christian argues atheists cannot make moral decisions without religion. The argument is atheists have no meaningful foundation for morality outside of “this behavior is more beneficial for the function of society.” That is not morality.
Christians do not think this life is meaningless. You know this — if you really did study Christianity. Remember what Paul said “for to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”
Your criticism of biblical law is rather disappointing and demonstrates you have no interest in studying the religion you desire to demean.
Instead of reading your favorite atheist on why Old Testament law is still in effect, why don’t you take a look at “The End of the Law,” by Jason Meyer? Meyer argues the application of Old Testament law to present times by the Christian church is not the same as the application of the Old Testament to Israel, according to many Scriptures (2 Corinthians 3; Galatians 3; Hebrews 10).
As far as your claim Christ never explicitly condemned slavery, you are correct. However, the biblical command to love your neighbor as yourself went a long way in the fight to end slavery. Unfortunately, it would take too long to give a full treatment of slavery in the Bible.
If you are actually interested in why Christians say the Bible does not condone slavery, I would suggest you do a survey of abolitionist arguments against slavery.
Many of the abolitionists were devout Christians and argued vehemently that God hates this specific brand of slavery, referred to as ‘Chattel’ slavery For a religion many atheists claim supports slavery, it is terribly ironic the same religion was the most prominent force in the fight to abolish slavery.
Just a side note to my atheist friends: Please stop acting like you understand the Christian world view unless you are willing to read some decent Christian apologists. I am talking about guys like Alvin Plantinga, John Frame, Scott Oliphant and G.K. Chesterton.
We must continue the work of the abolitionists who came before us.
Less than 1 percent of abortions are performed because a woman has been raped or she is going to die giving birth. This means almost 53 million children are slaughtered on an altar of convenience.
This abominable practice is often couched in the same terms of progress that Kirk probably advocates. We must do everything we can to abolish this monstrous evil. I am an abolitionist, just like the abolitionists of old, because humans are made in the image of God and should not be treated like property.
As abolitionists, our primary target is not a woman who had an abortion, it is the prevalent misinformation about abortion within our culture which encouraged and allowed them to do so.
— Grant Keeter, letters senior
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
Rhology 1 year ago
EricKincade, I've replied to you - http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2011/05/erickincade-of-nonexistcom-and-his.html
bruenig 1 year ago
Plantiga is a joke, just saying.
Pinchfist 1 year ago
You've made the claim, you get to prove it. Just because your position is impossible to defend doesn't mean your opponent magically has the onus to prove their point - they've made no extraordinary claims. There's no need for anything stronger for the atheist position than ignoring you. You've presented no evidence, you've made insane claims, and quite frankly, if the atheist confronts you at all, it's either out of extreme pity or for a good laugh.
You're right about a large drive for the abolitionist movement in the United States coming from Christians. That does not mean you're an abolitionist for unborn babies now.
Upon researching your figure on abortion, it appears that you've made it sound like this figure doesn't come from the total number of abortions (with the last 10 years estimated) since 1973. During that same time, nearly 570 million children around the world that were actually born died from starvation. Our country can make enough food to feed the entire world - how can we reconcile the moral bankruptcy of allowing them to die amongst the cries for babies that aren't even born yet. Does the right to life stop once you're born? If so, how is that morally justified?
EricKincade 1 year ago
The Myth Of Original Sin. Religion says that eating the apple from the tree of knowledge is humanity's greatest downfall. Why would anyone want to believe in a religion or belief system which devalues our humanity? What is humanity's greatest single asset? Our curiosity and quest for knowledge. Our quest for knowledge is not a liability.
The tree of good and evil. Knowing there is right and wrong, morals and immoral ways of doing things is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. We have to know right from wrong to live a healthy life and have a healthy society.
Here Are Some Christian Messages. Join our exclusive club. We get our morals from the Bible. We will probably get along better if we both believe in an invisible friend. We know how the universe was made and we know our purpose and we know we will live after we die and where we are going. We can't be the best on earth without believing in an invisible friend.
Here Are Some Nonreligious Messages. We are born into the club of humanity. No membership required. The club of humanity is inclusive. We get our morals from ourselves. We have evolved over thousands of years and we realize that it's better for a healthy society if we try to get along with each. It's better to work together than to work against each other.
We can be nice to each other and be friends with each other because we are the same species. We don't need to have a mutual invisible friend to get along with each other.
Science says, if we don't know, let's find out. Science says, if we don't know, we are okay with this. Religions says, we know. See the difference?
What brings us together then? A celestial invisible friend? No. What brings us together and allows us to work together is: human solidarity, human perseverance, human cooperation, education and communication. These are things needed for a civilization to move forward in a healthy and progressive way. We are all in this together.
Here's my website: http://www.noneexist.com
EricKincade 1 year ago
One either takes the premise that God made man or many gods made many men. For me, it's easy to see that all religions are man-made. Sin is a man-made concept as well. Yes, people do good and bad things but where is the proof that sin actually exists?
If God made man, then I have specific difficult questions that should be actually very easy to answer. I say it should be easy to answer since Christians claim to know the answer to our origin, purpose and destination after death.
Yet, when I ask or discuss the below questions/subjects to believers, they either refuse to answer my question, or they claim they don't understand my question/statement or tell me to ask someone else, or try to change the subject or have non-answers. Non-answers that I hear are things such as: "Well, I don't question God's texts." "God works in mysterious ways." "I'm not here to question God." Moving on...
Faith Is Typically a Conversation Stopper. How many Christians will not read my response? How many excuses will they have? I don't have time to read this. Or is it really, I am afraid to read this? If you are a Christian and you are afraid to read this, I submit that your religion is in the business of mind control. Meaning this: Your religion does not want you to think for yourself or question the truth claims your religion makes. Think about it. Doesn't your religion give you the answers and then stops you from asking questions about it's truth claims?
Here is another way how faith is a conversation stopper. Religious leaders and their followers typically claim that criticizing their beliefs are a social taboo. We've heard this many times. “We respect other's religious beliefs.” “Don't bring up the topic of religion.” “Don't argue about religion, lest you offend someone.” “We can discuss anything, but I don't want to talk about my religious beliefs with you.” “I don't want to talk about it.”
When faith stops the conversation, what happens? We have either war or conversation. When the religious make it a point that conversation stops, then we know what is left. Stopping the conversation also allows the religious to become tolerant of the religious intolerant. When someone does a bad thing in the name of religion, the religious are cautious to criticize. We respect the faith of others! Why do you think that the religious don't like to criticize other people's faith? This leaves the door wide open to criticism of their own faith.
EricKincade 1 year ago
On Belief and Faith For starters, if I say that Zeus is my God, Christians laugh at this. However, when we change the word "Zeus" to "God", then all bets are off, now it's true. God is a real god.
The Christian proof that their belief is true is based on their faith. And they believe that all other religions are false. Believers of all faiths make this same claim. If all believers of all faiths are proving what they are saying is the absolute truth because of their faith, then isn't it obvious that all religions are false?
Meaning this, believers are simply saying that because I believe in something, this means it's true. Anyone can say anything is true because I believe it to be so! Just because you say it's true doesn't mean it's true! Yet in everyday life, if someone uses this type of logic to prove a point, we laugh at them because it's faulty reasoning.
The Invisible Friend. When a young child has an invisible friend, we understand this. When adults have an invisible friend, we call this religion. Who is crazy? The adult with the invisible friend or the adult without an invisible friend?
Think about this. If I say I know every single person in the United States personally. You'd say I was crazy or at least you'd think I was crazy. Now change this sentence to "I know God." People have no problem saying they know a god. What? Really? Oh, I can't meet him in person? No? When? Later. Why can't I meet your god in person, right now. You can't. Why? It doesn't work like that. Why's that? I don't know. When can I meet him. Later. How much later? When you die. What?
So, the proof we need to know there is a god, is when we die. Think about this. I can make any claim about what will happen after we die, why? Anyone who has died is dead. They can't come back from the dead tell us we were wrong. In religion, it's always later. After you die, you'll know. Christ is coming back. When? Later.
The Exclusive Club Of All Religions. Religion at its core divides people. In-group/out-group thinking is the favored treatment of a group's members and the not so favored treatment of those outside the group. You have to believe to join. If you don't believe, you can't be in the club. How wise is the proposition of having to believe in a religion to be able to join the religious club? In other words, why would anyone believe that an all wise god would create such an organization?
EricKincade 1 year ago
Where Is The Wow Factor In The Bible? Many followers will claim their god is all powerful, all loving, all just, all perfect, all wise, omnipotent and knows the past, present and future. They also typically claim their God had the imagination and power to create the entire universe.
If this is the case, why didn't their god have the foresight to inspire the writer's of the Bible so it would be filled with timeless morals and ethics which would apply to any culture in any time period of human history and written in such a way, that nobody could ever misinterpret the Bible? Clearly, this would be child's play for a god to write such a book.
One can even ask—why didn't their god simply write and publish the Bible himself? And why don't religious texts have the wow factor one would expect from a god? When you read ancient religious texts, the content is exactly what you'd expect from an author from that time period, but not what you would expect from an all knowledgeable god.”
Secular law has surpassed Biblical law. Where are equal rights and human rights in the Bible? Why aren't slavery, racism, genocide, rape, war, religious terrorism, terrorism, the mutilation of children, child abuse, child labor and the repression of women's rights denounced as immoral in the Bible? If timeless morals and ethics were found in the Bible, wouldn't this make a better case that an all wise god was it's author?
Love Thy Neighbor Well, first off, this is compulsory love. Is this such a wise thing to insist upon? What if you don't like your neighbor? What's the distance of the neighbors do you love? How do you love all your neighbors? Wouldn't a wiser message be: "In most situations, try to be nice to people."
Also, many people can't even love themselves or their loved ones. Divorce is 50%. So, if we many people are having a difficult time loving themselves or their loved ones, how are we supposed to love others?
Love Your God And Fear Him At The Same Time. This is the definition of sadomasochism. Not good for you.
EricKincade 1 year ago
On Sex and Homosexuality in the Bible. I'm certain you don't agree with the Bible regarding many of its teachings about sex. And you shouldn't.
The Bible says clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not the wife; polygamy (more than one wife) is acceptable; concubines for the king (and the wisest king of all, Solomon, had 1,000 concubines) is acceptable; slavery and sex with slaves (acceptable); marriage for girls, ages 11-13 (acceptable); treatment of women as property (acceptable); inter-racial marriage (not acceptable); birth control (not acceptable); discussing or even naming a sexual organ (not acceptable); seeing one's parents nude (definitely not acceptable).
The verses people misquote to condemn gay sex have nothing to do with homosexuality and here's why. Consider this single Biblical text that was used for centuries to condemn masturbation: "He spilled his seed on the ground. And the thing which Onan did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also" (Genesis 38:9-10). For Jewish text writers, a man sleeping with another man was an abomination. But it was also an abomination (and worthy of death) to masturbate (have sex with one's self) or even to interrupt coitus (to halt sex with one's spouse before ejaculation as an act of birth control).
Why were these sexual practices abominations to scripture writers in those ancient times? Because the Hebrew pre-scientific understanding was that male semen contained the whole of life and it was thought to be finite. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed the man's sperm contained the whole child and that women provided only the incubating space. Therefore, the spilling of semen without the possibility of having a child was considered murder. Thus, spilling the seed made one a murderer and worthy of death.
In other words, in Biblical times, why did they call the sperm the seed? You plant a seed in the soil and water it and it grows. So, they thought the male had complete miniature babies inside themselves, which they called the seed. And they thought the woman was simply the incubator. So when the male "spilled the seed" he was killing a miniature baby, a person. Spilling the seed was murder.
I always ask my Christian who I meet in this question: What year did science discover that it took a sperm and an egg for conception to occur? I have never known a Christian who knew the answer this question. The discovery of a sperm and an egg joining for human conception to occur was made in 1843 by physician Martin Berry. Which is why everyone (who read the Bible or heard about this from the Bible) before 1843 thought that "spilling the seed" was killing someone.
EricKincade 1 year ago
On Morals. What makes something moral? To Christians, the answer is easy. Follow the Bible. I disagree. Something is typically moral when it increases the human well-being of others. Something is typically immoral when it decreases human well-being.
There are exceptions to this rule, of course. Taking lots of recreational drugs might increase your human well-being but is it healthy for you. You can say the same about fast-food. When you have surgery, you might have a temporary decrease in human well-being, your body hurts from the surgery. But in the long run, you'll live a longer life, so surgery is a good moral action.
On Homosexuality. With that said about morals. If religion did not say being gay was unnatural or immoral, people would simply see that being gay is about two people of the same sex being in love. Ask one's self. If two consenting gay adults are in love, does this increase their human well-being or not?
When Christians condemn two consenting same-sex adults in love, does this increase or decrease the well-being of these gay people? In my book, Christians are being completely immoral by condemning gay people and gay marriage.
On Heaven and Hell. Think about sin for a second. If you believe in sin, then you also believe that a person can only accumulate a finite amount of sin. Meaning, let's say a person has 10,000 sins in their life time. Once they die, they can't sin anymore. So, each person can only have X number of sins attached to their life.
We need to talk about justice. If I stole a DVD at a store, got caught and received the death penalty, most would agree this was an unjust punishment. However, look at heaven and hell. The Bible proposes that finite sin equals infinite punishment. Where's the justice?
Typically, Christians will say, they don't question things like this about their god. However, Christians say their god is all just. How can this be so?
In fact, why does anyone have to go to hell? If their god made the rules, why not just let everyone go to heaven? Why does Christ have to be a scapegoat for people's sins? Scapegoating was very common in ancient times and religions before Christianity. Why would an all powerful, all creative god copy the simply rituals of scapegoating for his religion? Why not come up with an entirely new religion that has no resemblance to any previous religion?
Steven Zoeller 1 year ago
I have to ask: What was the point of this article? To refute Kirk's letter, or to discourage abortion? I feel like two thirds of the way through, Keeter decided that he didn't want to argue religion anymore, even though he says "it would take too long to give a full treatment of slavery in the Bible." Well, of course it would! It might cut into your evangelism!
sandra 1 year ago
Sorry, can't take anyone who wears pleated khaki pants seriously.
PhillyChief 1 year ago
No atheist says life is meaningless. Meaning is personal and subjective. We assign meaning and value to life. Even for the Christian, to accept a religion's assignment of value and meaning is still a choice. Look again at your quote from Paul. He doesn't offer an absolute but rather prefaces his belief with "for to me". That's a subjective opinion. Anyone, atheist, agnostic, Christian, Hindu, what have you can preface their opinion with "for to me".
It is true that Abolitionists claimed slavery was unChristian, but the pro-slavery side did as well, and with more scriptural backing. Although scripture doesn't change, the interpretation does, and those changing interpretations are motivated by society. Social morality drives religious morality. Religious morality has been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century by societal moral demands. The latest manifestation of that is equality for gays and lesbians. Eventually societal demands will force interpretations of religious scripture to see their equality as being what God wants, and some crank like you a hundred years or so from now will claim it was Christianity that made their equality possible just like it's claimed now that it made abolition of slavery possible.
As for your list of apologists anyone who thinks their apologies and excuses for Christianity are sensible are simply, to steal Plantinga's favorite pejorative, jejune. His argument for the problem of evil is especially ridiculous, blaming demons for natural disasters. That's scholarship? THAT is what we need to understand? No, as a Christian you need to understand what his ilk are doing and how unsatisfactory their excuses and apologies are.
Lastly, fetuses are aborted, not babies or children. A fetus is a potential human, and more potential humans are erased in the fertility clinics where many Christians go than in all the clinics worldwide performing abortions, yet there's no outcry there. Why?
YouMadeMeSayIt.com
downtowndave 1 year ago
You don't have to wait until you die to know that God exists. http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/
Jaco99 1 year ago
"If you are actually interested in why Christians say the Bible does not condone slavery, I would suggest you do a survey of abolitionist arguments against slavery."
Abolitionists and anti-slavery Christians in the North claimed that the bible didn't condone slavery. Christians in the antebellum South DID say that the bible condoned slavery, arguing that slaves were the descendants of Ham's black son Canaan, who was cursed to serve Noah and his descendants. Slave owners claimed that the black children of Canaan, naturally savage, were civilized and "christianized" by their benevolent white masters for their own good. Servants were to obey their masters, to understand that they were child-like and needed the tutelage of their white, christian owners, and to be thankful that they had been saved from the pagan savagery of Africa. I'm not saying that the Bible does or does not support slavery, but that the meaning of religious texts is not static and is constantly reinterpreted to fit the exigencies of different time periods.
However, for someone who claims that Christianity was a prime force in the abolition of slavery, it is terribly ironic that you do not know that your religion of love was also used to justify the brutalization of other human beings.
Abolitionist_4 1 year ago
By the way this number goes up in the US by 2 every minute of every day, and goes up by the hundreds every minute of every day throughout the world. (for this reason, this young lady working in Asia, calls herself a Global Abolitionist of Human Abortion. http://abolishhumanabortion.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-am-universal-abolitionist.html
Not only can Grant call himself an Abolitionist of Human Abortion, but so also should all people who desire to see abortion abolished because they are "pro-life."
Wake up!
Ian John Philoponus, Abortion Abolitionist Member of the Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma
Abolitionist_4 1 year ago
By the way this number goes up in the US by 2 every minute of every day, and goes up by the hundreds every minute of every day throughout the world. (for this reason, this young lady working in Asia, calls herself a Global Abolitionist of Human Abortion. http://abolishhumanabortion.blogspot.com/2011/04/i-am-universal-abolitionist.html
Not only can Grant call himself an Abolitionist of Human Abortion, but so also should all people who desire to see abortion abolished because they are "pro-life."
Wake up!
Ian John Philoponus, Abortion Abolitionist and Member of the Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma
Abolitionist_4 1 year ago
I would like to ignore Erik the carpet bomber above and say a few things to Pinchfist about his telling Grant that he cannot be an abolitionist for unborn babies now.
Thanks for referring to the aborted unborn as babies. That isn't technically what they are (they are full fledged human beings and members of the human species and cummunity and depending on how long they have been alive and developing are either Human zygotes, Human embryos, or human fetuses), but your use of Babies is far more accurate than the dehumanizing rhetoric used by anti-abolitionists (those seeking to uphold the legal right to abortion on demand) who refer to the unborn as mere embryos, fetuses, clumps of cells, parasites, or parts of a woman.
Thank you for agreeing that a large drive behind abolishing slavery in the US came from Christians. But, you should also know that this was the LARGEST drive behind the abolitionist movement, and it was not just Christians in the US that worked towards abolition, but, Christians in Britain who were the principal initiators, actors, and activists involved in the fight against the inhuman bondage of "man-stealing," which was the afrcian slave trade and chattel slavery, which was the "peculiar institution" of the south.
You are absolutely off base when you say that Grant cannot call himself an abolitionist today. The practice of Abortion is legal and upheld by the US supreme court just as the institution of slavery was legal and upheld by the US supreme court. Grant, and many others who want to abolish this law and the entire system of thought which undergirds it, are very properly understood to be Abolitionists. The impetus behind such abolitionism is, as you admit, theological in nature and religious in motivation. We are the same people facing a similar unjust law. We will not rest until we have effected its abolition.
We can and ought to fight against both abortion and child starvation. Do you think that fighting both of these battles is mutually exclusive? Certainly not. Abolish Human Abortion! End childhood starvation! Do both, and don't rest until they are uncomplished.
Rhology 1 year ago
Wow, nothing brightens a Friday like spam from a California-based atheist marketing director - EricKincade. http://www.noneexist.com/contact/index.htm
bruenig, I guess that's why "Plantiga" is widely published and peer reviewed, and you're an anonymous commenter on a university newspaper combox.
Pinchfist, "Extraordinary" is in the eye of the beholder. Atheism says that there was nothing and that nothing happened and everything emerged out of nothing acting on nothing. Now that, sir, is extraordinary.
If I asked you to present evidence for your own worldview, you'd have nothing. I know, I've asked atheists for evidence many, many times, but feel free to give it a shot yourself.
To say "our country can make enough food to feed everyone" displays astonishing ignorance of economics as well as political and military realities of the world. I mean, amazing. Dumbfounding. Do you really think that people starve b/c we "can't" grow enough food?
And can you really not distinguish between someone who is under someone else's knife and someone who, b/c of aforementioned economic/political situations, can't get enough food?
Peace, Rhology
EricKincade 1 year ago
My last comments:
If I said that Zeus was real and Zeus exists, what would you say to me? You tell me to prove it. Then I would ask you, “Prove that he does not exist!” you'd laugh at me and tell me my logic is faulty. You would say, that I have to prove that Zeus exists because I am making the claim.
However, this is exactly what Christians do. They tell nonbelievers that it’s up to us to prove that God does not exist and then take offense when we laugh at them. It’s quite funny.
When someone says something exists, it’s up to that person to prove it exists. If I said that Tennessee is on the west coast of the United States, you’d laugh at me. If I said, prove to me that Tennessee is not on the west coast, you’d say, no you have to prove to me that Tennessee is not on the west coast of the United States.
When Christians insist that it’s up to us to prove that god does not exist, then I submit that Christians don't even know what they are saying. Because, they are actually saying is to prove that any god exists, you simply just have to say that god exists. Using religious logic, since any god is true, based on one's own belief, and since we don't accept belief as proof in real world situations, then we know that belief in a god is just a guess. A guess is not proof. We can easily conclude that all gods are false and all gods are simply imaginary.
You see, all main stream religions are Bronze Age and Iron Age mythologies. What is the bible? The Bible is the first science book and book of medicine (miracles). Ancient primitive men wrote the Bible in the culture and science of their day and they got it horribly wrong.
All religions are man-made.
colinwkirk 1 year ago
A big problem with modern Christianity is that many Christians are more worried about blindly following their pastor or priest or minister than in actually trying to be Christ-like or understand what they believe. Jesus focused on helping the poor and feeding the hungry, on compassion. He was not an agent of widespread social change, he was an agent of individual change. He told the rich to give what they had to the poor. He told those who had to give to those who don't, and he didn't qualify it with, "give it to them if they deserve it." If you went to Jesus and said, "Hey, our leader wants to provide health care for everyone, and protect unemployment insurance and welfare" his response, given everything he said about the poor and needy, would have been, "Awesome!" Not to send people to town halls to tell senators they're going to hell for voting for it. The belief in a god is based on faith. I do not begrudge anyone their faith, and I have many friends who are Christians, some of whom are very devout. However, faith is not something that can be argued from an analytical or scientific standpoint. Even philosophically, arguments are shaky at best. Faith in a god is by definition believing the unbelievable. The burden of proof is not on the athetst. That said, I am not, as Douglas Adams described himself, an "evangelical atheist." If you're happy in your faith and it makes you a more compassionate person, go for it. But if it makes you snarky, snide, dismissive, hateful, and judgemental, all of which you were, I do take issue with that, both because it's a hypocritical betrayal of what your religion's founder taught, and because it prevents you from ever even looking at another point of view. Blind faith is not true faith.
colinwkirk 1 year ago
The slavery argument is interesting, because many slave owners used the Bible to justify the practice. In fact, as recently as the 1960's, the Bible was used to argue AGAINST universal civil rights, and Biblical texts about women were a huge part of what prevented women from getting the right to vote until 1920. The scope of religion is very, very wide, ranging from agnostic (Buddhism) to animistic (various American Indian spiritual systems) to intensively theistic (Christianity). There are millions of people who believe the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the many who held the title before him, all of who are manifestations of the boddhisatva of compassion, Avalokitesvara. There are 1.5 billion Muslims, all of whom have a fundamentally different concept of God than do Christians or Jews. Shintoists have a huge pantheon of gods. Followers of Hinduism believe that there are many manifestations of a single god. And every single member of these groups fervently beleive they are correct, and no religion has any more or any less faith in itself than does Christianity. Here's a thought experiment for you; in the athetist/agnostic community, there's something of an inside joke about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You may have seen emblems on cars with what looks like a 6 legged oyster with eyes on posts and the letters "FSM" inside. The basic premise of the argument is this: If you say it is reasonable to worship, as I described it, "a magic man in the sky who made us out of mud," who is described throughout the Bible as doing any number of absurdly impossible things, why is it any less reasonable to worship, say, a flying spaghetti monster? Throughout history, there have been thousands upon thousands of religions that in retrospect, we now look at as silly. We're all familiar with the ancient Greek and Roman relgiions. The Norse believed that at Ragnarok, their end of world, the gods would be defeated by evil forces. The Aztecs would sacrifice humans to the war god Huitzilopochtli and engage in ritual cannibalism. In pre-Hebrew Semitic religion, there was a even storm god named Yahweh. We look at those as if they're insane now; really, how different is it to worship an invisible guy who can see or do anything, whose stories involve talking snakes, ever-burning bushes, raising guys from the dead who've been dead long enough that their corpse is rotting and stinking (Lazarus), any number of insane things from the book of Revelation, or exorcising a demon by transferring it to a bunch of pigs and forcing them to commit mass suicide by running off a cliff?
colinwkirk 1 year ago
Since this is probably too long to get published, I'm posting this as a comment as well as e-mailing it to the Daily. I would like to start by noting that I did not choose the title of my letter. I was rather shocked that the Daily slapped such an incindiary title on it. It would seem you have little interest in actually paying attention to what I said and where it was directed and, instead, would rather be snide and patronizing, making grand, sweeping assumptions. I did not seek to demean religion in general. I made four basic points that were directed specifically at the original letter I replied to: 1) Christianity's main purpose is to prepare you for death. The original author stated that his goals were "useless" before he dedicated himself to Jesus, a sentiment I've had argued to me over and over from various people. Christianity does indeed teach that a life not lived preparing you for death is meaningless. 2) Many of the laws in the Bible are culturally biased, something the original author insisted was not the case. I gave examples to make the point. Another is I Timothy 2:12: "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence, for Adam was first formed, then Eve." 3) Most Christians I have discussed the subject with have this assumption that atheists have a "love of sin," a term I've heard bandied about more times than I can count. I guess the assumption is that if you're not a Christian, you're just dying use meth and strangle children or something. 4) You can most certainly have a fulfulling life outside of religion. It is true that the New Testament infers that the Old Testament law is no longer binding, yet Christians still use it to justify various culture war issues (in particular the persecution of the LGBT community), and most still cling to the Ten Commandments. Criticizing me by assuming I was referring to an atheist author about the Old Testament (I wasn't, I was simply going off of my own knowledge) while simultaneously referring to a Christian author for the same is hilariously hypocritical.
EricKincade 1 year ago
A couple of last points on my original comments.
Prayer never works. People in America pray for their new Gucci purse, new job, to meet a new person or to get that kitchen remodel. Christians talk about answered prayers all the time. There are prayer websites, there are prayer chains, there are prayer requests in church, prayer circles, people in Bible studies who pray and religious leaders admonish Christians to pray daily.
Yet, if prayer works, why won’t god heal amputees? Salamanders regenerate their limbs, apparently without the aid of prayer, why won’t the Christian all powerful god, do something as simple as healing an amputee’s limb?
Why doesn’t god heal all cancer victims overnight? Why doesn’t god feed the millions of children who are starving to death every year? These children are simply praying for a bowl of rice, yet their prayers go unanswered.
Why do prayers work for Americans but not for people in other countries? Does god favor Americans? Does it depend upon where you are born which determines if god will love you or if God will answer your prayers?
When someone thinks their prayers are being answered, it’s simply coincidence. It’s like winning the lottery. If you don’t win the lottery, you don’t talk about it much. If you win, you tell everyone, you got a hit!
When it comes to cancer, this is how it really works. There is a certain percentage of people who survive each type of cancer. For an example, if 3 out of 10 people will survive Type A cancer. Then statistically, only 3 people will live.
If you have 7 people who are Christians who died of Type A cancer, they will be unable to say that god did not answer their prayers. If you have one Christian who survived (and the other two were not believers) the Christian says that God answered their prayer. Not true. That person was simply a survivor of cancer. The Christian who survived is, in affect, slapping the dead people in the face. The Christian is saying, you see, I’m more important than the people who died, God favored me, not you.
The same is true if you claim god saved you in an accident or a natural disaster. If you claim that god saved you, you are saying that god favored you over other people. That god determined that the other people deserved to die but not you. It’s actually quite gross.
Saying things like, “I’ll pray for you.” or “I’ll keep you in my prayers” is the lazy person’s way of getting out of helping other people. There’s a saying, “Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.”
Rhology 1 year ago
Ironic that PhillyChief tells us on the one hand that meaning is personal and subjective and then on the other lectures us on why we should accept his personal, subjective take on things. Which is it?
Not so for the Christian - we have the communication from the ultimate Being - God, the Creator and Master of all that exists. PC won't like that, but that's OK - it's just his personal subjective meaning talking.
Tell you what, let me put it this way. Think of it as the same as when you argue about God's existence. Doesn't exist out there, so if it exists only for you, that's called a personal fantasy. Which you're welcome to, but don't tell anyone else about it, don't talk about it in the public square, etc. Let's say a mainline Christian who doesn't know or care about apologetics says to you: MainlineChristian: God exists. PhillyChief: Where's the evidence? MC: Um, I don't know. Actually, I know He exists b/c He exists in my heart. PhillyChief: So you mean He exists in you. Just not outside you, right? B/c if He did, you'd have some evidence, right? MC: [flabbergasted] Yeah. PhillyChief: You'll surely pardon me for not participating in your fantasy.
OK, so here we're just reversing roles.
PhillyChief: Meaning exists. Me: Where's the evidence? PhillyChief: Um, I don't know. Actually, I know it exists b/c it exists in my heart. Me: So you mean it exists in you. Just not outside you, right? B/c if it did, you'd have some evidence, right? PhillyChief: [flabbergasted] Yeah. Me: You'll surely pardon me for not participating in your fantasy.
IOW, you're asserting the meaning. You substantiate it, provide evidence for it.
PC is wrong about societal morality; his explanation is far, far too simplistic. Plenty of ppl have not accepted what large parts of society accept as moral norms, b/c the Bible says otherwise. Yet we are also part of society. PC is overgeneralising, and shame on him for ignoring the vastly diverse society that exists in the USA today.
Plantinga, when he discusses demons and natural disasters, is explaining the Christian faith. You can't access whether demons are behind those or not - it's indistinguishable with scientific means. He's answering a different question than PChief is asking.
PChief gives us, again, his unsupported opinion on the nature of fetuses. Thanks, but we already knew what the pro-abort side likes to repeat over and over again without good arguments to back it up.
Finally, yes, there is outcry over fertility clinics, but the far greater number of babies are killed in abortion, and it's worse on society's collective conscience. We have to start somewhere, and we'll have to ask the other side not to commit tu quoque fallacies while we're busy abolishing human abortion.
Peace, Rhology
Pinchfist 1 year ago
@Abolitionist_4 1. I’ve no desire to insult you, but nearly all of those descriptors would also have been correct.
And the bible has been used to justify the oppression of women as recently as in your parent’s lifetime (and presently if you include this particular issue). What’s your point? People use religion as a tool to further whatever their agenda is at any given moment.
I am not off-base at all. Because both were legal at one time or are legal now does not mean that your claims of being an abolitionist apply in the least. While your usage of the term “abolitionist” is perfunctorily accurate, to align yourself with civil rights as true abolitionists did is disingenuous to the concept of civil rights. Unborn children do not possess these rights. And, even supposing that they do, the mother’s rights are certainly not null and void.
Additionally, I only submitted that the fight against slavery in the US was indeed spearheaded by individuals that used the bible to justify their claims. I did not agree nor imply that their religiously fueled crusade was either accurate or better than a secular approach to end slavery. In fact, if I were able to go back and have a say in the matter, I would have suggested that the religious approach was superficial and short-sided (as we can see now with this issue).
You are not the same people and this is not even a remotely similar law.
Pinchfist 1 year ago
(cont'd)
4.The two atrocities were both mentioned because one is an actual harm to people who actually exist rather than babies whose composition range anywhere within the spectrum from clump of cells to something resembling a human baby. It was not my intent to presume that they are both mutually exclusive – that would be ridiculous.
My intent was to show the uproar from a religious group who stand idly by while they have the power to prevent suffering on a much larger scale. It was merely to illustrate the duplicity of morality that Christians have accepted as a basic premise for their faith. I don’t blame you for these shortcomings, your God seems to be on the fence about a number of, what ought to be, fairly simple and universal concepts (although his opinion on an abortion procedure is largely absent).
Grant can call himself anything he wants. I couldn’t care less. He can call himself a Crusader for Pink Unicorns, and it wouldn’t impact my life at all. I do find it typical that you’ve fallen back upon the pro-life versus pro-choice rhetoric. Pro-choice doesn’t mean the moral support of abortions, it means the moral rejection of the government’s ability to dictate what a woman can and can’t do with her body. Being against abortion as a procedure is not mutually exclusive with being against the government having legal jurisdiction over a women’s uterus. Why do you insist that they are?
Wake up!
Your crusade is ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst. You are self-righteous and couldn’t be further from the alleged teachings of the very God you extol.
Pinchfist 1 year ago
@Rhology "Pinchfist, "Extraordinary" is in the eye of the beholder."
You are correct, sir. One can manipulate the meaning of that word to fit nearly any circumstance in such ways that it is no longer extraordinary at all. Let’s be honest here – believing in a higher power, force, natural science, whatever that has either influenced or influences our existence now without evidence is an extraordinary claim. It is less extraordinary a claim than one which spells out the names and desires of such forces.
“Atheism says that there was nothing and that nothing happened and everything emerged out of nothing acting on nothing. Now that, sir, is extraordinary.”
Atheism doesn’t say anything. It’s not a stance. It’s not a position. The only way atheism becomes a position is by comparison to any particular faith by a person who has faith. Otherwise, it’s nothing.
Your stance, however, makes claims and while an atheist might make a claim, it’s not necessarily related to their lack of belief in something you hold to be true. Additionally, you attempt to employ a rational causal relationship to “disprove” the atheist while still holding that religion has somehow answered the same philosophical questions with any certainty at all.
EricKincade 1 year ago
To Rhology,
First, my answer is not spam. I found this article via a Twitter post and so I responded to it. I took my own personal time, my own unpaid labor time, to respond to this article.
How many religious dogmas and teachings do followers accept without seriously thinking about them? There are lots of religious teachings. I've been there. When someone first accepts Christ as their Savior, believers are shocked with an overwhelming happiness that they think they've found the key to eternal life. And people will do just about anything to keep this dream alive. This is why a long response is necessary to anyone who believes in ancient mythology and claim it's real.
If you discount my response, it's no surprise. Discussing the credibility of any religion is typically a conversation stopper. People hate it when their religious beliefs are questioned. What do we have, either conversation or war. What is the adult way of handling this? He's just spamming us, so I can discount everything he says? How mature is that? I responded to this article and I simply posted who I was. Would you be happier if I pretended to be a student at the University of Oklahoma?
It's funny, when I first saw this article, I thought it was an article in an Oklahoma city newspaper. It was just before I posted my comments that I noticed it was a student newspaper. You can barely read the words, "The University of Oklahoma's Independent Student Voice."
Yes, www.noneexist.com is my company, I recently created it as of November of 2010. It's a new logo and new website. Will it succeed? Know one knows. Is this a big corporation? Hell no, I made the logo and website in my spare time. I'm the owner. I'm a private person. People love titles. So I gave myself a title. Crucify me for it. Believers have a love affair with human sacrifice, no surprise there.
If I change my title on my website to "A private person who made this logo", would that make you happy?
Eric Kincade
Pinchfist 1 year ago
@Rhology (cont'd)
“If I asked you to present evidence for your own worldview, you'd have nothing. I know, I've asked atheists for evidence many, many times, but feel free to give it a shot yourself.”
The difference between my worldview and yours is that mine refutes the ability to understand reality beyond an educated guess at this moment. My worldview seeks understanding where we have none, while yours claims to already have it. You claim to have the answers, not me. Sure, I have opinions on things, and from those opinions I create my worldview but the glaring difference between you and I isn’t that I’ve decided that evidence is a better method of determining my thoughts on external events (clearly, you attempt to do the same within the framework that you’ve chosen). We just disagree on what evidence is and neither of us is satisfied with the other’s explanation for the world around us. You don’t have to prove it to me, just like I'm not required to prove it to you. Your views are incompatible with my worldview and mine are very much the same to you.
“To say "our country can make enough food to feed everyone" displays astonishing ignorance of economics as well as political and military realities of the world. I mean, amazing. Dumbfounding. Do you really think that people starve b/c we "can't" grow enough food? And can you really not distinguish between someone who is under someone else's knife and someone who, b/c of aforementioned economic/political situations, can't get enough food?”
Our country can make enough food to feed everyone. It is capable of doing so. Yes, I’m also well aware of economics and political/military realities of the world. I would think that a Christian would be more open to hyperbole, but, given that you clearly aren’t I’ll be perfectly straightforward with you.
While we have the capabilities to grow enough food to feed every man, woman, and child on the planet we do not for a number of reasons – many of which have nothing to do with morality. This doesn’t change the fact that suggesting that we could do these things isn’t inherently bad or misguided because, at the end of the day, feeding people who are hungry is a pretty good idea.
While we have the capability to throw away women’s rights in the US, we do not for a number of reasons – none of which have anything to do with the Christian worldview. This doesn’t change the fact that whether you would get an abortion yourself or not, the idea of the government having jurisdiction over a woman’s womb is a pretty bad idea.
EricKincade 1 year ago
To Colinwkirk:
I like the title for your article, "Religion is unneceesary for our lives." I think it's very unhealthy for children and adults to have an invisible celestrial friend. A friend who we have to love and fear at the same time. That's the very definintion of sadomasochism. Not good for you.
Sincerely,
Eric Kincade http://www.noneexist.com
("Rhology" is not going to be happy that I posted my website again.)
EricKincade 1 year ago
Science says, if we don’t know, let’s find out. Science says, if we don’t know we are okay with that. What does religion say? We know. See the difference?
EricKincade 1 year ago
To those who say that I "spammed" or was a "carpet bomber" to this post, here is my response. (Side note: I don't know what "carpet bomber" means.)
What is the title of this article? "Atheists need stronger arguments." So, I offered multiple strong arguments and guess what? I got crucified for it. Is anyone surprised that my detractors (I'm assuming they are believers.) want to stop the conversation by urging others not to read my arguments concerning religious truth claims?