Absolute Proof That God Exists

[Interested Atheist]

While talking on a Christian forum a pastor asked me to read a book he was in the process of writing. He left me lots of messages on how to get to the link, and finally emailed it to me because I couldn't reach it (living in China, there's trouble finding some websites). Up to this point, we had been very cordial to each other; he signed his emails with "your Christian friend" before his name.

 

I read a little of the book and some other points he's made in his emails, and wrote back. I didn't make any effort to be nice to him, but I didn't go out of my way to be offensive either. I pointed out that the problem with his book seemed to be that his conclusions were based on the assumption that God exists; and so if God doesn't, these conclusions don't mean anything. I also responded to an earlier mention by him of Josh McDowell, saying that the consensus is that McDowell's work isn't up to much, and giving him a link to the Secular Web rebuttal.

 

Below is the email I got in response - he's in italics, my responses are normal. It makes fun reading, and an interesting insight into the mind of a fundamentalist Christian with his back up, especially because, as I said, he's a pastor. David is him, Rowan is my name.

What do you think?

 

 

 

Hello David,

 

This all makes interesting reading. I'm afraid that a lot of your email seems to me to be assertions and rhetoric, appeals to emotion rather than reason.

 

 

Rowan:

 

I am sure that Isaac Newton was unscientific in his conclusions as well. He only had blind faith with no evidence.

 

Although I assume you're being sarcastic, I would have to answer "Yes, I suppose so". I assume that Newton did only have blind faith, just like everybody else. If he did in fact have proof that others didn't, I should very much like to see it.

Let's explore the meaning of what you just wrote. Am I right in saying you meant this?

 

1. Newton was a brilliantly intelligent man.

2. Newton reached his conclusions through logic and reasoning.

3. Newton was a Christian.

4. Therefore, Newton must have become a Christian through logic and reasoning.

5. Therefore there are good logical reasons to be a Christian.

 

There are two problems I can see with that. The second one is that it seems to be missing step 6: "And those good logical reasons which convinced Newton are..." which would then give me access to the same information Newton had, and therefore give me grounds for becoming a Christian.

 

The first problem is with step (2) - that Newton reached his conclusions through sound logic and reasoning. Did you know that Newton was also an alchemist? That he spent a considerable amount of time trying to change base metals into gold? Should we, then, assume that this is possible because a great mind told us so?

 

Newton's enormous contributions to science are acknowledged because he didn't just tell us what he thought; he also told us why; and his reasons were good, and testable, and this became part of mainstream science.

 

On the other hand, the facts that Newton was a Christian, and that he was an alchemist, and that many brilliant people are and have been Christians, and Muslims, and Jews, and members of all religions only indicates that intelligent people can make non-rational decisions just like anybody else.

 

As I have told so many who espouse to be atheists but are really only so because they have something that draws them to such a belief

 

You know, when I meet a Christian who tells me that he himself used to be an atheist, I usually find out that by "atheist" he simply meant someone who wasn't really concerned about religion, and as such wasn't "vaccinated" against the religious meme. To that I would add that I'm not so sure you yourself have an accurate idea of why exactly atheists become atheists.

 

, no true scientist could be an atheist. When a person purposefully only accepts those ideas and truths which conform to his pre-conceived hypothesis against all odds, it is not truly science at all but mere mythology. The scientific belief in the day of Columbus was that the world was flat, the Bible said otherwise. So much for the mythology, the Bible is a scientific book.

 

The bible did indeed say that the earth was flat, not to mention that the sun went around it, and that it is six thousand years old! So much for the Bible as a book of science.

 

You can't skim the book. It only proves that you don't really want to know the truth. God exists and anyone that fails to see the facts is not living in reality.

 

I certainly am going to read the book thoroughly - I was only telling you my preliminary conclusions. As for not wanting to know the truth, it's certainly true that people often don't want to believe things they're uncomfortable with - but some people believe them none the less.

We can see an excellent example of this in theists who say they don't believe in evolution because if it's true, humans are no better than animals.

 

No atheist was born as such, they became an atheist because of self-gratification in some way or another.

 

David, you're frankly becoming hard to take seriously. You make these assertions and then you leave them floating in mid-air.

Do you mean to say that nobody becomes an atheist because the evidence - which they will be happy to tell you about - supports a worldview in which God doesnt exist rather than one in which he does?

 

By the way, on what people are born as: babies are born believing nothing, and ready to believe anything. The only difference between the baby and the atheist is that the latter has reasons to maintain his disbelief in leprechauns, tooth fairies and God.

 

And yes, I became an atheist because of self-gratification. Do you know what kind of self-gratification it was? I was forced to gratify my own selfish desires for truth and intellectual integrity. There, my shameful secret is out.

 

Take some time and read in detail. Don't skim or you will miss the whole point.

As I said in my earlier email, I have only had time to skim parts of your book so far, and my conclusions are only preliminary; but I will indeed take the time to read through it properly and consider it.

 

All cultures believe in God because it is as clear that he exists as that there is time and that there is space. As I said: ungrounded assertions. Simply saying that it is quite clear and obvious doesn't impress me at all.

He does not need to be proven though there is more evidence for the existence of God than there is for the fact that the sun shines in the sky.

 

Is "he doesn't need to be proven, though there is abundant evidence for him" a contradiction? In any case, I'd have to take issue there. We can see the sun, for a start.

 

Unfortunately, a blind man can't see the sun but that does not disprove it's existence. When all the rest of the world can see it, then it begs the question, why does the blind man fail to see what everyone else can see.

 

Well, if you're saying that everybody can see the sun as an analogy for the fact that most humans are religious, then it leads us to conclude that some people see a yellow sun, some a blue sun, some a black sun, some multiple suns. Furthermore, the type of sun people see tends to depend upon where they were brought up and by whom, people are unable to see each others' suns, and if a black-sun seer moves to a country of yellow sun seers he still sees the same thing, unless he is persauded that he is incorrect, upon which his vision magically alters.

 

Besides which, in real life, everybody can't see God. In fact, nobody can actually SEE God. I've spent some time reading the threads on Bibleforums. They don't see God; they don't talk to him; they don't get emails from him. Burning bushes have gone out of fashion. What they get are the same subconscious hunches, intuitions and feelings that the rest of us get, which they interpret as being God's messages. Small still voices - I get them too; it's called conscience, or intuition, or many other things.

 

And finally, if you doubt that people look at the world and interpret the events of their lives in order to fit into the pattern that there is an intelligence behind these coincidences, ask yourself this question: Why do Muslims, Jews and members of all other religions feel exactly the same way? God can't be talking to them in the same way - can he?

The one central scientific fact of all history is that Jesus Christ, the God/man, walked on this earth, was born of a virgin, and died and then rose from the dead.

 

I swear I did a doubletake when I read that. Would you mind presenting us with the evidence for this scientific fact? The gospels? What, four accounts written forty to seventy years after the alleged event? Is that it?

 

The best minds in the world have tried to dispute the facts but none have ever done so because no one can argue with the fact that space exists or that we live today and the past is behind us and the future is before us.

 

David, when you hyperbolise like this I wonder what kind of sermons you preach.

 

When did you become an atheist and why? Answer that question and I will tell you why you have refused to believe that the world spins around the sun. Just because you say God does not exist does not change the facts.

 

I don't mind answering that question at all. I have been an atheist all my life. My parents were really unnterested in religion. I remember, at a young age, asking my mother if Jesus was a real person. She said that he may have been a real person, but he couldn't really do magic. As a teenager and in university I learned some more about religion, Christianity in particular, and saw lots of problems with it. Apart from the obvious one that there should be proof of the existence of God but isn't, there are the moral and logical contradictions of religion, particularly Christianity, which is the one I know most about. Finally, I discovered websites such as the secular web and exchristians.net, and now consider the the question of whether or not religion is true to be a non-issue.

 

It is you that is missing out on the most amazing truth that exists in the whole world, that we have a loving God who cares about each and every one of us and made the very air that we breathe. To miss out on his very existence is not science, it is not logic, it is sin.

 

1. The thought that there is a being who created us and sends more than three-quarters of all humans to hell is not so much wonderful as rather frightening.

2. If I were to tell you that there is a teapot in orbit around Pluto (Bertrand Russell's example) you would ask to see evidence. If you tell me there is an invisible friend who wants to take me to Disneyland when I die (and then further tell me that yes, people don't actually "die" when their bodies do) then I'm justified in asking for evidence for exactly the same reason.

The very definition of sin is to miss the mark of the end and scope of life, which is God.

 

Such a more convenient definition of sin that simply doing bad things.

 

Your belief in a world without God is prompted by your desire to do that which would only fit in a world where he did not exist. It is the height of self-gratification. It cares not for anyone else, nor for their best end, not even your own. It cares only for the fact that if God does exist, one's life style is in deep jeopardy.

 

Goodness me! Those evil atheists! You know, they're so selfish and obsessed with their own greed that it's amazing they don't all become criminals. Of course, you know that the percentage of atheists or agnostics in prisons is hugely disproportionate.

 

Yes, I can see how if you were a Christian, the fact that non-Christians are going to hell would seem like a bad thing. Therefore I can understand your need to demonize atheists as much as possible - it makes you feel less uncomfortable about the actions of your God. Also, I might speculate that the existence of people who just aren't frightened by the threat of hell must be a bit irritating. Sorry - it doesn't work on me.

 

All of which is a rather long-winded way of saying: no, people don't become atheists because they want to gratify their own selfish desires - and I wonder if that means that you or those like you, without God to watch them, might choose to live criminal lives.

People don't become atheists because they want the freedom to live selfish lives. They become atheists because they just can't swallow theism in any of its brands. Yes, can't, not won't. As Horseman42 said on Bibleforums, people do not believe there is no God out of choice.

 

If you really wanted the truth, you would see God in everything. You don't want to find him and so you don't. He is there, none-the-less.

 

It's true that our preconceptions can colour our reality; and it's also true that people often see what they want to see.

The thing is, I don't mind that much if God exists. OK, I'd have a few embarrassing conversatons to admit I was wrong on, but it really wouldn;t hurt my ego that much.

David - don't you think that scientists would be wild with excitement if it was proven that God exists? Don't you think they'd dive into this new field of study? Don't you think that anybody who could prove God existed would be winning Nobel prizes right and left? Don't you think that scientists might be a bit uncomfortable about their task of finding out about nature of reality if they felt that they were proceeding on a huge false assumption?

If God exists, I want to know. If Santa Claus exists, I want to know. If there's a huge Kraken living at the bottomof the ocean waiting to rise and devour, I want to know.

 

Please don't skim, that is not the words of a scientist, it is the words of a lover of mythology who is afraid to do deep research for fear of finding out the truth. A true scientist would carefully study in depth without fear that the facts would undemine his pre-conceived ideas. I challenge you to be willing to change. If you are not willing to see facts outside of your world, then you are only admiting your own mythological blunders.

 

David, this is exactly the kind of challenge I would make to you - except that considering (a) Christianity's position with its contendors and ( science's track record as being the only system yet able to make progress in discovering truth for us, I would say that the word "mythology" better fits your side than mine.

 

 

 

SECOND EMAIL

 

 

 

Rowan:

 

God is not known by debate or reasoning.

 

God is not a subjective feeling; he is an objective entity - either he exists or he does not. If he exists, he comes under the purview of science.

 

And by the way, if intelligence doesn't matter to finding out whether or not God exists or not, why did you bring up the fact that Newton believed in God?

 

He is known by a personal encounter like you meeting me. Therefore, as I said to the last atheist who finally became a Christian when he did what I said, get on your knees and pray. Tell God that you don't believe in him but that if he is real and will manifest Himself to you, you will renounce your atheism and become a life-time Servant of Jesus Christ. If you won't do that, it is because you already believe but are afraid of the results. After all, if there is no God, why would it matter, right?

 

David, I would take the test but before I do something strikes me: If the prayer worked, and if I did believe in God, I would not automatically love that God or wish to be a lifetime servant of Jesus Christ. I would first have to know that God (who decimated the world's population, expresses his contempt/hatred/dislike for homosexuals, women and nonbelievers, sends my parents to roast in hell forever and think the earth is flat) is really worthy of worship.

 

Second, this test isn't scientific, because it isn't falsifiable. Let me make you a deal. Do you trust in God? Do you believe he exists in the manner in which you have described? And have you read your bible, particularly the story of Elijah conronting the priests of Baal?

 

In that case, why don't we test God? If he passes, I'll believe in him and become a theist - not necessarily a Christian, but at least it removes the evidential objections which means we can move on to the moral ones.

 

If he doesn't pass, will you admit that he doesn't exist?

All the best,

Rowan.

[lothartx]

Thank you for posting this dialogue. It's interesting that in the end his only agrument was "It's a personal relaitionship.....ad-nauseum." I think you did an excellent job remaining on point and not getting drawn into the emotional debate. He never directly addressed any of you your questions.

 

I have heard many of the same arguments about Newton, Einstein.. etc. The bible does indeed say the earth is flat and solar system revolves around the earth. The genisis section is total crap as far as science or history. It makes a good fable, that's about it. Newton, from what I read, was also one arrogant S.O.B. Not a nice person. Following his (and most fundamental christians) logic:

 

Newton was smart.

Newton was an arrogant S.O.B.

Newton must be a smart ass arrogant S.O.B.

Newton tried to lead into gold.

Newton was a christian.

Christian are smart ass, arrogant S.O.B's that try to turn lead into gold.

 

I also find it surprising he recomemding you study the bible indepthly. I haven't done that as of yet, but I started to and that's all it took. I do plan on continuing. Most people I know who are christians and study the bible indepth have to have a second, third, fourth.....twentieth book to "explain away" all the inconsistancies and rationalizations.

Thanks again for sharing.

[greasemonkey]

great response!

 

It will be interesting to see if he responds with anything besides "thou shalt not test the lord thy god"

 

funny how the "test" business only works one way.

 

hope you keep us posted!

[Pariah]

He is known by a personal encounter like you meeting me. Therefore, as I said to the last atheist who finally became a Christian when he did what I said, get on your knees and pray. Tell God that you don't believe in him but that if he is real and will manifest Himself to you, you will renounce your atheism and become a life-time Servant of Jesus Christ. If you won't do that, it is because you already believe but are afraid of the results. After all, if there is no God, why would it matter, right?

 

You should respond to this by saying that many, many people have done this and have recieved squat from this alleged God. No manifestation, no nothing.

 

Also, who does this guy think he is ordering you around? This seems very much a one-sided discussion; you discuss his points, he preaches more points and orders.

[Eponymic]

He is known by a personal encounter like you meeting me. Therefore, as I said to the last atheist who finally became a Christian when he did what I said, get on your knees and pray. Tell God that you don't believe in him but that if he is real and will manifest Himself to you, you will renounce your atheism and become a life-time Servant of Jesus Christ. If you won't do that, it is because you already believe but are afraid of the results. After all, if there is no God, why would it matter, right?

 

This test is completely fallible. It's totally appealing to emotionality, by using prayer you are using self-fulfilling thought. And if you ask the right questions, of course you're going to get answers for them, but you'll be the one making it happen not God. Prayer is a horrible measuring stick.

 

And it's not a matter of fear not wanting to take the test, it's a matter of proper knowledge that you recognize the flaws in the test. Fear & emotional appeals is what he's using.

[Kryten]

Great post. I love seeing dialog between dogmatized Christians and intelligent ex-Christians.

I assume you will post the next round when available...

[gliph]

Thanks for posting! This was a very interesting read. You did a great job staying objective, even through his repetitive rantings.

 

One thing that I find interesting is there were very few scripture quotes and other "evidence" directly from the bible. Maybe he knows to stay away from it and tries to focus on the "personal relationship" angle.... who knows...

 

Anyway, thanks again, hope to hear more when (if) you get a reply.....

 

 

-Gliph

[Entgegen]

He is known by a personal encounter like you meeting me. Therefore, as I said to the last atheist who finally became a Christian when he did what I said, get on your knees and pray. Tell God that you don't believe in him but that if he is real and will manifest Himself to you, you will renounce your atheism and become a life-time Servant of Jesus Christ. If you won't do that, it is because you already believe but are afraid of the results. After all, if there is no God, why would it matter, right?

 

Ok, fine, I'll try it. Everyone watching? This one's for all the marbles. Here we go.

 

*ahem* (drum rolls) "God, I don't believe in you, but if you're real and will manifest yourself to me, I will renounce my atheism and become a life-time Servant of Jesus Christ."

 

--silence--

 

--cricket...cricket--

 

Yeah, I figured as much...

[Interested Atheist]

Thanks for the answers, everybody! Glad you enjoyed it.

 

Since then we've exchanged a couple more emails. He seems to have calmed down more now. His points are that I would find the answers if I read the book he's writing (this isn't as bad as it sounds - his book is based on the work of a nineteenth century man he's rewriting, so this may explain why he has such a high opinion.

 

True, I haven't done more than get into the first few chapters of the book yet, but I think that if the reasoning was so clear and could explain everything he would have floored me with it before now. Not to mention that the beginnings of the book don't look too promising in themselves - lots of logical arguments, but suddenly leaping to strange conclusions. Also, a story about a trouble-causing atheist who took his daughter's case to the supreme court because he was scandalised at her having to say the words "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance! It turns out that when the truth came out the girl never minded it at all, and the wicked old atheist had been motivated solely by his own desire to stir up trouble out of mischievous impulses and his own intellectual laziness...

 

Yeah, right.

 

Also, his emails seem to be saying that the answers can't be found in logic, but only by seeking God with the heart. I sent him this last night:

 

Hello again, David,

 

Since we're challenging each others' beliefs, I hope you don't mind if I ask a few questions that I didn't get answers for on the forum. These really seem to me to be stumpers, and I'd appreciate your responses to them:

 

First, these quotes from Christians. What are your reactions to them please?

 

"God has killed more [than Hitler] and will send more than half of all humanity to hell... does that make Him bad? No."

Livin'4Christ, POD Warrior Forum

 

I have a friend that is agnostic. Her big hang-up is her cats. What happens to her cats when they die if God is real? She believes that if God is real, her cats either vanish or go to hell because they don’t accept Jesus. So she chooses to not believe in God because she can’t believe in a god that would do this (although I have explained where this isn’t necessarily the case). It absolutely dumbfounds me where some people are so worried about outside things like their cats, or this native in the wilderness, that they would choose an eternity in hell for it."

Rom831, Rapture Ready

 

 

"Last night, I was reading to my two children out of their 'children's bible.' We got to the story of Abraham and Isaac and I read to them about Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac in obedience to God.

When we finished my son, who is 9, looked very distraught. He then asked me the most difficult question that I have ever heard in my life....'Would you do that to me if God asked you to?'

I sat for a moment and franically thought of what was best to say. Needless to say, my pause was cause for alarm in his mind.

After a few agonizing moments, I responded with a very slow and distraught...'Yes. If God commanded me to, then I would have no choice but to be obedient; however, I hope that God would never demand such a thing from me.'

He looked shocked. And I felt that I had said the wrong thing. Of course, my wife immediately spoke up and said that she would not ever do anything to hurt him.

But I began to explain myself to him. I told him that he was saved, and that death on this earth brings life in heaven with Jesus. He understood perfectly and then said something amazing. He looked at his mother and said, 'I would rather die and go to heaven and God would be happy with you for obeying Him, than to know that when I died you could go to hell for not doing what you were told.'"

Bone_Mender, Rapture Ready

 

"[Replying to 'So the three year old killed by a drunk driver goes to hell?']

That's my belief, yeah. God surely has the power to prevent that car accident. So, it's not an accident really. The child did not lose his chance at God's kingdom by a stroke of bad luck - too bad, you died to early. God could have prevented it. It's also possible that God caused the accident to happen. Remember, God knows all. It's quite possible that the child would grow to be a terrible sinner, a great plague to good people, if not stopped while he was young."

Daniel_1981, Christian Forums

 

Second, did God have a plan, when he created the world, for everybody to go to heaven?

 

 

 

His responding email hasn't addressed them. But he has mentioned to me that Darwin renounced his hypothesis before death and became a Christian. I think I'll refer him to an artcle from a worryingly bad website called Apologetics Press. Fundie YEC nonsense that it is, at least it maintains that the story of Darwin becoming a Christian is too ridiculous for Christians to use.

 

 

 

Anyway, here's the other email he sent me:

I don't mean to come off short with you but there are times when reasoning does not answer the questions. One of the greatest to explain the concepts of the laws of the spiit was Watchman Nee, a Chinese Christian. Some of what he taught me I have added to what Finney espoused. Just make an attempt to see the logic of what is said and you sill find that most of what the Christians have said in forums is far from what a true concept of God should be. The basic root of all that God is, his very character, is love. God would never desire to send anyone to hell and has no plans to do so. His plans are for the best end for every living being, even animals. That is the beauty of what is in the book. It literally destroys most of what Christians say. You could even use some of it to make points against them. It is quite simple, actually if you can only grasp the definitions and the basics. God loves and he does not require any more of anyone than their comprehension of his existence allow or according to their own nature and relations. His demanda are no more than what he puts on himself, namely, to wish the best for all. The essence of Moral Law is not actions but true ultimate intentions. If you as an atheist too the whole hypothesis and did not even mention the word God, most of it would make absolute sense. The argument that moral law is a law of reason and that in order for any law to be enforceable it must have sanctions and a moral governor only makes sense. I will let you read more. Most Christians are what I call "fitin' fundamentalists." That is not what God is about. The other thing is that unless a person sees the intrinsic value to knowing God and that their life could only be best by having Him as their truest friend, they will never really begin to have a desire to approach Him.

 

One more thing! God is not a theory or a mythology. He is a person that you can actually meet and know. You may ask how? Read the part about the laws of the spirit and it may help some.

 

 

As you can see, he's become calmer, but without being much more illuminating...

[lothartx]

Thanks for the answers, everybody! Glad you enjoyed it.

 

<snip>

 

"Last night, I was reading to my two children out of their 'children's bible.' We got to the story of Abraham and Isaac and I read to them about Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac in obedience to God.

When we finished my son, who is 9, looked very distraught. He then asked me the most difficult question that I have ever heard in my life....'Would you do that to me if God asked you to?'

I sat for a moment and franically thought of what was best to say. Needless to say, my pause was cause for alarm in his mind.

After a few agonizing moments, I responded with a very slow and distraught...'Yes. If God commanded me to, then I would have no choice but to be obedient; however, I hope that God would never demand such a thing from me.'

He looked shocked. And I felt that I had said the wrong thing. Of course, my wife immediately spoke up and said that she would not ever do anything to hurt him.

But I began to explain myself to him. I told him that he was saved, and that death on this earth brings life in heaven with Jesus. He understood perfectly and then said something amazing. He looked at his mother and said, 'I would rather die and go to heaven and God would be happy with you for obeying Him, than to know that when I died you could go to hell for not doing what you were told.'"

Bone_Mender, Rapture Ready

 

 

 

His responding email hasn't addressed them. But he has mentioned to me that Darwin renounced his hypothesis before death and became a Christian. I think I'll refer him to an artcle from a worryingly bad website called Apologetics Press. Fundie YEC nonsense that it is, at least it maintains that the story of Darwin becoming a Christian is too ridiculous for Christians to use.

 

<snip>

 

 

 

 

I'm at a loss for words on Mr. Bone_Mender. He is seriously screwing with his on kids head. I would call it unbelievable, but I've heard similiar stories. :angry:

 

 

The Darwin card that some fundies play has been de-bunked. Not true, total B.S.

Ohh, and totally irrelevant. Has no affect on whether evolution is a fact.

[Interested Atheist]

Yes - he just popped the Darwin argument in in a couple of sentences - "Did you know that Darwin," etc. Didn't substantiate it, just looked like a cheap pot-shot.

 

This guy is a pastor, but I really do wonder how good he is. He hasn't made an attempt to debate as such - indeed, he's saying that God can't be found through debate, another way of saying that you're not interested in reasoned discussion. Which seems to be strange, because his book is all about reasoning your way through this.

 

Incidentally, here is a quote from his book that he sent me:

"Exclusiveness. This is to say that moral law is the only possible rule of moral obligation. It cannot be moral law unless it applies to everyone and there are no exceptions. There cannot be one moral law for Arabs and another for Chinese, and still another for Americans. That is because there is only one moral law and it applies to everyone in the universe equally. It also means that there is no other substitute. Moral law is the only law that respects the moral disposition of all moral agents. You can’t say, I am an atheist so therefore I don’t need to use the word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. The atheist cannot have his own moral law and the Christian another. Moral law is the only law and it applies to the Christian, Islamic, or the atheist. Loving others is always for the good of the universe no matter what one’s belief system may dictate. Knowing God is always moral, even for the atheist because he is accepting that which makes all other moral agents responsible to moral sanctions, thus creating the highest end for every member of society. An atheist should want God in the pledge, not because he believes in God, but because society does and it will make all persons with whom he interacts with on a daily basis achieve their highest moral end which will make the life of the atheist far more fulfilled (though he can never really have true fulfillment without God). A blind man does not require that all persons who can see must wear black sunglasses which block the light of day from their eyes. To do so would be totally absurd and life for the blind man would become far more dangerous. He has adapted to life without light, but a seeing person would be dangerous if they could not function in a normal seeing world. In the same way, an atheist makes a big mistake in trying to force society to be “blind” as he is. The others in his own society depend totally upon God and for them to live without God would make it hell on earth for the atheist. It would be far better for him to allow each person to do what is morally right because the end result would be improved life for the atheist as well."

 

 

What with his views of atheists and atheism, which strike me as uninformed, his other unusual views and metaphors and the fact that he says he doesn't want to debate or answer questions "of the mind", I have to wonder what kind of a pastor he is!

[Interested Atheist]

Incidentally, unless I'm much mistaken with his ridiculous analogy about blind people in sunlight, what he's saying is that we should not disturb people's delusions because it makes life uncomfortable for them.

 

And as for this:

"The others in his own society depend totally upon God and for them to live without God would make it hell on earth for the atheist."

 

Sigh. Just take a look at a non-Christian country and then tell me again how Christianity is essential for a life well-lived.

 

Seriously, I think this person is so ill-informed that he shouldn't be put in a position where he gets paid to spread his views to others and supply answers to people with questions.

[Fweethawt]

This here was my favorite part:

And yes, I became an atheist because of self-gratification. Do you know what kind of self-gratification it was? I was forced to gratify my own selfish desires for truth and intellectual integrity. There, my shameful secret is out.

I'll have to remember to use that one in the future.

[Interested Atheist]

Thanks, fweethawt! And did you realise that the one central, scientific fact of history is that Jesus Christ, the God/man, walked on this earth, was born of a virgin, and died and then rose from the dead.

[Queer Texan]

I don't mean to come off short with you but there are times when reasoning does not answer the questions. One of the greatest to explain the concepts of the laws of the spiit was Watchman Nee, a Chinese Christian.

 

New guy here.

 

This sounds like a flamer I've run into several times on various boards dealing with spirituality. His name is Troy Brooks, and he runs around posting "proofs of God," and spouting on about Watchman Nee to anyone who will listen. Would be surprised if this is your "David."

[Fweethawt]

Thanks, fweethawt! And did you realise that the one central, scientific fact of history is that Jesus Christ, the God/man, walked on this earth, was born of a virgin, and died and then rose from the dead.

Oh, that part I knew.

 

I mean, why else would there be a split in time separated by the terms B.C. and A.D. ?

 

 

 

New guy here.

Welcome to the forum, QT. I've already read some of the front page of your blog. I liked what you wrote about the Matrix.

 

I like those movies too.

[Interested Atheist]

Thanks, fweethawt! And did you realise that the one central, scientific fact of history is that Jesus Christ, the God/man, walked on this earth, was born of a virgin, and died and then rose from the dead.

Oh, that part I knew.

 

I mean, why else would there be a split in time separated by the terms B.C. and A.D. ?

 

 

I remember hearing Josh McDowell saying how he was confronted by someone saying "there's nothing historical about religion," and how Josh led him to Christ by pointing to the BC and AD in his history book.

 

Too bad the unbeliever didn't simply ask this Christ-idiot what day of the week it was!

[crazy-tiger]

I don't mean to come off short with you but there are times when reasoning does not answer the questions. One of the greatest to explain the concepts of the laws of the spiit was Watchman Nee, a Chinese Christian.

 

New guy here.

 

This sounds like a flamer I've run into several times on various boards dealing with spirituality. His name is Troy Brooks, and he runs around posting "proofs of God," and spouting on about Watchman Nee to anyone who will listen. Would be surprised if this is your "David."

We know Troy very well...

[Kryten]

"Last night, I was reading to my two children out of their 'children's bible.' We got to the story of Abraham and Isaac and I read to them about Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac in obedience to God.

When we finished my son, who is 9, looked very distraught. He then asked me the most difficult question that I have ever heard in my life....'Would you do that to me if God asked you to?'

I sat for a moment and franically thought of what was best to say. Needless to say, my pause was cause for alarm in his mind.

After a few agonizing moments, I responded with a very slow and distraught...'Yes. If God commanded me to, then I would have no choice but to be obedient; however, I hope that God would never demand such a thing from me.'

He looked shocked. And I felt that I had said the wrong thing. Of course, my wife immediately spoke up and said that she would not ever do anything to hurt him.

But I began to explain myself to him. I told him that he was saved, and that death on this earth brings life in heaven with Jesus. He understood perfectly and then said something amazing. He looked at his mother and said, 'I would rather die and go to heaven and God would be happy with you for obeying Him, than to know that when I died you could go to hell for not doing what you were told.'"

Bone_Mender, Rapture Ready

To this Father-of-the-Year I would ask him how he discerned the command was from God? I suggest he compare the instructions with the written Law of God. If it contradicts, then it must be from Satan in the form of an angel. Bottom line, he just killed his child because Satan told him to.

[Eponymic]

 

What with his views of atheists and atheism, which strike me as uninformed, his other unusual views and metaphors and the fact that he says he doesn't want to debate or answer questions "of the mind", I have to wonder what kind of a pastor he is!

 

He's sounds very a-typical to me. Willing to throw outlandish stories out there without properly substantiating them. Using a mass of emotional arguments. And fearing any real analysis.

[Interested Atheist]

Well, next email. He's sounding quite calm now, but not making much sense. He promises that his book will explain everything, but I have my doubts.

 

 

"I am pleased that there are some areas of agreement. That is a starting point. As far as God sending people to hell, it is not actually that way. The concepts of moral law explain the need for sanctions, which means rewards and punishments. If there are neither, the law is merely advice and not law at all. It is, however, not a very difficult law, a law of love. That is why Jesus said his yoke is easy and his burden is light. The book explains these concepts. It even shows how God's punishment is actually chosen by man and not God and that God has far better plans but allows the punishment as a means to show his justice and his mercy. Read the explanations. Another question that people have is why would God send heathen people in foreign nations to hell when they have no knowledge of these concepts? According to moral law, God only condemns people for the fact that they know that they are disobeying God and that they do so with full knowledge of the consequences. This is precisely why I am re-writing the book. It is because there are so many mis-conceptions in the Christian world. One that I hate is the notion that God chooses some to go to hell and others to go to heaven. It makes God into a ruthless tyrant who cares for no one but himself. That is not a true concept of a God of love. I have learned a great deal in working on this. In fact, I feel that many who call themselves Christians are only in their religion for purely selfish reasons and their lives manifest many of the traits of selfishness mentioned in the book. Those attributes of benevolence and of selfishness are quite revealing. I can see why Finney was one of the greatest revivalists. Many of his converts were educated men and women, doctors, lawyers, judges, Congressmen, and Senators. I am hoping that if I can get this work done and get the proper permissions to print using most of the work of Finney with my own editing that I can get the book published. We live in such a hateful society and even Christians do not manifest the one trait that Jesus said would mark them, that they have a profound love for one another. On the whole, I seem to be treated far more disrespectful on forums from Christians than one could imagine. Perhaps they consider my writings, teachings, and beliefs dangerous to their own self confidence and security. Regarding Darwin, I have heard the other side as well, but there are plenty of other stories about people who had just as drastic a change after they met God that it really does not matter one way or the other with him. Sometimes it is the writer and his own views that colors the real truth of a matter. In the case of Abraham Lincoln, I have read from writers who claim that he was not a Christian and then others said he was devout but in a very personal way. Oh well, so much for opinions. Sometimes one needs to discern the truth in their own spirit, as it were. Must go now, I will write more later. It is a pleasure writing and having communication with you."

[BlueGiant]

I guess it's my turn to fandango on fundy (though this guy doesn't seem so bad). Seems like he's got a good bit of dissonance in his head, though.

 

Snippage throughout the reply, mostly hitting the highlights as I see them...

 

As far as God sending people to hell, it is not actually that way. The concepts of moral law explain the need for sanctions, which means rewards and punishments. If there are neither, the law is merely advice and not law at all.

 

Let's start here: first off, god doesn't send people to hell...oh shit, there goes my fear-based morality!

 

It is, however, not a very difficult law, a law of love. That is why Jesus said his yoke is easy and his burden is light. ... It even shows how God's punishment is actually chosen by man and not God and that God has far better plans but allows the punishment as a means to show his justice and his mercy.

 

Now god can save man pretty directly (if it's all powerful) but for some reason man can send himself to hell, which god doesn't want...but if an all powerful being doesn't want something to happen, I would figure that it doesn't (why the hell would it?) Since something is done against the wishes of an all powerful being, we have a problem, namely a contradiction. This one is pretty easy to resolve. The being doesn't care, ie the being throws people into hell. So which way is it again?

 

...Another question that people have is why would God send heathen people in foreign nations to hell when they have no knowledge of these concepts? According to moral law, God only condemns people for the fact that they know that they are disobeying God and that they do so with full knowledge of the consequences.

 

So god does condemn people to hell? Hmmm I thought he didn't do that. And how can people have full knowledge of eternity, which would be the consequence...i.e. understanding an infinity...so he can't send anyone to hell...!? So I guess your law means nothing (not that I haven't figured that out a long time ago).

 

That is not a true concept of a God of love.

 

Last I checked, it was actually jealousy, vengence, angry, etc. I guess it is the kind of "love" that involves black eyes?

 

In fact, I feel that many who call themselves Christians are only in their religion for purely selfish reasons and their lives manifest many of the traits of selfishness mentioned in the book.

 

Well, that we agree on. It is a great racket and very profitable. Exploitation usually is.

 

Those attributes of benevolence and of selfishness are quite revealing. I can see why Finney was one of the greatest revivalists. Many of his converts were educated men and women, doctors, lawyers, judges, Congressmen, and Senators.

 

What's with the respectable people if none of us are respectable (and reason has no bearing?)

 

In addition most of the people in those fields are assholes to boot (sometimes effective assholes, but still...and I was raised by some of those guys).

 

... even Christians do not manifest the one trait that Jesus said would mark them, that they have a profound love for one another.

 

I'll give you three guesses why that is...

 

Oh well, so much for opinions. Sometimes one needs to discern the truth in their own spirit, as it were.

 

 

And I have discerned that there is no value to Christianity except as a bit of comfort food, and that the guy who sent you this, IA, really hasn't thought things out.

[Mythra]

I don't think this is our man Troy.

 

He's not nearly wacked enough.

 

If his absolute proof for God becomes a Four-Point-Perfect-Proof for God, then maybe. But I think not.

 

I like his - "don't skim". Like if you read the whole bible carefully, then you'd be able to believe it.

I've read it. Many, many times. Maybe one time too many.

 

Nah. This isn't our Troy. Just another fundy thumper pushin his Jesus.

 

ps: Welcome to our little world, Interested Atheist. Sounds like you have a pretty good head on your shoulders.

[Interested Atheist]

I don't think this is our man Troy.

 

He's not nearly wacked enough.

 

If his absolute proof for God becomes a Four-Point-Perfect-Proof for God, then maybe. But I think not.

 

I like his - "don't skim". Like if you read the whole bible carefully, then you'd be able to believe it.

I've read it. Many, many times. Maybe one time too many.

 

Nah. This isn't our Troy. Just another fundy thumper pushin his Jesus.

 

ps: Welcome to our little world, Interested Atheist. Sounds like you have a pretty good head on your shoulders.

Thanks very much!

It was exchristians.net that got me interested in atheism in the first place. I spent hours reading the archives of testimonies here. From there I went on to the raving atheist, the secular web, lots of other little websites and articles, and my favorite, Ebon Musings. So I'm happy to have joined and be taking part at last.

 

I've learned a lot reading all of this stuff! First thing, be skeptical and ask for proof. I've picked up a lot of different arguments and learned a little bit about politics as well. But there are still lots of areas I'm not really competent to speak on - I don't know much about bible verses, or science, or history. So I like to stick to common sense arguments and logical contradictions.

 

This guy I ran into on Bibleforums at the end of a long, frustrating debate on the morality of hell. We're still exchanging emails now, and I've promised to read his book - I don't think he'll be hapy with the effect it has on me - and his last two emails were (1) informing me that evolution might not be so secure and acknowledged as I think - did I know that there is a growing wave of dissatisfaction with it (after all, it is only a theory) and (2) recommending a book about a guy who travelled around the world and saw many amazing miracles performed for Jesus.

 

My responses willbe as patient, balanced and fair as I can make myself write! No, ID is not science, it's creationism in a cheap tuxedo; and did this guy happen to catch any of these miracles on video?

 

By the way, about Troy - is that the one who touted his four points to prove that God exists? with the $10, 000 prize? The first one was about how evoluion couldn't be true because if the universe had been evolving forever it would now have reached perfection? If that's him, I think I saw him on the Raving Atheist forums, called Parture. Anyway, no, I don't think it is him I'm emailing, if only because he certainly would have challenged me with the Four Points by now - a mind like that doesn't give up a good idea simply because a few hundred people eviscerate it with logic. Also, in fairness, my correspondent seems more reasonable and much less egotistical than that.

[Interested Atheist]

By the way, Blue Giant, thanks for the comments, and Mythra, thanks for the welcome!

 

Ah yes, now - Parture WAS Troy's name on RA. It seems both sites responded the same way. Some laughed at him, some told him to get lost, some were patient and asked him to debate seriously. And nobody had any trouble with his four ridiculous rules.

 

(by the way, Mythra, reading through Troy's thread on this site I like your comment - "You're not preaching to the choir, you're preaching to the former choir directors.")

 

Here was Troy (Parture) on the Raving Atheist:

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2188

 

and here was the response:

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2329

 

Makes some fun reading. I bet I'd find some good stuff if I did a search for Troy on FSTDT!