We still love you!
So many of my closest friends and colleagues have said this to me in the past few days. My initial, unspoken reaction was, “Well, I certainly hope so.” Now I understand that this is not a forgone conclusion. I didn’t realize, even four days ago, how difficult it would be for some people to embrace me while I was embracing this journey of open inquiry into the question of God’s existence. I have to say that anyone who knows me personally, while they may not agree with what I’m doing or fully understand it, has expressed their support for me personally. I deeply appreciate that because the organizations that I have been affiliated with have not been able to do the same.
It began on the evening of January 1—the very first day of my year without god. First text messages, then email saying, “We need to talk.” By noon on Friday I had been let go from all the jobs that I had. Since leaving my position with the Seventh-day Adventist Church—and even before—I was an adjunct professor at Azusa Pacific University (APU) teaching Intercultural Communication to undergrads, and Fuller Theological Seminary, coaching doctoral candidates in the writing of their dissertation proposals. Both are Christian institutions of higher learning that have a requirement that their instructors and staff be committed followers of Jesus and, obviously, believers in God. They simply feel they cannot have me as a part of the faculty while I’m am in this year long process. Both APU and Fuller welcomed a conversation with me at the end of the year to see about my future work with their institutions. The Deans of both schools encouraged me and said they felt my project was bold and even important and necessary.
The other work I do is consulting with congregations. One congregation in particular—the Glendale City Seventh-day Adventist Church in Glendale, California, had recently asked me to start a non-profit organization that would network the faith communities in Glendale and Northeast Los Angeles to build social fabric and work for the common good of the city. We were just in the infancy stages of that project when I embarked publicly on this journey. I have long admired the Glendale City Church, partnering with them on many projects through the years when I was a pastor in Hollywood. They are strong advocates for the full inclusion of the LBGT community in the church. While shouldering that important justice burden against much opposition from around the Adventist Church, the fact that I was embarking on a year without god was just too much for them.
So, while I understand and appreciate where these three organizations are coming from, I have a few observations about what has transpired in the last day.
1. Religions institutions (Christian, in my case) are not able to endure these probing questions from their public leaders. My process for the next year does not square with official faith statements and creates untenable discomfort among members. Donors, it is feared, will pull back their donations. My inquiry is the beginning of a slippery slope and they simply can’t risk it.
2. Christian educational institutions are not serving their students by eliminating professors that are on an honest intellectual and spiritual journey, just because it doesn’t line up with the official statement of faith. My guess is that many professors at APU, Fuller Seminary and other Christian universities, have a wide range of opinions about the official faith statement. The difference with me is that I publicly declared my disagreement, or at least uncertainty.
3. Those who “come out” as atheist face serious consequences in our society. They are among the marginalized groups that get the least attention. I know this now from personal experience. Many people who have commented here or sent me private messages have told me heartbreaking stories of the suffering and estragement they have endured. Others have said they are still closeted because their family, friends and employers could not bear the news.
So I find myself, on Day 4, without any employment. My savings will run out in about two weeks and I’m scrambling to find immediate work doing, well…anything—manual labor, waiting tables, other teaching and consulting, or whatever I can find.
I understand so much better now why dozens of people spoke to me and about me as though I was diagnosed with a terminal illness. Some aspects of my life did receive a terminal diagnose because of this journey. My hope is that I will find work to support myself and my family as I continue down this road, and my heart goes out to those who have suffered similar consequences as a result of following their conscience.
Year Without God 
I am not at offended by your choice to walk away from God – people do it every day and don’t make a big deal about it. I am a follower of Christ and I choose to stay with God. However – I am a bit offended, or better yet, confused, that you would even think that any Christian organization, which by definition, is all about God, would want to have you as an employee. It has nothing to do with whether or not they like you, it’s about the fact that you no longer represent in any way anything they stand for or believe in. Also – as a proclaimed atheist, why would you even consider working for any institution that is fundamentally built on the premise that there is a God and that we are to serve Him? Ask yourself – oh, I don’t know, maybe several years ago, if someone you worked with were to do the same exact thing that you are now doing, would you still have employed them at your church. I think not, It wouldn’t have made any sense, just like it doesn’t make sense now for you. Good luck on your journey and may you find at the end of it that the only thing that feels a God shaped void is God.
Pingback: Christian Professor Gets Fired for 'Trying on Atheism' | Care2 Causes
Thanks for mentioning the hardship atheists might endure… I am an atheist and I think the UK (where I am) is reasonably tolerant but it has to be said you can no more choose not to believe in a deity than you can to believe in one, much like the members of the LGBT community cannot choose their sexual identity. Society needs to develop in its tolerance of difference – celebrate rather than fear it!
I – as an atheist – beg to differ a little in that there is value in conformity as rules are very important, and believing in rules even more so – the difference is in accepting those who do not, or cannot conform – like getting mad at someone without legs in a wheel chair is ridiculous. Tolerance is important, but society must have rules based on reality, not myth and comfort per se.
Reg LGBT – We need to stop thinking that things are so rigid to protect people as there are many people who CAN choose one way or the other, or who are a-sexual – we have to allow for that too, and not just radicalize it into discrete camps as a rainbow is not just a bunch of different colors, but also has areas where the colors mix and change and we ALL have to have tolerance for that.
If you can choose to love either men or women, there’s a term for that – bisexual.
Yes there is aesthete2, but in our political fight to allow one thing or the other it’s usually the extremes that are fought for and the smaller “grey area” that are not discussed which is where we are today as you either believe everything and are a “real christian”, or believe nothing and are a “real atheist” while many of us are in the middle and forced by the two camps to pick sides just as many people who might have “experimented” sexually would be called a homosexual by some even though they are firmly in one camp or the other now. It is easier (and lazy) to not allow for the grey areas.
I think there might be a misunderstanding about what I meant. I neither feel alone as an atheist (know many people who don’t believe in a deity) nor feel apart from those who do have a faith. Also, calling myself an atheist is something I do in the context of a discussion such as this but it does not mean I negate the rules of the society in which I live. It would however be hypocrisy for me to go to church on Sunday to conform to some arbitary standard, especially when most Christians (in Britain) don’t go to church anyway.
“Also, calling myself an atheist is something I do in the context of a discussion such as this but it does not mean I negate the rules of the society in which I live. ”
Also, calling myself a minority is something I do in the context of a discussion such as this but it does not mean I negate the rules of the society in which I live.
Also, calling myself a black person is something I do in the context of a discussion such as this but it does not mean I negate the rules of the society in which I live.
Also, calling myself a Jew is something I do in the context of a discussion such as this but it does not mean I negate the rules of the society in which I live.
Also, calling myself a single mother is something I do in the context of a discussion such as this but it does not mean I negate the rules of the society in which I live.
Also, calling myself a bisexual is something I do in the context of a discussion such as this but it does not mean I negate the rules of the society in which I live.
See how that sounds? Would you have said “Also, calling myself a Christian is something I do in the context of a discussion such as this but it does not mean I negate the rules of the society in which I live.”? Why or why not?
Why would anyone connect “atheist” with “negating the rules of the society in which one lives”?? What “rules” and who’s making them?
Pingback: Former Pastor, Christian Educator Announces He’ll Become Atheist for a Year and Loses Every Job He Had For It | The World of Christianity
Pingback: Guest post by Simon Davis: Πρoστατευμένο: Why the Ryan J. Bell narrative is flawed » Butterflies and Wheels
Pingback: Guest post by Simon Davis: Why the Ryan J. Bell narrative is flawed » Butterflies and Wheels
“It is easier (and lazy) to not allow for the grey areas.”
You’re right, silvawebdev. Dualistic thinking, that everything is either *this* or *that*, as in an on/off switch, is the source of much trouble within society and much conflict and suffering within human beings. The reality is that reality comes in shades of gray – there IS NO right/wrong. Everything – and I mean *EVERYTHING* – is context-dependent and, thus, requires wisdom and discernment to figure out.
Certain religions, like Christianity, promote simplistic dualistic thinking, leading to all sorts of trouble for society. We end up with closed-minded, ignorant Christians who can’t think, who insist that they’re right and everyone else is wrong, and attempt to get their fellow Christians to band with them to forcibly change society’s rules and laws to favor their deluded Christian viewpoints. Christians have demonstrated in the past 50 years that they have *NO PROBLEM* overall with certain groups within society having to exist without the same rights as the Christians enjoy. These Christians are quite happy to see basic human rights denied to certain minorities, because the denial of those rights “proves”, in these Christians’ rotten minds, that these minorities are fundamentally inferior and, to be honest, less than human.
So I think that we have a vested interest in making sure that groups that promote division, hatred, bigotry, and predjudice against “others”, while promoting favoritism and unjust preferential treatment for members of their OWN group are kept in check. These groups exert a destructive, poisonous effect upon society and cause serious trouble for us all, despite how such groups uniformly insist that they are the respository of everything that is best out of the human condition.
Blanche have enjoyed your answers although I am not quite a combative as you, I must agree on almost all points…Thank you.
It’s strange that so many conservatives will say there are no grey areas or “exceptions” yet when asked about murder, adultery, sin, or whatever they all have context – you can kill in war, or adulterers should be stoned to death – oh, well not anymore… and then when asked about Genesis – well OK, THERE six days means six days…. despite all the physical evidence… If you are going to say that something is 100% correct and try to make me believe that I should be kicking myself because I need to pray harder because I don’t “feel” God then stop playing games.
Now this is a problem of democracy – the Church and leaders know that compromise is needed – there was compromise in cobbling the bible together as some books were included and some were not. But the sheep were kept away from this and told of perfection, infallibility and divine inspiration which if you go to Europe you can see after centuries of this there are few “literal” believers as they have seen through time that this was a sham – but the NEW guys now they have the NEW system the NEW rules and distance themselves from all the old bad religions and have the “real Christians” – now we know what to do!!! There are fewer things more human than creating new beliefs from the old and then cutting your ties so that their failures no longer apply to you…. that’s human, not divinely inspired nature as if you were divine you wouldn’t need to do that.
So I think that we have a vested interest in making sure that groups that promote division, hatred, bigotry, and prejudice against “others”, while promoting favoritism and unjust preferential treatment for members of their OWN group are kept in check. These groups exert a destructive, poisonous effect upon society and cause serious trouble for us all, despite how such groups uniformly insist that they are the repository of everything that is best out of the human condition.
I agree with you here although I don’t think we need to attack the message of religion as written in the bible, but the messengers that would use religion for their own purposes and pervert the basic intent – as the Republicans have done by co-opting abortion to their pro-business plank in the late ’70’s part genius, and part luck (as most things are) as the middle class was so fat and happy they let all their good union job get sold overseas expecting new jobs (doing what I will never know) to materialize…. So 40 million pro Union, pro Democrat Catholics (along with other pro union Christians) immediately became Republican and started voting against their economic security to save babies in the womb – noble yes, but not a great long term strategy to keep a middle class…. The combination of religion and political party was a master stroke, but will not last as when you base your beliefs on ideals without allowances for compromise you will see failure as nothing is ideal in life – just as a Christian must kill from time to time a tree hugger must cut down a tree..
To all Christians – I am sorry if I cannot believe in your religion 100% – I agree with many aspects of Christianity and many other religions – but do you feel sorry about all the other religions with billions of hindu’s and Muslims? Are you constantly studying them to see if you “feel” their God? If you do not, then how would you ask more of me?
Silvawebdev, you have made an important post – I hope people take the time to read and think about it. It is indeed more appealing to make a “clean break” and simply dump something that has become “difficult” rather than try and work it out, especially when the working out both appears and will be quite distasteful, for example. And those who are smug and self-satisfied think nothing of requiring significant effort on the part of others, especially when demanding that others understand THEM. There will be no reciprocation, you understand.
The situation in the US is indeed unique, as is the situation in Australia. Oz was colonized by criminals who were sent there to get rid of the; the US was colonized by crazy Christian zealots determined to set up theocracy. And thus, despite both having nominally European ancestry and the same language, the two cultures have turned out very differently.
I recently ran across an analysis of what makes US Christianity so different, and it’s quite astonishing – below, an excerpt from a book preview:
http://tinyurl.com/k5dxszx – “Tocqueville’s Civil Religion: American Christianity and the Prospects for Freedom” By Sanford Kessler
While America’s republican religion was Christian in name, it was opposed in principle to all forms of traditional Christianity and wholly consistent with the basic premises of the Enlightenment.
…
Tocqueville concluded that most Americans vested religious authority neither in God nor the self, but in democratic public opinion. “All the clergy of America are aware of the intellectual domination of the majority,” he observed in the Democracy, “and they treat it with respect.” “They never struggle against it unless the struggle is necessary. They keep aloof from party squabbles, but they freely adopt the general views of their time and country and let themselves go unresistingly with the tide of feeling and opinion which carries everything around them along with it.”
…
Tocqueville describes this new sort of religion at various points in the Democracy. Its core beliefs, zealously held, were that the people are sovereign, that they have the right to determine religious truth for themselves, that their capacities for this task are roughly equal, and that truth, therefore, “will be found on the side of the majority.” Its secondary notions include the ideas that happiness can be attained without God, that self-interest is honorable if “properly understood,” and that humanity as a whole is capable of indefinite improvement. These beliefs made Americans, for the most part, thisworldly rather than otherworldly, proud rather than humble, selfish rather than altruistic and rational rather than pious.
…
Ironically, Americans paid for their membership in public opinion’s church with true religious freedom, that is the freedom of nonconformity. Eschewing argument and persuasion, the majority compelled belief “by some mighty pressure of the mind of all upon the intelligence of each.” Resistance to this pressure, which entered into the very depths of the soul, was virtually impossible. In democracy, Tocqueville notes, it is “very difficult for a man to believe what the mass rejects and to profess what it condemns.”
…
In Tocqueville’s America, however, there was “only one authority, one source of strength and success, and nothing outside it.” Although the majority didn’t banish or burn heretics, it silenced them more effectively by ostracism. Luther himself, Tocqueville notes, probably would have been denied a hearing under these circumstances.
…
Despite the high level of religious activity, he found “less independence of mind and true freedom of discussion” here than in any other country familiar to him. Ironically, the same democratic forces which fostered enlightenment rationalism and Protestant sectarianism threatened in the 1830s to “confine the activity of private judgment within limits too narrow for the dignity and happiness of mankind.” Americans also paid a steep price in happiness for their worship of equality. Traditional Christians repressed “a crowd of petty passing desires” for the sake of salvation and could be happy in their faith even if not prosperous, enlightened, or free. Tocqueville’s Americans, in contrast, were prosperous, enlightened, and free, but not really happy. “A cloud habitually hung on their brow,” he observed, “and they seemed serious and almost sad even in their pleasures.” In his mind, this restless melancholy was due largely to a virtual abandonment of otherworldly hopes.
…
Tocqueville thought that these changes brought a grievous loss to real Christianity, drastically reducing its power over the American soul. “Religion does not move…[Americans]…deeply,” he noted in his letter to Kergolay. Very few American Protestants made the sacrifices of time, effort, and wealth for the faith that one would expect from the truly pious nor did they seem to fear otherworldly punishment. Rather, they followed their religion “the way our fathers took a medicine in the month of May – if it does not do any good, people seem to say, at least it cannot do any harm.” This indifference made Christians who “follow[ed] their habits rather than their convictions” and hypocrisy was common. Ultimately, Tocqueville could not determine just how many American Protestants sincerely believed, “for who can read the secrets of the heart?”
…
“A man who has set his heart on nothing but the good things of this world is always in a hurry, for he has only a limited time in which to find them, get them, and enjoy them. Remembrance of the shortness of life continually goads him on. Apart from the goods he has, he thinks of a thousand others which death will prevent him from tasting if he does not hurry. This thought fills him with distress, fear, and regret and keeps his mind continually in agitation…”
…
The Christian spirit of freedom ultimately led Americans unconsciously to worship public opinion when private, rational judgment proved incapable of satisfying their metaphysical needs. While the Christian spirit of religion no longer acted independently on the American soul, its residual influence on public opinion left the country, at least in appearance, the most Christian nation in the world.
“the US was colonized by crazy Christian zealots determined to set up theocracy”
Blanche, this is absolutely, unequivocally NOT TRUE. The original colonists were theists to be sure, but they were not determined to set up theocracy – they were ESCAPING theocracy. I have no idea how you could screw up that so badly.
Oh my, have you actually read the accounts of the first settlements?
@Blanche – thanks for the kind words.
@WW – You are wrong, the original settlers here were separated into religious groups, taxes went to state Churches – there were not “enlightened” people, they came here to have freedom from persecution, but were not looking to assimilate into anything and fought hard and no problem persecuting using their own rules. There are MANY stories of political oppression in the united states. It took the educated, traveled business class 250 years later to think beyond survival, religion and exclusion – the only way to create the union we have today.
“Blanche, this is absolutely, unequivocally NOT TRUE. The original colonists were theists to be sure, but they were not determined to set up theocracy – they were ESCAPING theocracy. I have no idea how you could screw up that so badly.”
It sounds like you’ve never heard of the Puritans. That surprises me.
If you lived in a Puritan town, you were required by law to be a Puritan. If you were, say, a Quaker instead (still a Christian, right?), you were liable to be fined, arrested, tortured, branded on the face, whipped, driven out of town, or murdered – in Boston, four people were hanged by Puritans just for being Quakers, including 2 women. If you did not attend every church service, you would be fined. In fact, in some cases, the police went door to door on Sunday morning, and dragged anyone they found to church. People were FORCED TO ATTEND CHURCH by law enforcement. Here is how the Rev. John Cotton, a big fan of this human rights abuse, excused the practice:
“But (say you) it doth but make men hypocrites, to compell men to conforme the outward man [in matters of worship] for feare of punishment. If it did so, yet better to be hypocrites than prophane persons. Hypocrites give God part of his due, the outward man, but the prophane person giveth God neither outward nor inward man.” http://tinyurl.com/n2plrf3
Now, can you explain to me how this does NOT sound like a theocracy?? We unfortunately suffer from their legacy, with Christians continuing to believe that people should be forced by law to obey Christianity’s rules, regardless of whether they are even Christians or not, “for their own good.”
Christians don’t seem able to grasp the concept that YOUR religion is for YOU to follow and that this is as far as it goes. Just as Christians don’t worry about Judaism’s rules or Hinduism’s rules or Scientology’s rules, Christians should not expect the rest of us to be concerned about Christianity’s rules. It is shockingly selfish and an egregious abuse of basic human rights and freedoms to hijack the legal system in order to force nonChristians to obey Christian rules. You should be glad the Puritans have gone extinct. They were nasty, dangerous Christians, and we’re far better off without them.
Blanche, Great assessment of the need for freedom in and from religion. Separation of church and state is crucial. Puritans left religious persecution and then set up a system where they became the persecutors. I’m thankful for the likes Roger Williams who, early on, helped clarify this issue. I am embarrassed by Christians that want to make this a “Christian nation” through legislation. I am a Christian and will use dialogue and persuasion when welcomed and nothing more.
Thank you for your comment, Jerry Nelson. And thank you for bringing up Roger Williams, himself also a Puritan! Williams went so far as to say, “Forced worship stinks in God’s nostrils.”
On the other hand, John Cotton’s perspective was, “[Tolerance is] liberty … to tell lies in the name of the Lord.” But aren’t Christians supposed to let GOD be the judge??
“Roger Williams didn’t believe in forcing others to believe as he did. He thought that killing or punishing in the name of Christianity was sinful. He respected the beliefs of others, including the Native Americans. He said that church members should pay the bills for their church instead of taking the money out of everyone’s general taxes. Then he started preaching that land shouldn’t be forcibly taken from the Indians. He said, “[It is] against the testimony of Christ Jesus for the civil state to impose upon the souls of the people a religion…. Jesus never called for the sword of steel to help the sword of spirit.” http://www.pbs.org/wnet/historyofus/web03/segment2.html
Unfortunately, it is clear whose viewpoint endured. The wrong side’s. You see, John Cotton felt that even hypocrites could be *useful* and thus, people should be forced to do what he wanted them to do, so as to be “useful.” To him. We still see vestiges of that attitude.
It always astonishes me when people who have suffered from persecution (as John Cotton did in England) will turn right around and behave WORSE toward those they disagree with!
“I am embarrassed by Christians that want to make this a “Christian nation” through legislation. I am a Christian and will use dialogue and persuasion when welcomed and nothing more.”
I appreciate and applaud your sensible and thoughtful stand on this matter.
Dear Ryan,
I have just read an article about your quest and throes with faith, and I think I understand what’s going on in your life. If that’s okay with you I’d venture to offer my own insight into the matter.
For starters, I’d like to introduce you to your new friends: Mr Why, Mr How, Mr Who, Mr Where, Mr When, Mr Who-Benefits and Mr Is-It-By-Chance-Or-By-Design? The friends come in very handy whenever there is a matter or situation you need to dissect and analyze, and, despite the fact many find them at times uncomfortable, the first “friend” and the last one are especially helpful.
Also, you can view events, things etc. just like certain processes. All processes are manageable, controllable or steerable. E.q. the price of bread isn’t going to increase by itself. There’s always someone behind it. When you think of church – it is also a process. The process, that has a set purpose – what is the real purpose of church? If god is one, why do we have so many different faiths and factions? Who started it? How does it work? How does it affect our brain and our thinking? Who benefits from it? What’s in it for us, the unchurched. When you find answers to all the questions, you’ll see the bigger picture, and only then you can decide whether you really want to be a part of it or not.
Faith. The synonym for it in my dictionary is trust. Trust, unfortunately, is oftentimes violated or broken. Keeping that in mind, I feel knowledge is still better than trust. It is way safer, if you see what I mean. By the way, prior to Christianity people lived and had connection with their gods based on knowledge, and it worked. They didn’t have a Decalog. They had just one rule – “Live and let live” – simple and all-encompassing. Apparently they used their head when dealing with themselves and their heart when dealing with everyone else.
Living as an atheist, you don’t get to call on higher powers to get you out of any undesirable situation. You just say “The buck stops here”, and deal with it to the best of your knowledge and ability. Also, no one imposes on your time, money and other resources. The question “what is more important: time or money?” actually is not a question for you. Obviously, it is time – an unreplenishable resource. Time for yourself, for your family, friends, hobbies etc.
Now that you don’t have god in your life (for now or for good), you may feel a void in your life. If you asked for my advice, I’d recommend replace it with love. Love to yourself, love to your family and love to your nation, and do everything you do out of love. If you still feel the lack of something meaningful in your life, why not contact your own native gods. It makes much more sense, than turning to a god of a distant foreign nation, who needs to be very strongly motivated to prefer you over his own “children”. Again, it’s all very debatable, and I just offer you my personal view on the subject matter, and you can either take it or leave it.
In any case and by all means I wish you health, wealth and happiness.
Sincerely,
Roger
Pingback: Atheist blogger seeks donations to help pastor who was fired for ‘giving atheism a try’ | Alternative News Alert!
Pingback: To Experience Real Religious Discrimination, Turn Atheist | The Weekly Sift
Pingback: A Year without God Shouldn’t Mean a Year without a Job « The Unemployed Philosopher's Blog
I was raised Lutheran and attended a Catholic high school. I never really identified with religion. It was just something I did because everyone else did. I never internalized it. After high school, I struggled for some years to figure out what my religious identity is. For a while, I considered myself agnostic – and slowly shifted toward atheism. Now, being atheist is not something I am ashamed of or secretive about. However – something about the word atheist still makes me shudder. The lack of belief is not where my issue lies – it is in the stigma that comes along with it. I will openly tell anyone who asks that I do not believe in God, but even I find it hard to say the word atheist because of the reactions I get.
Whatever the outcome of your journey – I wish you the best. I hope this brings you insight and an open mind at the very least.
I have resisted replying to any of these comments. I hope and pray that the person that this blog is for as been able to find a job. But I did want to way one thing. I find the many people (Christians) get disillusioned with Christianity because they are not fulfilled. So many of our people want to do something with their faith, but are not told how or are told that they cant.
We are given so much faith in Church, but just are not given the opportunity to use it. According to the book of James, Faith without works is a dead faith and useless. So many in our Churches dont feel God and feel used of God cause the Church wont let them and wont give them the tools to work out their faith.
Real faith has to be used. It must be worked out or just like people that over eat, they are literally overfed and become fat and lazy.
If you pray for someone that does not have food, you probably have food in your own panty that you can give. If you pray for someone that does not have clothes, you probably have clothes in your own closet that you dont need.
If you pray for someone to find a job, you need to help them find a job. Just praying for someone and leaving them there is taking the easy way out and is wrong.
The key is that we need to get out there and help people. If any Church is not meeting the needs of its people and in the community, it has no right to call itself a Church.
We are the Church, not just buildings. We need to meet needs. This is what is fulfilling and is what will define us as Christians. In the words of Keith Green.
“Going to Church no more makes you a Christian than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger.”
What makes us Christians is doing what God told us to do is Matthew 25:31-46
Why do you think faith is a good thing?
You can never please God without faith, without depending on him. Anyone who wants to come to God must believe that there is a God and that he rewards those who sincerely look for him. Hebrews 11:6
Everything in this life and this world requires faith. For example, no of us was there to see the beginning of the world, the universe and life.
If you believe in God, it requires faith. If you believe in the big bang, it requires faith. If you believe that Aliens seeded life, it requires faith. If you believe that Big foot created life, it requires faith. If you believe we came from Monkeys, it requires faith.
There is no such thing as no faith. Even if you just believe in yourself, it requires faith.
Are you talking about faith in Christianity, or faith in general? I think faith is a very important personal and social tool – you need to have faith the fill the gaps as you can’t analyze and “know” everything and you can’t always be paranoid so faith is important – you just have to “not drink the cool-aid”, or have absolutely blind faith. Just thought perhaps this was addressed in Christianity by the introduction of the Devil, or perhaps that was just used as a powerful scapegoat…
Oh, well..
I heard a very good, but very simple, argument the other day on faith. Take the fish symbol, which by the way I dont care for, or the other various symbols that people put on their cars. I was not there to see it created, yet someone did create it. My car did not come with it. Someone had to create it and adhere it to my car.
Another very cute example I heard is a house. Houses are made, but no one saw it done. We dont go around saying things like; The house just evolved over time, or a bunch of wood molecules came together just right and the house just built itself.” No, we say that someone built it. We cant see them, we did not see them do it, but we believe by faith that an intelligent designer created it.
So everyone has faith. Even if one was to believe that the house did magically just come together, that requires a huge leap of faith.
There is a difference between having faith in something you can measure, and something you cannot. That is why to me if there is a creator, he may have created the universe in a lab, but I have seen nothing beyond that that makes no sense except for stories and books told by people yet of course there are equally compelling stories by different people, some relying on others, an some independent so I have no way of giving one story any more credence then the other.
NOW, it is in my interest to pick a narrative that works best for myself and family and I have picked my ancestral Catholicism for my children’s youth – they are not children any more and so we have made that transition. WE NEED an alternative, a faith and environment that replaces the needed values of religion, but are not bound by bronze age mysticism and limitations. A narrative that helps people work against their selfish interests and helps them through the times we all have where we need to survive. I was perfectly happy to play the “Christian thing” until they are all going crazy in politics and polarizing themselves and creating “creation museums” – and confusing my children (they actually laugh about it) who are going – what kind of crap is that? There were not dinosaurs on an Ark….. We do need something though to polarize thought, to help those who are not scholars, who can’t or are not able to make sense of the world as it is.
I don’t see it as faith to assume something is not false – I see it as faith to assume something is true.
Do you see the difference? One is condemning someone for having committed a crime when you don’t know they did, the other is assuming it was possible, but keeping an open mind.
You can have faith in your spouse as not cheating on you, but how far should that faith go? So far that no matter what he or she does, you always act and feel that they don’t?
I don’t see faith as a thing to be considered a good quality – I see it as neutral, a judgement as to how one should act in the lack of real evidence – going too far in that judgement merely allows one to used by others, for good or bad and that’s not a good thing.
What I was trying to say 😉 There is the issue of young children and as reason is not really a possibility to them many of the norms we create for the are “just because” and religion does seal the deal a bit there – I have not seen a secular manifesto to raising children (will have to look) as to me there is nothing more important as raising the next generation and any changes we make to our society regarding religion should take child rearing into account first.
I always thought that I would rather have sheep that believed in something (and could be controlled) then sheep that were running about crazy. The bell curves of probability and effectiveness of education, understanding, good public service and all that what are we creating, and what is the responsible path towards a greater society?
I went to your church in Hollywood two times and liked it very much. I am a bit troubled by your journey though. Although I think it is fine to pursue religious beliefs and find ones own truth, I question making money on this experiement. I understand that someone else started a donation page in your honor, but now I see you have a donation lilnk on this blog. I fully undestand it being tough to lose three jobs with two kids to take care of, but what did you expect. You were a pastor and Christian teacher who wantted to “try out” athieism, do you think they were going to let you keep your job?? Why should we send you money? You should have contemplated the consequences this decision was going to place on you financially, especially having children to raise.
You say you are surprised this went public, but now it seems like you are enjoying the attention and now, the money it is bringing your way.
I have a question for you. Was there ever a time in your life when Jesus made himself real to you? If he never had, then you were never a true believer to begin with and if he had made Himself real, then why don’t you try to go back and remember that time.
I have another question for all athiests, What if you are wrong??
JAB, “What if you are wrong??”:
I’d have a lot of questions.
If I’m wrong, then I am in the same boat as you. No worse for wear.
Yes, yes, I get that you’re passive-aggressively saying that I’m going to burn in hell.
The God you believe in is a bully, and, if he’s real, he can go fuck himself. Pardon the language. I’ll be here waiting for my lighting strike.
wow. got under your skin I see. I’m not passive aggressive. I never said you will burn in hell. I never said anyone who does not believe in God will burn in hell. If you read the Bible clearly, there is no eternal hell.
The God I believe in changed a self conceited ungrateful person, into someone who has learned the joy of giving and loving others.
I don’t know a God that you describe.
So I gather you’ve never read the bible.
This is typical in these arguments – we all have to make assumptions… and when we do please don’t respond with an attack on those assumptions unless they are entirely out of bounds of “normal” beliefs as assumed – unfortunately with this comment system there is no voting and threading is terrible….
Then if I’m wrong nothing changes for me, either. Either I die and cease to exist–as I already believe I will–or everyone is saved, including me.
Do you want to know why your question “got under my skin”? It’s because you’re suggesting that I don’t really believe what I say I do, and that I treat my beliefs with such carelessness that I could simply discard them based on some vague promise of potential reward or punishment. You’re acting as though I haven’t given this any serious thought, when it is, in fact, an important part of my identity. It’s patronizing and obnoxious.
Here’s a tip: Most atheists are good people, just like most believers. We find reasons to be moral that do not involve a god. We find ways to lead happy and fulfilling lives on our own terms. We are, in general, not angry people.
However, when speaking with believers, we are targeted over and over again with the same slew of insensitive tropes and admonitions. We are accused of being immoral or callous. We are told our lives are hopeless and without meaning. Our beliefs are regularly treated without respect–as though we’re just faking them, or didn’t try hard enough. There’s a reason we get pissed off.
So please, don’t be that guy.
“I have another question for all athiests, What if you are wrong??”
Odds are, same thing as if you are wrong. If we are wrong that there is no god, there is only a vanishingly small chance that the god that exists (or gods that do exist) is the same god that you believe in. If you believe in the wrong god, you’re as screwed as we are. Maybe even more.
Please read up on Pascal’s Wager and why I’m laughing that you even brought that up.
Time will tell who is wrong and who is right. Keep on laughing, it’s good for the soul.
To DJ: Who says:- “One glance at the anatomy of the eye, never mind it’s well balanced functions, is enough discredit evolution”
EXACTLY, I couldn’t have put it better myself. If you just take “one glance”, the eye looks perfectly designed and there’s no way to imagine otherwise. STUDY the eye, genetics, evolution; LEARN what is KNOWN about eyes, how they work and what’s WRONG with them that no designer – especially not an infallible one – would ever have built in, and two things become obvious. Yes, OBVIOUS, IF you do the work. They are.
1. The eye was NOT designed by any intelligence.
2. It IS possible (actually, it’s quite simple, but again, it requires more than just a glance) to find the tiny intermediate steps between basic light sensitivity and fully functional eyes.
You CAN discredit evolution, but only by jumping to conclusions based on near-zero knowledge. This also, quite justifiably, involves getting laughed and/or shouted at.
You CAN discredit creationism and/or intelligent design by looking rather deeper.
This involves some work – but it’s very rewarding work. I’m sure you have no interest in doing so but I would direct you to Richard Dawkins’ book, “The Blind Watchmaker”. Then, don’t take his word for it – stop glancing and do some bloody RESEARCH.
Dave, Darwin said ” to suppose that the eye, with all it’s inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible.” (The Origin of Species by means of natural selection) He likewise said that this was a problem of “organs of extreme perfection and complication.” These were problematic to his theory, and he admitted that it was.
The human eye has a lens on one side and a light sensitive retina consisting of rods and cones inside the other. The lens itself has a protective covering (cornea) which lies over an iris designed to protect the eye from excessive light. Tear glands continuously flush the outside of the eye clean, eyelashes protect them from dust as does the “blink reflex”, requiring a sound neurological system. The watery substance within the eye is replaced every four hours. Muscles surround the eye for precision and motility and shape the lens in order to focus, so the eye was formed with a myriad other coordinated functions not to mention the cranial nerves. Innumerable impulses are traveling from your eyes through millions of nerve fibers that transmit information to a complex computing center in the brain called the visual cortex. Without this coordinated development of the eye and the brain in a synergistic fashion, the isolated developments themselves would be uninterpretable….”evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treat them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation” (Phillup Johnson Defeating Darwinism by opening Minds) ….I do not like engaging in debates of this sort, because it’s just hitting the ball back and forth. You’re not impressed, I’m not impressed…it really is pointless. Atheism relies on Darwin’s theory of evolution, and so you are welcomed to it. I don’t buy into it at all…and it doesn’t end with the “eye”. Let’s be real here…you and I both know this is a waste of time. Let’s find something more productive to talk about.
Only you know if you are open to how things really work. Why are you here if you are not?
A2, I’m not here to be schooled by atheists. I’m just interested in what led Ryan to his big announcement. So far, what he’s said, only confirms what I’ve suspected, but not wanting to jump to conclusions, I’ll stick around a little while longer to see if he gets any deeper.
I do appreciate understanding how you and others think, but atheism isn’t a consideration for me. I have an abiding relationship with God, which would be foolish to deny. Although many atheists are here, this is not an atheists discussion list. I’m not trying to convert anyone, and I would appreciate if others would stop trying to “de”convert me. I’m not interested in debating belief systems. Live and let live.
No, I didn’t ask you why you were reading this blog. I asked why you are here – making comments and debating the entire idea if you are not the least bit interested in hearing and understanding what people are telling you?
I’m all for getting what you think and seeing if there’s anything to it and I’m quite happy to change my mind if you have some evidence that I don’t know about. You pretty much just told us, you have a closed mind and were just what, hoping that you could skate by with not having to actually interact?
A2, if you go back and review the comments, you will find that I repeatedly have said that I am not interested in debating these things….then comes along someone directing their comment to me specifically with some inaccurate surmisings which beg clarity. I did not jump into this conversation, I was dragged into it. I’m content to leave it as is. There was a comment in a movie which came to mind when I’d see these questions posed to me directly (I don’t remember where I heard it) but it goes like this….”…the minute I finally get away…they suck me back in….” I consider these sort of debates as vain jangling and a waste of time for all of us…
Oh yeah, like someone reached out and physically dragged you into an internet discussion.
No, you went until you started looking bad, then you tried to cop out with ‘I’m not interested in discussing it’. Lame.
A2, from the very beginning I stated that I was not interested in debates…i don’t think anyone made me look bad…Darwin’s theory of evolution is an atheist foundational dogma that colors your world and influences your world view, and the Biblical concept of creation, is likewise a foundational dogma that colors my world and influences my world view. These are diametrically opposed and there is no meeting of the minds, so what’s the point of discussing it? If you think you’ve scored points and “made me look bad” then congratulations. It was never a contest for me. People are free to believe what they want…as I’ve maintained from the very beginning.
DJ: “Atheism depends on the Theory of Evolution” – no problem.
Atheism depends on Charles Darwin not having some difficulty with some of the implications of his theory 150 years ago – ABSOBLOODYLUTELY NOT.
Again, you’ve stopped thinking when you think you’ve got what you want.
Darwin knew nothing of genetics, and hardly anything about HOW his theory worked. He simply observed in nature that it did. His comments about the tricky bits – eyes, etc. were entirely to be expected. They are an indication that, even though he didn’t understand the “how” of it all. he was STILL THINKING.
It took later scientists in different disciplines to explain what Darwin could not have known – how mutations occur and why. Once that piece is in place, some lengthy study of (NOT a quick look at) the fossil record, a record of modern species more complete and accurate than anything available in Darwin’s time, gene mapping and, eventually, we KNOW not only THAT it works, but HOW. And eyes are not a problem, in fact they are one of the best examples of the evidence in favour.
I say again, read the Dawkins. I know he’s probably a liar and a cheat sent by the devil in your superstitious world but really – GET REAL!
David, I’ve had my share of sciences in college which only confirmed to me that there is a creator. You’ve come to a different conclusion…let’s just leave it at that.
Because you STOPPED THINKING. Read trhe book or go away. I’m done here.
It’s NOT a different conclusion – it’s a cop-out.
Why leave it at that? You don’t want to stretch yourself – you just want people to pretend that your opinion is as legitimate as science.
Sorry no. You basically just gave up on learning anything and pouted in the corner.
Just to say – why are you quoting Darwin to prove modern points? I don’t quote Thomas Edison when talking about computers. We don’t quote Hubble when talking about dark matter… Yes Darwin got the ball rolling, but idea of Evolution has evolved as the word dinosaur was only invented a few years before Darwin, and there was no genetics although they knew “something” was dictating heredity and followed rules.
Again, I don’t believe most Atheist have ANY problem with people believing what they want – the only issue now is that public policy is being directly affected by these beliefs which are so set in their ideology they they would rather destroy education by labeling teachers as greedy grant seeking liberals they deal with the reality of the science we have – something I will not permit as it’s interesting those same ‘liberals’ and misled scientist are the only think keeping our country afloat through technology and development – if you religious beliefs made people want to learn science and be the best engineers in the world to engineer our future to a better place then I would be all for it – whatever you believe, but alas that is generally not the case – saying you are “exceptional” is pretty empty when you can’t back it up the the commerce of our day – science and technology.
Chris, this is not the first time you’ve complained that people who have a different world view than you, should just shut up and stay out of contributing to public policy. that sounds reasonable to you, because you believe Christianity to be nothing more than superstition. actually, superstition is antithetical to Christianity. From a Christians perspective, godless men and women should have no more influence, than those who do believe in God. No one even suggests that they should just shut up and let the Christians run this country. We live in a democratic-republic in the USA which, before the whole system was utterly corrupted, was designed to prevent tyranny. The problem with godlessness in public policy, is that there is this arrogant presumption that they know more than everyone else, and that everyone should just do as they are told. We all have to coexist, and in this society, at least at the moment, we all have a responsibility to interject our opinions which may be influenced by a number of factors, including our world view. Martin Luther King’s faith inspired great changes in public policy and opinions…who knows where this country would be had people like him, not spoken up.
“Godless” is an interesting word which, like so many others, means something different on this side of the fence. We are ALL “godless”, but some of us just haven’t worked it out yet.
I am not sure why you targeted me to “shut up” as many others have the same opinion. As I have stated I have no problem with Christians and in fact read and agree with much of the Bible – as I do with many other holy books. I find it interesting that you attack me for believing you have “superstitions” instead of fact in a derogatory way – we have different beliefs, and you feel the same about all the other religions you don’t believe in – and most probably many “Christian” believers of different Christian sects.
Again, the big issue is the change in public policy to attack the people and institutions that have made America great – the schools and teachers, and science itself. I have no problem debating the issues, but try (it’s hard) to not make fun of a bad speaker or ignorant representative – their message is the issue, not if they have a bad “water” moment like Rubio did (I felt sorry for him). I give the benefit of the doubt rather then going for the juggler because I have some moral obligation to destroy non believers at any cost – even reality.
Chris, I did not tell anyone to “shut up”….go back and reread. My previous comments were directed towards you in particular, because in at leastthree separate posts directed towards me over the past few days, you’ve lamented about Christians being involved in public policy…and in one of them you made reference to religious “superstitions” as a justification for your stance… unless there is someone else posting comments under your name. either way, bottom line, is we all have to coexist. maybe you didn’t realize that you’ve complained about that on at least 3 separate occasions. To me, it appeared to be a theme.This was just the first time I responded to the complaints that you aired.
YES it is a theme – beyond all the “facts” and the arguments of what is real or not. This is all just a debate that of course few here will learn much from, or change their mind. In reality, where the rubber hits the road is in politics as we see it today. The Southern Baptists voted FOR Roe v. Wade in 1973 as they believed in a woman’s right to choose even though they were against abortion themselves – they believed in separation of their beliefs and the states and a person’s right to choose.
Religion in America is not just personal beliefs about God and such as it is being used to shape public policy, and has been co-opted by the Republican political party and used relentlessly to divide and conquer, to confuse issues with ideology, and to create Fear Uncertainty and Doubt in order to further their political goals.
You can’t have it both ways – you can’t be say separation of Church and state, but only on those things I don’t care about and the can of worms has been opened and the “liberals” who generally are liberal about other peoples beliefs – we really don’t care – but now that conservatives have pushed the envelope you will get some kickback, and if that means Christianity has to get uncomfortable with “real” facts then so be it. If you would have followed the Southern Baptists of 1973 we could all live in relative peace – game on.
Chris, I’d be happy to see both democrat and republican a little less progressive. Personally I’m a libertarian.
This is where we all get screwed up as “Ideally” I have many libertarian leaning too – although I am a mix and lean democrat as they vote for more of the “other” issues I agree with. I have gone down this road many times in discussions and as long as you will only vote Republican as a libertarian then to all of us you are a Republican – as i am a Democrat. With this two party system we pretty much have to pick one or the other – even on split issues. We can really see some of the limitations of a two party system these last few years in the gridlock – I don’t care how “exceptional” we think we are – in the end we actually have to be effective. I guess that is where we leave it…
Chris, I see the two party system as the other side of the same coin. It’s the left-right march into tyranny. A little here….a little there….it seems uneven at the first, but eventually we get to the same destination. We’re hardly “of the people, by the people, for the people…” any more. The love of money causes all kind of evils…and our career politicians have sold their souls a long time ago. There are still a few good people within the system, as in all systems…and God bless them for their integrity and courage.
The love of money is supported by having no regulations, no control of the government or the people – just as with evolution the powerful change to the environment they are given and learn to take advantage of it for their own good that is how we are wired, and why revolutions are as popular as governments.
Please point me to a libertarian site which defines a government that makes sense, not just one that points fingers and spouts idealism. I am all for a smaller, efficient government, but I believe in public education, public protections and such – and don’t think each state, county, or city has to have independent services and reinvent the wheel for everything.
I am for strong state militias, I spent 4 years in the Army and 10 in reserves and believe we would all benefit with service – but believe all high power weapons should be kept with the militia and do not need (or have the right) to be at home….
It would be easier if the states who want to have a public religion, teach creation, teach that the rest of the world has been conned by the devil into believing false narratives that conflicts with their beliefs – we could all move to the state that supports our beliefs – although you do realize that the most creative productive parts of our country have the largest diversity and the most tolerance…..
Chris, you are aware that all of the Ivy league schools were started by Christians, right? In your circles (generally speaking), I see very little tolerance for people of faith, and we’re a pretty diverse crowd ourselves spanning every skin tone and language. You tolerate what you find “agreeable”, that’s not “tolerance”, that’s “like-mindedness” and “birds of a feather, flocking together”. Truly tolerant people, tolerate even people they disagree with. I live in a world that disagrees with my world view, and I’ve learned to tolerate even those whose world view I vehemently disagree with.
I think you confuse ‘pretending you are right’ with tolerate. Nobody has thrown anyone here out for their opinions or beliefs, only debated the issue. It’s not an intolerant act to challenge your beliefs.
A2, my impression of the intolerance of the atheists towards people of faith is generally speaking…not to you or anyone else specifically, but it’s interesting that you think you even have the “power” to “throw me off” this comment area. So nice of you to allow me to make comments on Ryan’s blog.
Nice self serving dodge – how do you find it intolerant – because as I pointed out theists aren’t getting thrown out of places, they are simply getting challenged about what they say and do instead of being coddled as they were.
A2, what ever happened to “live and let live” or “to each his own”? Why do you feel a need to “challenge” a person of faith? What business is it of yours if a person has a relationship with Jesus Christ? Why the antagonism and animosity?
DJ – have you not heard one of my statements? WE (generally) have no problems with your beliefs – the rub is that you have integrated them into our politics and exacerbated the right/left polarization we live with today. You always bring up the past as “they were all Christians”, but in reality they were not your, or modern Christians. Our founders demanded the separation of Church and State in an environment where EVERYONE was religious – although Jefferson had some interesting views…
So “Christians” are more tolerant then Atheists, or secular believers? If you believe that then I guess you will believe Fox news is “fair and balanced” and all Atheists have an agenda to take your religion away – sorry, we really don’t care much what you believe as long as you keep it our of our, and our children’s lives…
Chris, and yet you think of yourself as tolerant. What you mean to say is that you are tolerant of people of faith, so long as they are censored and are not allowed a place at the table of public policy. Thats not tolerance, that’s discrimination. finger pointing and blaming is just the kind of infighting that this Left-Right paradigm was supposed to fuel. Everyone has a place at the table of ideas…that’s inclusion and tolerance for diversity.
Yes, I guess I am intolerant because I want theology taught as a social science and biology taught in a science class. I am a student of and for teaching all religions, all history and all science and letting the chips fall as they may. IF Christians were as concerned about other religions as they are about pushing their own then they can say that they are tolerant. This is generally not the case as Christians are busy painting themselves as attacked by everyone and have little tolerance of anything they don’t believe, or had never though of before, but conflict with their beliefs – they have the right in America, as I have that right to disagree – for now.
You can say anything you want, you just can’t legally put religion into government.
That’s part of the constitution. Atheism can’t be put into it either.
So exactly what did you think you aren’t being allowed to do ‘at the table of public policy’?
You mean challenge someone by not agreeing with them or letting them say things that assume their point of view is the accepted one? By being activist against laws that marginalize me and my children? By not accepting that we as a country are supposed do things because that’s what it says in the bible? By standing up for myself?
No, it’s not OK for you to assume I am Christian, No it’s not OK for you to put proselytizing material out at work. Yes, I will put an atheist sticker on my car. Yes I will put you down if you say something patronizing to me in public about atheists.
You mean you are so faint-hearted that you can’t handle atheists actually acting like they exist?
What was it you were saying about tolerance again?
What does that mean? Back then we din’t know much scientifically and even Christians distance themselves from many of the conventional beliefs of their Christian ancestors from that time – you do realize that all Christians came from Judaism, Catholicism, Protestants, whatever, yet you do not follow all of their beliefs. A scientist changes his views based on demonstrable evidence while a Christian – with the same book and “divine” guidance for 1500 years has justified stoning people, wars, racism, slavery, demons, the devil….and then dismissed most of those things. Most “modern” Christians keep changing their narrative but say they are still Christian (and get guidance from their communion with God) – it’s confusing to me how such a divinely inspired group can get it wrong so often.
You use the word “Christian” with quite a wide stroke – over half are Catholics which many US Christians do not include as “real” Christians. My Catholic church raised daughter was told Catholics are not “real” Christians in a mega-church youth group. Again, some of the most interesting conversations I have had is with multiple Christian friends and having them discuss some of the specifics of their beliefs as they conflict about virgin births, young earth, evolution, talking snakes, literal interpretation, angels, Satan, etc…
Your Christianity would be a problem with most of those historical Christians…. Christians of the 16th, 17th and 18th century – when all those colleges were founded would find little brotherhood in a modern mega-church.
“flock together” – are there flocks of Atheists running around telling Christians what they need to believe, or others? This is crazy – just because you say you are tolerant does not mean anything. It’s self serving hypocrisy as just because you let me live does not mean you respect what I say, or will give my opinion any merit – even if proven a fact.
Christians believe being a homosexual is a choice – even though we can show brain and other differences, we can show animals are that way too. Yes, some people choose to be homosexual – there are people in the middle who can choose, but your sexuality is NOT what you do necessarily, but how your brain is set up. Just as being a Christian is not just going to Church, but having that personal relationship with God the difference being I can show you the brain of a homosexual, but I have no way of showing the brain of a Christian being any different then the brain of a Muslim, or other religion praying or enjoying their time with their perceived deity – they are the same psychologically.
This wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis gives some basic detail on how evolutionary science has itself evolved into its modern form. The key thing to note is that Darwin only began the process, and many of his ideas were modified and even rejected after further research by scientists who came later.
And, again, DJ, evolution is not just a philosophical position that you can choose whether or not to believe. It’s the backbone of modern biological science. Scientists (the real ones, who actually do science) still bicker like fiends over some of the details, but they agree on the fact that it’s true.
Let me repeat that: This is a case where the scientists ACTUALLY AGREE ABOUT SOMETHING. That happens about as often as sharks learning ballet.
Goblinman, i appreciate that you believe what your saying, however there are many creation scientists as well. They tend to be censored and marginalized to keep their views out of the textbooks….but they are out there. Google creation scientists and you will see that is true. There is also a creation research science team dedicated to creation science…. I’m ok with you buying into Darwinism, I just don’t.
Uh, no. There are not creation scientists – there are people who say they are creation scientists.
You don’t get to just title yourself that, there are rules and standards and creationism doesn’t come up to the standards.
Everybody – with regard to the theory of evolution and how the fossil record substantiates it, you MUST read Neil Shubin’s book “Your Inner Fish”. Creationists and laymen in general have *no idea* to what extent embryology and the fossil record affirm the principles of the theory of evolution. Just as DNA sequencing demonstrated the validity of aspects of the theory of evolution that Darwin had inferred but been unable to prove, the fields of paleontology and embryology (so different!) have confirmed basic principles of the theory of evolution in astonishing and mind-blowing ways. People who have not engaged with the facts even to the point of reading “Your Inner Fish” have *no idea* and, worse, don’t even appreciate how abysmally ignorant they are. To argue without even this tiniest aliquot of familiarity with the topic is shameful.
Dave and everyone, there is an excellent article on irreducible complexity by a creationist christian, Terry Gray, at http://www.asa3.org/evolution/irred_complete.HTML . Dr. Gray provides a meaty overview of the biochemical precursors and pathways that could have resulted in complex vision as we know it, along with early and intermediate forms. For example, the pineal “eye” of the tuatara. If you have no knowledge of these biochemical precursors and pathways, you should not be attempting to discuss origins of vision. You should at least have enough self-awareness to recognize that you don’t have the minimum amount of knowledge required to participate in any such discussion. You wouldn’t try to tell brain surgeons how to do their jobs, just because you love Jesus so much, would you? You wouldn’t attempt to tell engineers how to design a bridge (just because you love Jesus so much), would you?
Christians, a quick question: Do you believe your god to be so stupid/shallow as to reward individuals who profess belief on the premise that they hope to profit via that profession or escape harm thereby?
DJ, again, it’s a ship that has already sailed. That there are creation “scientists” is only to be expected, considering the implications evolution has for literal interpretations of various holy scriptures. Creationism/ID, however, doesn’t even pass muster as a viable scientific hypothesis (it is neither falsifiable, nor is it able to make predictions). It is a pseudoscience, and doesn’t even come close to being a competitor to evolution.
There’s also good evidence that ID is propaganda created with the intent to attack the basic principles of science. See here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wedge_Document
And that gets to the crux of the matter: ID/Creationism is decidedly unscientific. Is it just evolution that you “don’t buy into”, or do you disagree with the rest of science as well?
Goblinman, some science is unbiased and valid and profitable, some science is invalid and does not stand up to the scrutiny of statistical analysis…yet for the sake of a particular agenda, will be reported to the public as if it were valid and worthy to be accepted as valid. In short, the field is as corrupt as other fields, and it’s a case by case basis as to what is truly valid and whether the ramifications and recommendations are even relevant.Often reading the small print of disclosures and references in their articles, the “possibility of conflict of interests” are actually “blatant conflict of interests”. The latest ridiculous recommendation is to put “everyone”on a statin, even if they have a normal cholesterol. Statins have serious side effects (rhabdomylosis) which can cause muscle wasting and kidney failure. If we all jump on that bandwagon, we can finish this conversation in a dialysis unit every other day. With medicine in its stranglehold of “standard of practice”, you can bet that will be the new standard and pushed on unsuspecting patients as if it were in their best interest, rather than lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical company that financed that study, and reported the skewed results that coincidently happens to be a pill they manufacture. Or the WHO redefining what an “epidemic” is a year before the outbreak of H1N1 so that they can “scare” people into thinking that H1N1 was a crisis and that they should get a flu shot, which statistically, does absolutely nothing to prevent the flu (never mind the CDC report of P&I deaths as if these deaths were caused by influenza alone). I guess you can say that I’m skepticle about a lot of what is now presented as “science”, in this pharmaceutical model of medicine we have in the US.. I do however, appreciate non-biased science that actually disproves the bogus science…I am a fan of “scientific medicine” which contradicts what is passed off as science these days. It does require individual research…discernment and common sense. But some people just blindly “trust the experts”. The same experts that poured sodium flouride in our limited water supply with the bogus notion that polluting our drinking water would prevent cavities, or by spreading sludge on our crops (human feces contaminated with all kinds of diseases and pharmaceutical by products) is a good thing, when in fact these excreted pharmaceuticals are responsible for an increase in food allergies and a host of other health problems as these products find their way into our vegetables.. The same scientists who developed GMO products that is contaminating many of our crops that our body does not recognize as a source of fuel…really….it’s a mixed bag. I could go on and on… But I think that answers your question.
What you thought a ‘creation scientist’ can ” stand up to the scrutiny of statistical analysis”???
LOL
What if YOU are wrong and Catholics are right, Hindu’s, Muslims? As far as I understand it if I live a good life I can be born again. Would a just God forgive me for using my mind – not for war (as many Christians have no problem doing), but to create a better place for humanity? Remember Christians, you are condemned to hell, or whatever by all the other Religions – and many other Christians who might believe you are not “real” like they are. Being Atheist is not being Satan, you aren’t choosing “the other side” – it’s up to you what you do, how you live irregardless of your religion or beliefs.
DJ,
It does.
And the point I have been trying to make is that evolution is far, far from the edges of science. It’s a core part of biology–other theories in the field are expected to conform to IT, not the other way around. If modern biological science were a car, evolution wouldn’t be just, say, a spoiler on the back or a tire that may or may not be flat–it would be the engine that drives the entire thing. Without it, the entire branch of science falls apart. Evolution has proven itself not just in theory, but in practice, as so many later developments in biology rely on it–it’s a load-bearing theory, and it has proven it can handle the weight.
Creationism, in the car scenario, is basically suggesting that the engine be replaced with a hamster wheel. Creationism is, in fact, an example of “science” that goes so far beyond mere corruption that it can no longer be called science at all. And remember: it, unlike evolution, is decidedly driven by an agenda–the antithesis of good science.
Absolutely – if evolution isn’t the way it’s described, most medicine technology and cures would not work.
I assume you do patronize doctors and hospitals for your medical needs. So essentially, in practice, you not only believe in evolution, you stake your life on it.
You should make a kickstarter or some kind of donation pool if you need help supporting yourself through this! I’m sure some followers would be glad to help you along your journey!
Pingback: The Freethinker - The voice of atheism since 1881 » Atheist-for-a-year: ‘No evidence for God’