I’ve often pointed out the similarities between the Pharisees of Jesus’ day and atheists of today.
“Idiots”
That’s what the religious leaders back in Jesus’ day thought of His followers and that’s what atheists think of those who follow Jesus today.
What these people didn’t know then and don’t know now is that Jesus purposely takes the weak and makes them strong. He purposely takes the uneducated and makes them wise. I may be an idiot by this world's standards but what is that in comparison with Whose team I'm on? I'm in this to win. Not to win some popularity contest.
In Acts 4:13 we have this account. “When [the religious leaders] saw the courage of Peter and John and realised that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.”
Uneducated ordinary men debating and refuting the arguments of the most educated people of the day. Hmm.
You might be interested to note that the word we translate “ordinary” comes from the Greek idiotes - ee dee oh tays - idiots.
It doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from. Jesus can and does use anyone and anything for the advancement of His kingdom and hell itself will not be able to survive this onslaught.
Jesus took the lowest of the low - tax collectors / traitors, fishermen, terrorists, prostitutes and drunks. He calls those of us who were willing to admit that we could use some outside help. Jesus took street people, uneducated people, down and outers - in the eyes of the world - idiots to a person - and changed them so that they could and did change the world.
As Saint Francis noted, “God picks the weakest, the smallest, the meanest of men on the face of the earth, and He uses them.”
Amen to that brother Frank.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Personally, as an atheist, I don't think you are an idiot. You probably have a higher level of education than I have (barely graduated high school more than 30 years ago - no college)
ReplyDeleteAnd remember, many current atheists are former bible believers. I was one for 25 years. I don't think I was an idiot. My girlfriend is a Christian. She is definitely not an idiot.
From my perspective, Christians just can't grasp the fact that they themselves are "atheistic" about all other religions except their own. Christians look at Muslims, Hindus, and any host of other religious faiths that worship a deity other than the God of the bible, and they look at them with a critical eye similar to how atheists look at Christians...but...they just can't bring themselves to look at their own faith, their own God with that same critical eye...but that doesn't make them idiots.
If that is why I was a Christian (failure to critically examin my own beliefs in a manner similar to my criticism of others) I would say that I am most definitely an idiot.
ReplyDeleteThat's it?
ReplyDeleteWell...have a good life...I guess.
I am having a good life, bob. Since Jesus has come into my life, every year has been better -BETTER - than the year before - thirty years of better, bob, and I can't see any reason for that pattern to change.
ReplyDeleteI have looked at atheism with the same critical eye and I see an absurd, illogical and incoherent belief system that is built on speculation and wishful thinking - wishful thinking that is in contradiction to the findings of science.
I would not and could not live like that.
I'd wish you a good life but the hole that you've dug for yourself is going to make having a good life exceptionally difficult. On the other hand, for you, this life is as good as it's going to get so - do the best you can - bob.
I am guessing that your blog is not to foster dialog...in other words, you don't care what others have to say, you just want them to read what you have to say.
ReplyDeleteAnd based on your second paragraph, you have NOT looked at atheism beyond what your religious beliefs will allow, for if you did, you would see that it is not an "incoherent belief system", for it is not a belief system at all. And of course it can't be classified as absurd or illogical because it is simply the lack of a belief in any deity, so it follows that it can't be "built on speculation and wishful thinking" because it claims no speculation and doesn't wish for anything (my gosh, where do you come up with this stuff?).
And if you do want to dialog, please qualify your claim that atheism is a "contradiction to the findings of science". I mean, how can a lack of a religious belief be contradictory to science? It sounds to me like you just threw out as many wild accusations as you could come up with.
What is incredible though is - every one of those accusations fit the Christian belief perfectly, except for "speculation". I have not known to many Christians that engage in speculation. But absurd, illogical, incoherent, wishful thinking, and a contradiction to the findings of science - every one of those is a perfect description of the commonly held Christian faith.
"I would not and could not live like that."
Ahhh, but you do just that, as a bible believing Christian. Amazing!
"... the hole that you've dug for yourself is going to make having a good life exceptionally difficult."
Please define "good life" as you mean it, and then describe this self imposed "hole" that you believe I have dug for myself, and how this "hole" will make my life "exceptionally difficult".
-or-
Just ignore everything I have said or asked and make a few flippant comments and press on. It is becoming evident that that is your method of operation. You seem content to make unsubstantiated claims about your life, and entirely ignorant accusations about my life.
But, if you are capable of carrying on a civil discussion and you have any curiosity about those of us who just believe in one less god than you do, just let me know.
“I am guessing that your blog is not to foster dialog...”
ReplyDeleteYa, it’s more of a cathartic gig
==========
“for it is not a belief system at all.”
bob, are you suggesting that beliefs can exist in isolation from the rest of one’s life? Should we ask your wife if your atheism exists in isolation from the rest of you experience, the rest of your life, from your relationship with your family? Every one of us, including you, organise our lives around our beliefs.
=========
“it is simply the lack of a belief in any deity,”
Bull! As above
==========
“so it follows that it can't be "built on speculation and wishful thinking"
Science itself, specifically Big Bang Cosmology points to an immaterial cause that existed “prior to” and transcendent to space / time / matter and energy. The atheist speculation (it is nothing BUT speculation since it is unsupported by even the minutest form of evidence) is that everything came from nothing by nothing - since until the singularity nothing material existed.
=========
“I mean, how can a lack of a religious belief be contradictory to science?”
Because science points to cause that does not come from the Bible but is identical to the Cause described in the Bible.
=========
“Please define "good life" as you mean it,”
In one word - Freedom. If you want more, read the series, “Because . . .” It begins about thirty posts ago.
==========
"and then describe this self imposed "hole" that you believe I have dug for myself, and how this "hole" will make my life "exceptionally difficult".
Perhaps I’ve mistaken you for a different commenter over at JL’s blog. I thought you were the man who was once a Christian, now an atheist who is married to a Christian with a son who was “saved” at age four? I’m a marriage counsellor (retired) bob, and if that’s you, that describes a hole bordering on the makings of hell itself :-)
===========
“But, if you are capable of carrying on a civil discussion”
Oh, I would never promise something like that. Hugo? You want to warn this poor boy?
=========
“and you have any curiosity about those of us who just believe in one less god than you do, just let me know.”
If you understood why I accept all other religions you’d understand why I reject your atheism.
You - "Every one of us, including you, organise our lives around our beliefs."
ReplyDeleteI prefer to organize my life around my perceptions. I generally don't "believe" things. I make conclusions based on evidence and past experiences. But, even if I was a "believer", my lack of belief in any gods does not constitute a system of beliefs...as much as you would like to "believe" it does.
You - "Science itself, specifically Big Bang Cosmology points to an immaterial cause that existed “prior to” and transcendent to space / time / matter and energy."
And the next logical step is "Jesus did it"?
Wow. A chapter at the beginning of a 2,000 year old book answers all of your questions.
me - “I mean, how can a lack of a religious belief be contradictory to science?”
You - "Because science points to cause that does not come from the Bible but is identical to the Cause described in the Bible."
Simply amazing! Evidence that bible believers can and will take a thousand pages of scientific findings and claim that it matches up perfectly with a single page from their ancient holy book, thereby confirming that Jesus is Lord.
You - "If you want more, read the series, “Because . . .” It begins about thirty posts ago."
No thanks.
You - "I thought you were the man who was once a Christian, now an atheist who is married to a Christian with a son who was “saved” at age four? I’m a marriage counsellor (retired) bob, and if that’s you, that describes a hole bordering on the makings of hell itself :-)"
That sounds like me, though I don't know who JL blog is. I WAS married, now divorced (just like more than 50% of the bible believers out there). My 4 year old son is now 29. My girlfriend of 5+ years is a Christian.
I wonder if I was paying you to counsel me, if you would be so happy [ :-) ] that I am digging a hell hole for myself. Just out of curiosity - is this hell hole due to me being an atheist, and atheist with a Christian girlfriend, and atheist with a Christian girlfriend and a son who once believed in Jesus? Is this hell hole recognizable at present, or will I only find it in the afterlife?
Feel free to offer your diagnosis, and more smiley faces if you like.
You - "If you understood why I accept all other religions you’d understand why I reject your atheism."
Thanks for making that so very clear (sarcasm).
I am wondering - are you of the "Reformed" persuasion? You know, Calvinistic leanings in your dogma? Your attitude seems very familiar to me.
“I prefer to organize my life around my perceptions. I generally don't "believe" things. I make conclusions based on evidence and past experiences.”
ReplyDeleteOh right! You observe a universe. Based on evidence / experience:
. You know that the material infinite can’t exist.
. You know that everything that begins to exist has an explanation of its beginning
. You know that matter can’t bring itself into existence
. You know that matter can’t pre exist itself
Therefore, you’re trying to tell me, that based on experience you perceive that there is no evidence for a Cause of matter that existed outside of matter.
You’re not that stupid bob. But you may be influenced by having to organise your life around your belief system, one that doesn’t allow for the existence of just such a Cause even when evidence and experience SCREAMS that just such a Cause DOES exist.
==========
“I don't know who JL blog is.”
John Loftus
===
"I wonder if I was paying you to counsel me, if you would be so happy [ :-) ] that I am digging a hell hole for myself.”
No - that’s not at all what I meant with the [ :-) ]. I assumed a familiarity that wasn’t there. Sorry.
On the other hand, I sure would have advised against getting involved with someone with such a radically different belief system.
Only self-delusion says, "We / I / our love can overcome anything. I would have asked her, "What are you doing getting involved with someone who's been divorced?"
The reason that I would have asked her that is most everyone who remarries is quite convinced (usually in error) that the problem for the breakdown did not reside within themselves.
“I am wondering - are you of the "Reformed" persuasion? You know, Calvinistic leanings in your dogma? Your attitude seems very familiar to me.”
No - not to the point of believing that you were destined for / created for hell or heaven.
If I’ve got an attitude it’s from years of listening to atheists say they live by evidence but it’s clearly obvious that’s a lie - a lie they tell themselves over and over and over and over and . . . .
You - "Therefore, you’re trying to tell me, that based on experience you perceive that there is no evidence for a Cause of matter that existed outside of matter."
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice if you could point out where I said there is "no evidence for a cause"...or...you can continue to put words in my mouth.
You - "On the other hand, I sure would have advised against getting involved with someone with such a radically different belief system."
And you would have been wise in your advice, but here we are, almost 6 years later and still in love and enjoying each others company. But I do agree with your advice. If I had it to do over agian, I would hopefully give the matter much more thought.
Hindsight?
You - "If I’ve got an attitude it’s from years of listening to atheists say they live by evidence but it’s clearly obvious that’s a lie - a lie they tell themselves over and over and over and over and .."
Not sure how to respond. I mean, I don't think I "live" by evidence. I guess, as I said, I prefer to organize my life around my perceptions. Matter of fact, that's pretty much what we all do. In our day to day lives, we make conclusions based on evidence and past experiences.
I am guessing that is pretty much how you "live" your life. I am guessing you don't "live" your life in religious euphoria, but spend much of your time with the day to day tasks, completing them based on, as I said, using perceptions and conclusions based on evidence and past experiences.
Where am I losing touch with reality here? Where is the "lie"?
That is how most of us spend most of our time during lucidity, yes-no?
Well, now we’re down to semantics. I say we all organise our lives around our beliefs. You say, No, No we use “perceptions and conclusions based on evidence and past experiences.” To me it’s the same thing. Our conclusions are our beliefs - to me.
ReplyDeleteSo where did the disconnect come for you? It sounds like you don’t disagree that science “points” to an immaterial cause of matter that is outside of nature or supernatural. Correct?
If that is how the universe came into being then that is a working definition of a miracle. And if THAT miracle happened . . .
What happened to make you back away from all that I would claim to be true and you once claimed to be true?
=========
"religious euphoria,"
That stuff creeps me out. In my pre Christian days I lived on feelings and all of the major mistakes in my life have been because I went on feelings. I avoid those kind of decisions today - probably to a fault.
You - "Our conclusions are our beliefs - to me."
ReplyDeleteWhen I initially believed in Jesus back in the late 70's, it was not because of "conclusions based on evidence and past experiences", it was belief as a result of the emotional pleas of other believers. Surely you can see the difference. This is not semantics.
You - "If that is how the universe came into being then that is a working definition of a miracle."
And that is a perfect example of filling in the gap with God. We, you and I, don't yet know how the Universe came to exist, how matter was formed, what existed before the "big bang", so I leave a giant question mark there, but you comfortably write in "God".
You - "What happened to make you back away from all that I would claim to be true and you once claimed to be true?"
Nutshell...I came to understand that I didn't KNOW, I simply BELIEVED. And my belief was based on and maintained by my emotional attachment to a 2,000 year old book that I knew very little about. I knew what was in it, but I didn't know much about how it got there and why.
"Claiming" something is true and "knowing" something is true are two very different things.
So, do you KNOW that your God created the universe in the beginning, or do you BELIEVE your God created...?
In the words of Robert Ingersoll, "The clergy know, that I know, that they know, that they do not know".
``Surely you can see the difference. This is not semantics.``
ReplyDeleteI was comparing your conclusions - now, to my conclusion - now.
As for earlier in your life, I believe that you COULD have made an informed decision vs. and emotional decision.
=========
``And that is a perfect example of filling in the gap with God. We, you and I, don't yet know how the Universe came to exist,``
But we DO know how it DIDN`T come into being.
Can’t you see that if nothing natural existed, the cause couldn’t have been natural?
You leave ``a giant question mark`` because you have organised your life around a belief system that allows for only a very narrow band of evidence, a band that a priori rules out anything BUT a natural cause even when ALL current evidence says that nothing natural existed.
You are still believing in the absence of evidence. You’re believing in the teeth of a lack of evidence.
===========
``Claiming something is true and knowing it`s true are two different things.``
That’s correct but again, your ignorance was not necessary. Would you listen to something for me. It has to do with exactly this problem, of needing to know.
http://media.northpointministries.org/northpointministries/podcasts/andystanley/its_personal/itsppersonal_part1.mp3
"...you have organised your life around a belief system..."
ReplyDeleteI have no identifiable "belief system". I have no rule book. Nothing that tells me that I need to offer my assent one way or the other. Please identify this "system" you claim that I have, and how it dictates what I am to believe.
"...that allows for only a very narrow band of evidence..."
Only as narrow as the sciences, which are self correcting, and make claims based on evidence, not philosophical speculations.
How narrow is the band of evidence that you use to choose a medical doctor?
"...a band that a priori rules out anything BUT a natural cause even when ALL current evidence says that nothing natural existed."
Yet another straw man. Where did you get the idea that I have ever "ruled out anything but a natural cause" for the beginnings of the universe? This is the 2nd or 3rd time in this thread that you have put words in my mouth. It is tiring to have to point out that I don't believe what you accuse me of believing.
I do not now, nor have I ever in my experience as an atheist, disallowed for the possibility that a deity, some supernatural being, powerful and intelligent, may have created the universe.
What I do rule out is the claim of any Christian that they know a deity created the universe, and they can identify that deity for me. For Christians have no evidence that a deity is responsible, and they have no evidence that the deity they believe in is the deity who did the creating.
I can't, at this point in time, rule out with knowledge that your God is not responsible for creation.
You can't, at this point in time, rule out with knowledge that any other named or unnamed god is not responsible for creation. If you think you can, please show me how.
I'll watch the link you posted.
I have pasted the link into my browser and just get error messages. I can't find the link from the - http://www.northpoint.org/ - website.
ReplyDeleteHmm, I'll look into it.
ReplyDeleteTry this, it's part two in this four part series. The principle is the same.
ReplyDeletehttp://media.northpointministries.org/northpointministries/podcasts/andystanley/its_personal/itspersonal_part2.mp3
“Please identify this "system" you claim that I have, and how it dictates what I am to believe.”
ReplyDeletePerhaps I’m using the term “system” wrong. By system, I mean two or more interlocking beliefs that stem from one another and are dependent upon one another. Again,
Belief One: God does not exist.
B 2: The universe came about by natural means
B 3: Life does not have inherent meaning and context and purpose
And so on - The first belief must lead to the others whether you are conscious of them or not.
Of course these beliefs aren’t written down.
Regardless of whether a person is even aware of these interlocking beliefs, they are of necessity present. Do you see what I’m saying? I suppose I should just go to dictionary.com and see if I need to find a different word but . . .
========
“which are self correcting, and make claims based on evidence, not philosophical speculations.”
Well, that’s the way that science is SUPPOSED to work and in most cases that’s the way that science does work. You use the example of medicine and by and large you would be correct within that context. However when it comes to the science of origins get start to get sideways pretty quick.
The famous sceptic David Hume once said, “I would never propose something so absurd as to say that something could come into existence without a cause.”
Based on your description of how science is supposed to work, that’s a pretty good statement. There has never been or observed ANYTHING coming into existence without an external cause.
However, we now have some atheists saying exactly that, “the universe came into being without a cause.” For example, Physicist Victor Stenger - “The universe may be uncaused and may have emerged from nothing.” Why would he say that?
Not because of supporting evidence.
Not because of supporting observation.
In fact observation and ALL evidence say exactly the opposite. Scientists driven by their atheist belief system (an interlocking set of beliefs linked to the "there is no God" belief) make a claim like that because the only Cause logically possible is supernatural and their narrow band of awareness doesn’t allow for that conclusion.
Bob, atheist driven science is absolutely driven by philosophical speculation. Here’s an example:
ReplyDeleteTo say, as one atheist said on his blog that “Science is the only objective source of truth,” is to make a philosophical statement.
To say that “Science is the only objective source of truth,” is not just a philosophical statement, it’s bad philosophy.
Here’s why.
“Science is the only objective source of truth,” is a TRUTH statement, but it’s NOT scientific truth. The statement itself cannot be proven by science.
Guess what that means?
Atheists who believe “Science is the only objective source of truth,” are believing a self-defeating statement; they’re believing a self-defeating statement upon which atheist driven science itself is based.
It’s unreasonable.
It’s incoherent.
It’s illogical.
It’s a statement that is based on the belief system that has its root in the singular atheist belief “God does not exist.”-
------------
“I do not now, nor have I ever in my experience as an atheist, disallowed for the possibility that a deity, some supernatural being, powerful and intelligent, may have created the universe.”
I think that means that you’re an agnostic - someone who is unsure of whether God does or does not exist. Yes?
--------------
You’re right of course, neither I nor any other Christian can prove beyond any and all doubt what we claim to believe. But so what? We live like that in dozens and dozens of areas of our lives. What I CAN do is show why I think that the evidence leans far more toward a Creator God existing than not. I can show why the evidence leans far more toward Jesus being exactly who He claimed to be than not. Can I prove it beyond all doubt. No. But neither can you bob, present such proofs for what you now claim to believe.
So the question that I’m asking myself is, “Why would bob trade in one belief which lacked irrefutable evidence for another belief that also lacks irrefutable evidence?”
A lot to digest. Will get back to you as soon as I can.
ReplyDelete“which are self correcting, and make claims based on evidence, not philosophical speculations.”
ReplyDeleteI just had to use this comment I found today about a planet that was recently discovered. It's from CNN.
"The chances for life on this planet are 100 percent," Steven Vogt, a UC professor of astronomy and astrophysics says.
Evidence?
Observation?
How about nothing but an atheist driven speculation that says life - LIFE - with a DNA code equivolent to 1,000 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica in each and every living cell can / must / will evolve from inert, inanamite, inorganic gases.
Dawkins has made this claim, bob. That inert, inanamite, inorganic gases EVOLVE into life.
Never observed.
Never tested.
Only stated as fact. And this from the man who says that he is "Higly sceptical of any strongly held beliefs in the absence of evidence."
That is NOT science as both you and I know that it is supposed to be. It's not even a conclusion. It's a belief that is part of a system of beliefs that arise from the main belief - There is no Creator God.