Lionsgate has confirmed a report we published two weeks ago, that the Bill Maher Religion documentary is titled Religulous. Maher and director Larry Charles (Borat) will be at the Toronto Film Festival in early September to preview some footage and hold a question and answer session. Lionsgate has also released the first official still from the film (seen above) and has a released listed as Spring 2008, which may gel with Maher’s plan to release the film on Easter for maxim controversy.
Photo Caption: Larry Charles and Bill Maher during production on their documentary RELIGULOUS. Photo credit: Alexandra Lambrinidis
August 29th, 2007 at 9:17 am
“…and has a released listed as Spring 2008, which may gel with Maher’s plan to release the film on Easter for maxim controversy.”
Or maximum relevance, depending on your preferred bias. Are those Maher’s words or yours?
Either way, I’ll be first in line to see this.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Chris: Those aren’t specifically Maher’s words. During the Larry King interview he said this: “It should come out at Easter. I would like it out as soon as the time people are celebrating the space man’s flying up to heaven.”
So while he doesn’t state controversy as a goal, clearly its somewhat implied. Regardless of that, though, I do tend to agree: Easter is certainly one of the more relevant times to release a film like this. (Then again, that places a clear emphasis on Christianity whereas the film as being billed against religion and religious thinking in general.)
The funny thing (for me) about Maher — and in many instances I agree with him — is that he waffles when it comes to calling himself an atheist. Here is a direct quote from Maher:
“[The movie is] certainly the doubter’s view. How much of an atheist a person is, even I, who I’m not a believer, say, look I can’t know. My main proposition is I don’t know, and, therefore, if some other human being tells me or anybody else what happens when you die, my answer to them I don’t know what happens when you die so how do you know?”
This was in response to Larry King saying that the film was an “atheist view of religion.”
Now note that Maher says he’s not a believer — thus he’s without theistic belief. Therefore you have an atheist. Why he shies away from calling himself that, I just don’t get. It’s intellectually dishonest. I personally have no trouble saying that I’m an atheist. Like Maher, I don’t know what happens after you die (if anything) and I don’t know for certain whether or not there is a supernatural realm. But since I don’t believe, I’m an atheist. The fact that Maher can’t just say that is interesting and perhaps a bit telling.
So while that kind of thing hurts his credibility a bit, on the other hand Maher does have good points I think. In that same interview about the film, he says: “Mitt Romney always says we need a person of faith in the White House. They all would say the same thing who are running for president. No, we need a person of doubt in the White House.”
Given how George Bush has often referred to the war in Iraq as a war that God has told him to wage and who believes that God put him in position to wage this battle at this time …. well, whether or not you support the war, I think anyone has to admit that a President who channels so much of his “logic” into faith statements like that is a scary individual in a lot of ways.
The problem is I think Maher’s good points — and he *does* have some salient points — will be drowned out by the way he presents his message. Maher has perhaps forgetten that the way to sway people is often not to make fun of them or disparage them, but rather to converse with them.
September 2nd, 2007 at 9:52 pm
You say you know for an absolute fact that there is no God and when you die nothing happens. That’s just an opposite arrogant position from religious zealots who “know” there’s a God and “know” what happens when you die.
All Bill Maher is saying is that he can’t know this for absolute certain. And neither can you. It doesn’t make him less credible to say this. This whole idiotic notion of “pick a side” makes no sense. An Atheist and a Religious person are both positing things they can’t possibly know for certain. But at lease far less death and destruction have been accomplished in the name of atheism.
Being agnostic is the only sensible viewpoint.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Nobody ever committed murder in the name of atheism… Atheists in history (I can think of 2 only) have done some awful things… but again, not in the name of atheism. That’s the difference between it and religion.
Atheism is based on probability I think. Based on evidence, there probably isn’t a god. At least no such god as described by man.
Probability. I always play the odds.
Example (and it’s a bad example hahah): a small black animal with a white stripe down it’s back approaches me… I think it’s a skunk (atheism, evidence), but it could also be a cat that walked under a fence that was just painted white (religion).
How could anyone be agnostic in that situation? Worst example ever… yet it still works for me.
October 13th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Although I haven’t studied all religions (no one has), I don’t see how you can honestly believe you don’t have to pick a “side”. From what I have studied and understand, all religions are based on the premise that there is a higher power. By virtue of saying there isn’t, you are choosing sides.
October 29th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I don’t know if there is or isn’t a god either, but I do believe there is, which makes me a theist. I believe in evolution and the big bang, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t something somewhere who is of higher power than us. I simply don’t know. People bind these ideas of God to too narrow of a scope. Do I believe Jesus was the son of God? No. Could God be something insentient? Sure. I don’t pray to God or thank God, because for all I know God could just be some force and has no knowledge of me.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Can’t wait to see this one. Bill Maher is a terrific guy with revolutionary views. In between my fits of laughter during his shows, I find myself nodding in agreement more often than not . I believe, (even before I knew who Bill Maher was) that religion as a concept has done more harm than good for the civilization.
Maybe, it was an interesting idea to begin with, when the few intelligent “elite” were trying to teach the ways of human life to then barbaric people. However, over the years religions have become nothing more than mere “control tactics”…. may it be Taliban in the Pakistan or Latter day saints church in Utah… In today’s world, with so much of scientific development, one would think that religion would be considered ridiculous and useless. I think we as species have evolved to a point where we should be able to differentiate good from bad and right from wrong without the histrionic dramatized craziness of religions…. but, no! you see even men and women of science having different faiths.
Fear of unknown seems to one obvious reason.. but I wonder how come so many people could be brainwashed to the point of blindness. As we brace ourselves for the third world war… edging toward complete self-annihilation… and destruction of the third rock from the Sun.. I wish, like many others, things were different… that there were more Bill Mahers in the world…. it would be a much better place to live.
Yatin
November 14th, 2007 at 11:43 am
All this talk over whether one dubbs themselves an atheist or agnostic is irritating. When people ask me if I believe in God and I don’t have much time to tell them what I believe…my answer is usually ..”sure I’m an atheist”. I reject all biblical God’s, religious doctrines, and I despise dogma. What I don’t reject is the immensity, beauty, and intricacies of our massive universe. I marvel at the idea of a universe and even more when thinking about space time and other dimensions that we simply just can’t fully understand at this point in time. It seems to me that the majority of atheists and agnostics (as well as many followers of organized religious doctrines) really believe in the same thing but just don’t refer to this thing as “God”.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I think Bil mahr is actually a Agnostic like I am. I left the church after years of religious school. Was going to be a pastor. I look forward to this film.
February 11th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Ferenc Szabo:
“Being agnostic is the only sensible viewpoint.”
Err, no!
Agnostic is the only sensible viewpoint IF there is about equal evidence for each side of the proposition. There is @ZERO evidence for the religious side of the argument and a wealth of evidence which seems to indicate that there is no god/s.
Therefore you must pick a side, fence sitting is not an option.
If you call yourself agnostic, it just seems to mean you are either lazy(have not looked at the evidence for and against), or just deluded(My skyfairy can beat up your skyfairy)
February 11th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Stublore Says:
“Agnostic is the only sensible viewpoint IF there is about equal evidence for each side of the proposition. There is @ZERO evidence for the religious side of the argument and a wealth of evidence which seems to indicate that there is no god/s.
Therefore you must pick a side, fence sitting is not an option…..”
Who are you? Stephen Colbert? “Pick a side… we’re at war!”
You’re assuming that an agnostic either believes there is no God, or believes what a religion says. A sensible agnostic can be open to the possibility that the Universe might not be a random collection of unintelligent stuff (excluding humans…. but only some humans!), but that perhaps there is a method to the madness governed by SOMETHING. And that “something” is probably not just a really powerful version of us (as many religions would oversimplify it), with human emotions and desires.
If there is a “God”, it behaves no more like what religions profess it to behave like than Yogi Bear behaves like a real bear.
f-
February 12th, 2008 at 3:24 am
No, what I am saying is an Agnostic says “I do not know”
Now, if you say you do not know, why could that be?
1) You have looked at the evidence(as I said before), but have come to the conclusion that it’s @ 50/50 for each side.If there is a preponderance of evidence for one side, then you cannot reasonably be an Agnostic about the subject( at least not without ignoring the balance of evidence) As regard the evidence for god/s, most if not all of the things which were previously asserted to be evidence for god/s has been disproved, weather/disease/life/creation of the planet/universe etc.
2)You have not examined the arguments and just decide “I don’t know”
Therefore as I said, if you are Agnostic on the case of god/s, you are either lazy, or deluded, or simply cannot understand the basics of probability.
February 14th, 2008 at 1:32 am
there is always the position of the deist…
Picture a 10,000 acre ranch, and somewhere on that land is a small hive of yellow jackets. The landowner more than likely has no idea about the hive, let alone cares what happens in, on, or around the hive.
Landowner = god-type being
yellow jackets = us
Being an atheist, this is really the only scenario that I could conceive any “god” actually existing. The biblical god is utterly ridiculous… too much murder and mayhem for me.
For those of you who may be confused, atheism is NOT a belief system. there’s really no system whatsoever. Sure, there may be small groups of freethinkers who gather occasionally or form web forums, but there isn’t any ritual or indoctrination rite that needs to be followed to be an atheist…We’ll leave all the pomp and funny hats for the god-fearin’ folks.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Isn’t everyone an agnostic, unless the person is schitzo and really think their talkin to jesus or whoever.But i’d call myself an atheist about every religion out there because no one could possibly know, but at the end of the day i think were all agnostics because 4 me ATHEIST=AGNOSTIC
February 14th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Stublore says:
“if you are Agnostic on the case of god/s, you are either lazy, or deluded, or simply cannot understand the basics of probability.”
You just can’t wrap your head around the idea that there are certain things for which having an opinion one way or another with absolute certainty is deluded also. You remind me of the (George W Bush??) philosophy which posits that it’s better to be adamant about a wrong position than ambivalent because not all facts are known, as if it magically shows some kind of “leadership” skills.
There are likely very few absolute athiests around. That is, somebody who knows for certain that there is absolutely no higher power/intelligence out there somewhere. Most people who call themelves athiest are actually agnostic, because they (like me) are open to the possibility that there just might be something out there that guides the universe, but it’s likely nothing to do with the “bearded man in the sky” idea of many religions.
February 14th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I would wager you are wrong, and making again a basic error in understanding probability.Many Atheists recognise that you cannot say anything with 100% certainty(this I hope you note does not mean that the odds are NOW 50/50). BUT that does not mean that you do not believe wholeheartedly in something, ie I can toss a coin, but cannot say with 100% certainty that it will fall to the ground as a result of gravity. I can say it is overwhelming possible that it will fall to the ground as a result of gravity. Note this does not mean that even for a second I think it won’t fall, as there is plenty of evidence that such a thing will occur.
Now we apply this methodology to god/s. I cannot say with 100% certainty that god/s does not exist, BUT I can say based on the evidence the likelyhood of such a being not existing is 99.999…. .
What are your reasons for saying that:
“that there just might be something out there that guides the universe”
Is there any evidence for such a hypothesis?
The answer quite frankly is a resounding NO!
If you continue to believe in a such a thing, disregarding the infinitesimally small chance that such a thing exists, you are delusional. There is no way to justify such a belief, apart from I believe it, therefore it must be true. Look up The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russel’s Teapot for the ridiculousness of such a viewpoint. They are just as unprovable as god/s, yet you they are accorded no validity based on the fact that we cannot say with 100% certainty that they do not exist!
And what I believe can be summed up quite succinctly:
Show me the evidence!
If you cannot show me any evidence(and I daresay quite a lot of other Atheists would agree), then your view can be dismissed.
I never posited that:
“that it’s better to be adamant about a wrong position than ambivalent because not all facts are known, as if it magically shows some kind of “leadership†skills.”
I merely looked at the evidence and based my position on that.
If you can provide me with evidence for your point of view, I would change my mind, and I would again venture, most Atheists of presented with actual evidence of god/s would no longer be Atheists, because there would be proof. Continuing to believe in a proposition while disregarding the evidence is hallmark of the deluded!
February 14th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Using this analogy of flipping a coin Vs. the existence of “God” is very sophomoric. As an Atheist one needs to understand that our modern day science can only prove so much. Yes, gravity does exists here on earth and we can all come together and agree that the coin will fall to the ground based on very elementary science. Now to say that “No God of any type can exists in the Universe” is a hell of a stretch. Being an Atheist can be just as dogmatic as being a fundamentalist religious fanatic. “I’m right, your wrong” is just embracing the unhealthy lack of tolerance that Religions have been abusing for so many centuries. Being Agnostic is truly the healthy approach towards such a complex concept as the existence of a God like being in this infinite Universe. No you do not have to choose between being Religious or Atheist, it is not a black / white issue at all. Being humble and acknowledging that some things are just not possible to know is the real answer when it comes to this subject matter.
Don’t get me wrong, if I HAD to choose between being an Atheist or being religious I would choose Atheist, but I don’t have to choose between just these two. This does not mean that I’m “sitting on the fence” and it sure the hell doesn’t mean that I’m being “lazy, or deluded or can not understand the basic of probability”. Please Atheist, try to understand this. Your dogmatic approach towards Atheism has some obvious parallels with all Religions. You are only hurting the cause of “rational thought” when you say that one MUST choose one or the other. The correct choice is curtain #3……. Agnostic.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Patrick,
To the question is/are there a god/s, there are 3 possible answers:
1)Yes.
2)No.
3) I don’t know.
If you choose 1 or 2 you have to be able to defend your choice.
How do you do that? You present proof/evidence for your choice, otherwise it is not rational. That is not dogmatic, it’s reasonable if you want others to respect your choice.
In order for 3 to be a rational choice there must be compelling evidence for BOTH 1 and 2. No rational person would say that this is true. Therefore if you choose 3, you either don’t understand this, or you blindly have faith in your choice, in which case you are either deluded, or simply lazy(because you have not looked at the evidence, just made up your mind beforehand).
Saying we don’t know everything, does not mean ANYTHING is possible(see the FSM and Russel’s Teapot argument above). Based on our current level of knowledge, god/s are not very likely to exist.
“Being Agnostic is truly the healthy approach towards such a complex concept as the existence of a God like being in this infinite Universe.”
I beg to differ, the healthy approach is to look at the evidence for the proposal, and evaluate your answer based on that.(Btw the Universe is not infinite, it has a finite size @27 Billion LYs wide), and god/s existence is not a complex question, it’s a simple one. It is as I laid out above, one of three answers.
Asking for evidence to justify your position does not make you dogmatic, it makes you rational.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Stublore,
Yes? No? I don’t know?………… A true agnostic does not say that he/she does not know, we say that “it is not possible to know”. Don’t put words into our mouths, there is a big difference between the two. A true agnostic sees the blind arrogance of an Theists and an Atheist and sees that there is somewhat of a faith base, dogmatic, belief behind both of them. Granted it is science, but even the most intelligent scientists will admit that there are limitations of knowledge in their field. Don’t get me wrong, science blows away the Bible, or any other religous text, when it come to a debte.
So it is evidence that you are asking for to “prove” the flaws of the Atheist belief. I can do this.
Not to long ago there were two of the most brilliant minds of their time, Aristotle and his teacher Plato. These two men and many other brilliant minds came up with the Geocentric model claiming that Earth is the center of the universe and all known objects, including the sun and planets, rotated around our spherical Earth. This was believed by all from the 5th century well into the 16th century. The Heliocentric model, The theory that the solar system revolves around the sun, wasn’t adopted until the late 16th century. For 1,100 years we believed that the universe rotated around Earth. Before that most believed that the earth was flat. I think this “proves” that by making such a claim, that there is no god in the universe, is short sighted because science just is not able to prove this at this time. Maybe in another 10 centuries or so they will, but I doubt it. Do you understand why it is important to be humble on this issue. Acknowledging that you, and all other humans, are not able to prove that there is not a god makes a much stronger argument against people who say that there is a god. Faith is a very dangerous process of thought. It takes away rational thoughts and replaces them with what ever is taught to you, so that brain washing becomes the outcome. Critical thinking and rational thoughts are in danger of being replaced by faith base reasoning. If Agnostics and Atheists can join together on this we have a much better chance of changing this faith base way of thinking. “I’m right therefore you are wrong” will only continue to drag on this dysfunctional debate of “Is there a GOD?”. The only true answer that will work is…….. “It is not possible to know” and accept this humble position. It feels good!!!!!
February 17th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Stublore Says:
“To the question is/are there a god/s, there are 3 possible answers:
1)Yes.
2)No.
3) I don’t know.
In order for 3 to be a rational choice there must be
compelling evidence for BOTH 1 and 2. No rational person
would say that this is true. ”
There’s where you are dead wrong. Many rational people (especially scientists) have theorized that there might be an intelligence behind some of the mysteries of the Universe. That’s about as far as I think there could possibly maybe perhaps be a “god”. It could be something like a consciousness. How can we truly know?
You sound like you’re just hedging your bets. In other words, in your/my lifetime I doubt we’ll ever get close enough to the answer of how this Universe works to surmise about a “god”. So in a hundred years when I’m close to death I’ll just have to say “Gosh, Stublore still hasn’t been show absolute proof” and you’ll be gloating, assuming that you’ve been proven correct.
But hundreds (thousands!) of years pass with assumptions about the Universe that get proven wrong. It’s happened in the past few thousand years, and it’ll happen in the next few thousand.
Stublore says:
“(Btw the Universe is not infinite, it has a finite size @27 Billion LYs wide)”
Damn, I feel so claustrophobic now!
If we fly to the edge of the Universe will we fall off? Or maybe it’s round, in the sense that space is warped on a continuous arc, and we’ll just keep going in circles? I’d sure have a long beard after every loop. Yes…. A GOD BEARD!
February 17th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I guess it does come down to how you are defining “GOD” when this is debated.
Very funny message. It’s been nice chatting with you.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Patrick:
“A true agnostic does not say that he/she does not know, we say that “it is not possible to knowâ€
So by your logic, if it may be called that, the FSM exists, afterall, to use your methodology, we do not know everything, and the implied because we do not know everything, we cannot say anything about anything, therefore all things are possible, and have the same chance of being true. Such rot!
If at any one time we accept that we do not know everything, what is the point in your “Agnostic” philosophy of trying to understand with the tools we do possess. You seem to be saying that there is no point in the search for knowledge, because as we cannot know everything, anything is possible!
Interesting choice of example, choosing something from 1500 yrs ago and ignoring the fact that we have made progress since then, and using the knowledge we have no, there is no evidence for god/s. It was appropriate for their level of knowledge at the time, as is saying there seem to be no evidence or need of god/s to explain the Universe.
Your “humble”position of Agnosticism is not something to be humble about, it is appalling, something to be ashamed of.
The way to advance knowledge is to build upon the mistakes of the past by rectifying them, and continuing to advance out knowledge.
”
Faith is a very dangerous process of thought. It takes away rational thoughts and replaces them with what ever is taught to you, so that brain washing becomes the outcome. Critical thinking and rational thoughts are in danger of being replaced by faith base reasoning.”
There is no place in your view for Critical and Rational thinking,it is replaced by the Faith, that we cannot know everything, so all our conclusions are worthless, because they might be wrong(because we cannot say anything with the magic 100% certainty!)
Ferenc Szabo:
“Many rational people (especially scientists) have theorized that there might be an intelligence behind some of the mysteries of the Universe.”
And what scientists would that be? Creationists? They don’t count. As I said above to Patrick, if even one of these so called many scientists could provide any evidence then they would be showered with riches, recognition and fame. Strangely this does not seem to any incentive to them!
February 18th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Patrick says:
“I guess it does come down to how you are defining “GOD†when
this is debated.”
It seems that Stublore assumes that an agnostic is somebody who doesn’t know whether there’s a bearded magician in the sky or not.
Wrong. A sensible agnostic is merely somebody who is open to the possibility that there might be something other than “there is absolutely no god of any kind whatsoever, not even one completely undefined by any religious belief or current construct of knowledge”.
And as I said, most athiests are actually agnostic in reality, and guided more by science than by blind faith.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Agnostic- A meaning without, Gnostic meaning knowledge.
So an Agnostic is someone who is without knowledge. If you are without knowledge you cannot make an informed decision. You cannot use Reason or Critical thinking about what it is you are Agnostic about, by definition.
You can be agnostic about many things, but in relation to god/s, if you are without knowledge on the subject it’s because you choose to be. You simply assume, with no proof, that the question of god/s is in a special category, which for to me unknown reasons cannot be addressed as any other proposition, ignoring the facts that all that has been claimed as the realm of god/s, has since been shown to have nothing to do with god/s or supernatural entities.
Where is the hypothesis for such a thing?
Heard of Occam’s Razor? It does away with the problem quite neatly :)
February 18th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Ferenc Szabo:
“Many rational people (especially scientists) have theorized that there might be an intelligence behind some of the mysteries of the Universe.”
Just noticed this, ESPECIALLY SCIENTISTS, implying that the belief in intelligence behind some of the mysteries of the universe, is HIGHER among scientists, than among non-scientists. Could you please provide some evidence for this extraordinary claim?
From:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
“Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among “greater” scientists to their “superior knowledge, understanding, and experience” [3]. Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey, “You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don’t think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge.” [4] Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of Leuba’s study for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of “greater” and “lesser” scientists.
Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).”
Which is a flat out contradiction of your point.
March 2nd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
A question to all the agnostics:
Are you agnostic regarding all the other mythical gods such as Zeus (Greek), Jupiter (Roman), Ra (Egyptian), Odin (Norse), etc?
If you are an atheist regarding all non Judeo-Christian gods, how is it possible for you to be sure they do not exist?
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I am a Christian. I believe in GOD. I believe Jesus is GOD. If the word GOD means what I accept it to be, then I can’t know GOD unless HE reveals himself to me. GOD to me means he all knowing, all powerful and present everywhere. If GOD is missing any of those attributes how can HE create all and know that it will all work together. If mere humans have been able to evade being caught on this finite planet by other humans, how can we capture, apprehend, or know a GOD like that unless HE reveals himself to us?
All people have similar components of what they believe just like we all have the same evidence here on earth and in space but with different explanations. We are here and that is evidence of a first uncaused cause for everything else we see. If matter can neither be created nor destroyed then for the unbeliever matter is the first uncaused cause which would be greater than everything else that is the result of it. For the believer the greatest uncaused cause is GOD and HE would be greater than everything including the universe. For the unbeliever time and chance equal the attributes as I defined them for GOD. They equal power, knowledge and presence. For the believer GOD used HIS/those attributes to create what we see and study with all their characteristics and laws as we define and assign them.
If you choose to believe in time and chance as the equivalent of those attributes, then for you to decide wouldn’t you need the data behind the time and chance to determine of it is rational to believe. If scientists are known for testing and retesting do they always get the same date for everything dated? If they don’t, would that impact your decision? If they don’t how do they choose a date?
With respect to chance, Darwin did not know how complicated the cell is, but through microbiology we do. What are the “chances” that the 1st instruction that preceded the millions of instructions you now see happened by chance. What would make the instructions continue?
I grew up Catholic, but since becoming a born again believer and having been challenged to read the bible and see for myself, I have done more reading, listening, watching and testing than I did when I took for granted the most important question anyone can tackle - Is there a GOD and what does that mean for me. By the way HE decides not me. My little fist is too puny to shake at the creator of all I see. Do the work and go to reliable sources. There are even scientist - noble winning, who choose evolution over special creation because though they say in other words that science has failed, they would rather believe in what has been disproven because special creation is too unbelievable! At least they are honest scientist. I found some of those quotes on the internet. As GOD tells me in the Bible - seek and you shall find.
Do you seek or is it easier not to. And I haven’t touched on why I believe in the GOD of the Bible - namely Jesus!
GOD Bless and look into it you salvation depends on it!
March 5th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
I haven’t read all of your entries, but in scanning down through
them, I see a wide range of beliefs. If one has decided what they
want to believe and are not interested in seeking out the truth concerning God, origins, life after death, etc.; I will have nothing to offer you. If you are genuinely seeking the truth and will allow the facts take you where they lead, I would like to invite you to visit my website which is a work in progress that seeks to answer the questions people have posed to me, as a Christian, during my life.
Whatever your beliefs may be, I would like to ask you to come take a look, give me your honest opinion of how clearly this site reads, and let me know where you see areas that are unclear or which you feel are not sufficiently supported.
Thank you,
-Ed
March 5th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Joe i was brought up a catholic also,although very light.I’ve never believed any of it and came to realize at about the age of 7 or 8 what religion was all about.”GOD Bless and look into it you salvation depends on it!”I could never understand it when someone said “I am a Christian. I believe in GOD. I believe Jesus is GOD”.I can understand why some people who go through traumatic times or seek some purpose in their lives or fear death or need hope become religious.Thats its purpose to a lot of people and thats everyones right as a human being to believe what they want.My only beef with religion is when it tries to enter into reality eg. social issues,science,education and put the fear of hell into young children eg. “look into it your salvation depends on it!”And Joe why even mention Darwin, he died like 116 years ago dude,its come along way since then,the complexity of cells was discovered like only 15 or 20 years ago and theres “good” science being done to “try” to understand them,science is still very young and its been a liberating tool for humanity but you shouldn’t be afraid of what science discovers about reality or how we evolved.Just In comparison, the bible(s) was written around 2000 years ago and humans are still arguing and trying to interpret it,and split into hundreds of denominations over this.But to be honest i found the bible repulsive,riddled with prejudice’s,and with a little honesty and skeptical thinking.You will too Joe.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Hi Barry,
I agree someone is lying to our kids and I believe it is telling them there is no GOD. Columbine and natural selection is an example!
Thanks for taking the time to answer my comment. The portion of your response I found most interesting is above. I did not have some traumatic experience to push me to GOD and I have done much looking into it after becoming a Christian - meaning born again follower of Christ as described by Christ in the Bible. It was after that that I began to really take notice of all the ideas in opposition to the reality or notion of GOD. Believer or not we all have the same evidence and different explanations for it. If GOD did do it all, which I believe HE did after looking at the evidence, then you can’t get more real than that because HE created the opportunity for science and education and all that HE has done is in relation to social issues - relationships between all people and HIM & people. I have looked into the honest science. We could debate the problems with dating methods, not to mention methods that date the earth in thousands of years. Or we could debate the chance issue which mathematically speaking in not possible. What about spontaneous generation? I have read quotes by unbelieving scientist, Nobel Prize winners, and museum directors who see that things don’t add up for evolution, time & chance. That is much like the religions equivalent of many denominations who still debate many points of the Bible. Some of their comments include denying special creation because it is “unbelievable.” At least that is honest knowing they are left with only one choice. I hope you can see I want to see clearly the points of believers and unbelievers. No one will ever be able to say about GOD, there HE is. That is no different than any scientific find where we will never know everything about the things we see and test or the who behind them. What is the difference between not knowing or seeing the who of the past and assuming a who and seeing creation and assuming a GOD? You may not believe in GOD but you need to believe in a first uncaused cause - which for you is matter if it can neither be created nor destroyed (by man). Also not everything you call religion is from GOD no different than all the science that has been falsified over the years are lies yet still taught in schools. Everyone’s goal should be to look for the truth and discard all lies in the process.
By the way disagreements are the way of man whether you believe in GOD or not.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Hi Joe,
Well i cant really debate issues of science with you Joe as I’m not a scientist.
Regarding your comment “I agree someone is lying to our kids and I believe it is telling them there is no GOD.” I think i would almost agree with you on that, but does that only include the Christian god,God of Islam,Hindu, or would telling a child there is no such thing as Zeus be lying???Would it not be fairer on children if parents didn’t raise them in their particular religion just because they “believe” it.What about teaching world religions comparatively as a cultural phenomenon and the child can decide for themselves.I don’t have to believe in a first uncaused cause,i don’t “have” to believe anything,i don’t believe in any of the religions in the world,thats it,whether that makes me an atheist,an agnostic or whatever.You take it on faith that the bible is the word of God,that the new testament is 100% accurate about Jesus’s life,written anywhere from 50 to 100 years after he died,just imagine what might have been made up or gotten wrong or exaggerated.Then, during the next 300 years while the gospels were rewritten,copied,and so on!!!If Scripture is the only source by which you can know what Jesus taught, how was the faith transmitted from the death of the last Apostle until the canon of the Bible was formulated at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) and approved by “church leaders”.Or do you you again take it on faith that these gospels are the only source of information about who Jesus was and what he said and reject other “equally” valid gospels because the early hierarchy “decided” these were “true”.!7 hundred years later (and an awful lot of copies and translations) and your probably reading a king james or another version.I’m just trying to say that since the birth of our species millions of humans have had many beliefs about why we are here,about Gods,God and the unknown.
I’ll end with a quote by a wise man,
“I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology..”
Thomas Jefferson
March 10th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Hey Ed,
I would like to ckeck out your site but did not get the address. Please forward and I’ll let you know what I think. Would like to make some time on the weekend.
Joe
March 10th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Hey Barry,
I am not surprised that Jefferson said that. I recently read that in reading the Bible he cut out all the parts that were supernatural. The point is he was an atheist. Atheist included, all people are free to believe what they want, even if it is not true. The vast amount of information today makes it impossible to track down everything myself. So I look and listen to those who are most trustworthy. I also have 3 Bible software programs. That allows me to check out the original Hebrew and Greek languages because I have to consider different languages and changes in meanings over time. They each have different Bible versions (2-7). I have three Bible versions: New King James, New American Standard and an English Standard Version. As I look back my faith came the way the Bible states – believing comes by hearing and hearing of the word. I have read about how we got our bible and the test that the manuscripts were put through to give us our current Bible. False documents are not just a problem of today. They did it back then also. I read that Simon Greenleaf, “considered by many to be the greatest expert on evidence the world has ever known,†who was a Jew and did not believe in Christianity, examined every shred of evidence he could find on JESUS, particularly HIS resurrection. He put his findings in a book titled The Testimony of the Evangelist and became a Christian. He also said with respect to the 1st rule of legal evidence concerning ancient documents with respect to the Bible that the Law presumes it to be genuine and the burden of proof that it is a forgery falls on the opposing party. The evidence changed his mind and heart. I do like to look at all the arguments against the truth of the Bible so I can test them. I do not just blindly believe. I believe because I have come to the conclusion that it is the truth and could be no other way. The evidence is not there for other gods or religions or no god. Most religions believe you can do it yourself or earn it. I like to read the science to see if it is plausible 1st and then to see if it fits with the Bible. Where information came from and why information continues generating more information to keep life going - science will never find. Now if you come to the conclusion that only an infinite source of information is the cause then you need to look at the evidence for that possibility and you must weed through the false gods to do so. The GOD of the Bible says he resists the proud and unfortunately many come with that kind of heart. Do you really believe and is it rational to believe that GOD would create the world and have nothing to do with it? It is possible as GOD can do as HE pleases and we don’t have to like it because HE did not ask us. In this world, were kind of used to being asked. To believe that a GOD who is all powerful and all knowing enough to do this is without the conscience to care about what HE created is unbelievable. It is scary to think someone is watching our every move and many fight against that because to think a higher moral entity may judge me bothers most people. I know unbelievers who got it covered with I find it hard to believe that the good I have done will go unnoticed if there is a god. That is just relying on ourselves again and counting on a god who is not perfect and will accept my sin. Where did that idea come from? It needs some evidence! By the way the Bible is archeologically speaking very accurate like no other religious book. If scientist who have tested can say they do not want to believe even though the science has failed and they find themselves in a moral dilemma, it is not a matter of evidence it is a matter of the heart. People do not want to believe in JESUS because one man can’t be the only way! Or can HE? If sin is a matter of the heart who is looking? A deity without supernatural power can’t! Please do not make the mistake of judging GOD by man but, judge man by GOD. Look forward to your reply.
GOD Bless,
Joe
March 12th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Hello Joe,
Well Joe your comment covers a lot of issue’s of faith, but are you prepared to admit that, that being a “believer” in any religion is an article of faith. If you can define what you mean by evidence, is 4 (or however many) copies of ancient documents your only evidence for being a Christian. Can you admit that what you believe to be true comes from ancient scriptures. First of all to say that “Where information came from and why information continues generating more information to keep life going - science will never find.” is i think you will realize a hasty assumption!! I wouldn’t assume science will answer that question but only that it will try. I watched an interview recently with Robert Pollack who was very honest about why he became religious, quote “it is the meaninglessness and purposelessness and absence of directionality and absence of perfectibility in the mechanisms of natural selection which i find frankly unbearable on the face of it and so i felt free by my free will choice to behave irrationally and to accept the religion of my ancestors in addition to the data not in place of it but rather because of it.”I respected his honesty for admitting that his mental state to choose to believe what gave him some comfort or purpose has no testable place in scientific inquiry. Or Francis Collins the evangelical Christian
who “believes” that God (Yahweh) uses evolution through natural selection to
create everything we see in the living world. The only thing that Francis Collins says that evolution can’t (or hasn’t yet) explain is the human moral sense which i personally disagree with but i won’t go into that yet. But it shows that
in a very short period of time science has pushed back the need to postulate a
God or Intelligent being and why religious people should separate their emotional states of mind (religious convictions) from the data. And just on the accuracy of the bible, does it not say the earth is at the center of the universe
and the earth is flat or the world was created in 6 days? Don’t get me wrong i don’t know or neither does anybody else if the universe has purpose or not, just that the scientific data doesn’t care either way. But i respect your choice
to have faith in the doctrine of Christianity.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Hi Barry,
At this point in my walk I have seen that there are people, both believers and unbelievers, with a multitude of beliefs at almost every point mixing, matching and changing their beliefs as evidence comes in and they with their GOD given free will change their minds. So what constitutes evidence? Is faith baseless? I know it can be. What anyone believes in is only as good as the object of their belief. If there is no truth to a belief, the belief has no basis in fact except in the mind of the believer, whether a god or evolution or a mixture. My faith came before I knew the facts I know now but my faith is not without evidence in addition to the lack of evidence on the other side.
If evidence being old is a disqualification, then science has a lot of evidence to throw away. The Bible being ancient does not disqualify it. As an ancient document is passes the test and has more support than any other ancient document. Or interpreted another way there is more forgery for the Bible than any other document. See, it depends on who interprets the evidence. The manuscript evidence is 10k+ full or partial Old Testament (includes the Dead Sea Scrolls), 5k+ full or partial New Testament manuscripts.
The historicity of the Bible is also attacked. But historians/archaeologist say it is amazingly accurate. One such attach is that Pontius Pilate never existed. In 1961 evidence was found at the ruins of Caesarea Maritima that dates back to the time of CHRIST for the Pontius Pilate that never existed.
The prophetic evidence as tested by Professor Peter W. Stoner who authored “Science Speaks†states that the probability of just eight particular prophecies being fulfilled in one person is 1 in 10 to the 17th, i.e. 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000). Professor Stoner went on to consider 48 prophecies and says, “… We find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10 to the 157th . Jesus fulfilled more than 48.
With respect to science you could read where the flat idea came from but Dr. John D Morris Ph.D. says “the Bible has always taught a spherical Earth. There are, of course, instances of phenomenological language, where the author refers to what the viewer can see, just as we do today when communicating. We talk about “flat” terrain or a “flat” ocean even though we know they follow Earth’s curvature. It is flat to our eyes and to our listener’s eyes. But when the issue of Earth’s shape is addressed in Scripture, the Hebrew wording implies sphericity (see Isaiah 40:22, etc.). As far as CHRIST’s death, my wife spoke to a doctor about the water and blood coming from JESUS upon HIS death and he says that is medically correct. A third example for science is (this is from a Christian web site): A little bit of science that is awesome. “And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations…” Genesis 17:12. On the eighth day of life the human body produces enough vitamin K to form clots and aid in healing. Today, a baby receives a vitamin K shot in the hospital shortly after birth. I think it is awesome how we are allowed to see that God really is the creator. My daughter worked in the maternity ward of a hospital and she found that newborns are given a shot on day one. For a more detailed explanation by Bert Thompson, Ph.D go to: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2204.
Dr Pollack is free to believe for any reason he wants but that does not lend validity to an argument against GOD, specifically Christianity as the Bible spells out what GOD requires and it doesn’t depend upon us and our feelings. On the surface Pollack’s reasons show no true belief in the evidence for GOD unless you can gain more information for his comment on the data he makes reference to in his statement. There are Christians, like Francis Collins, who believe in GOD using evolution, you can go to Reasons to Believe on the web for more info. Their arguments sound rational just like those who don’t believe in GOD but I don’t believe the facts support the argument. In relation to 6 days creation, the facts about dating methods is that they all have assumptions and not just one assumption in many cases. An aside is that assumptions in science are accepted but assumptions that GOD did it are not – who is it that needs faith? The assumption can’t be proven and would mean trashing the science but, unbelieving scientist won’t do that. You can find quotes of unbelieving scientist and others of higher education on the web. Back to 6 days, there are many more dating methods that prove a young earth. Why are they discarded? Could it be a bias toward evolution because GOD could have something to say about us! That is it for now. GOD bless and I will end with a scripture: 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Joe, I posted a message back to you with my web
address, but it didn’t show up. It is http://www.Godhastheanswer.com
Please take a look at the page
“Evolution or Creation, What are the Scientists Saying?”
As I mentioned before, the site is not complete,
but there are a lot of quotes that all of you might find
helpful from scientists specializing in a wide variety of fields.
Ed
March 19th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Hello Joe,
Well Joe on your question on what constitutes evidence? and is faith baseless? Well faith by its definition is trust, belief, loyalty etc which is what religion is based upon although in your personal faith (opinion) this doesn’t seem to be the case. Example “We find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10 to the 157th” OK so far so good, so normally at this point in our(your) examination we seek evidence “Jesus fulfilled more than 48″ So how do you know he did, because it says so in the bible.See this might be where the faith thing comes in Joe.You have faith that the bible is 100% accurate, probably the only document i think is that accurate personally is my birth certificate, and even with that the hospital may have made a mistake with the time, date, etc. You can see i’m a sceptical person Joe(Thessalonians 5:21-22 But examine everything carefully”) See i don’t deny accuracy in the bible,remember the bible is made up of many bits of scripture and i don’t doubt some very insightful and moral people(and some not so moral) and accurate accounts of history and so on but thats it.Jesus was a Jew and the Jews who lived in his time knew him and knew he was human like all of us(well not like all of us I’d admit he was a great moral teacher if his teachings are accurate in the bible) Supposedly there was close to 30 gospels competing for dominance in the 1st and 2nd centuries, some showed a different picture of Jesus and his life, teachings, personal life and so on. Now scholars(even devout Christians) acknowledge this and acknowledge the 4 gospels in the Christian bible were hand picked for their portrayal of Jesus as how they thought he should be seen.
I take it from your comments about a young earth that you believe the cosmos is thousands of years old? Do you think evolution is a religion or a conspiracy to promote atheism. I’d probably subscribe to the earth being very old not from my own expert opinion but from maybe around 95-99% of scientists and scientific organizations worldwide from cosmology to biology coming to a figure of 4-5 billion years old (40-50% of these scientists are supposedly religious so a bias couldn’t be the case).How do you fit fossils into your belief system, meaning creatures that were here in the past are different from creatures living now, i cant come to terms with how people can deny evolution happened, i mean even the intelligent design theorists accepted it but just that it was “guided” by an intelligence. And Joe how can you compare assumptions in dating methods to assumptions regarding God, science tries to give the best explanation(not absolutes) based on research and so on, where does God come into this, from a book written by humans millenia ago. You think assumptions in dating methods that assume rates of particle decay or whatever is comparable to a religious person assuming that a particular God that can’t be seen,observed,studied but is just a belief in the mind of some people did it.Why should this be considered in science. I believe theres great books out there for people that can’t accept discoveries about existence and the universe. I don’t know if theres anything beyond nature, and neither does anybody else,some people think they know the mind of God(Gods) which can have bad consequences for a lot of people.I have no problem with people having personal beliefs and i know people even close to me that are happier and live better lives because of it. I think i was just born a skeptic and couldn’t acknowledge how anyone could tell me from a book or personal opinion what God wants or how we should live our lives.Its not as you say arrogance or that God could have something to say about us, but just realizing no one knows anything about such an entity just what people a long time ago said about it and were still carrying this story millenia later.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:27 am
I stumbled on this website and it is interesting to read all the information that is posted here. Why do so many people consider Christianity bad? Or rather I should ask why do some many on this forum consider it bad?
March 20th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Barry & Jenna,
As I invited Joe to do, please go to http://www.Godhastheanswer.com and then to the link “Evolution or Creation, What are The Scientists Saying?” As I mentioned in a previous post, this site is still under construction, but there is a lot of good information relating to how modern science solidly supports the Biblical record if it is viewed with an open mind - not one that has already decided to believe in evolution no matter what the evidence shows. Many top scientists are quoted in this link, including many evolutionists, and their findings show this to be the case. My goal in putting together this site was not to “win a debate”, but to show people the real reason for the wide acceptance of evolution, and that is our natural desire to deny the existence of God in order to be free from our responsibility to live according to His standards. If this can be seen, then my hope is that people will allow the genuine evidence of modern technology to take them where it leads, to our Creator Who is extending the offer of forgiveness for our sins and an eternity with Him in a new universe that will be forever free from aging, sickness, sorrow, and death.
1 ¶ And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth are passed away; and the sea is no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great Voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He shall dwell with them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God: 4 and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more: the first things are passed away. 5 And He that sitteth on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And He saith, Write: for these words are faithful and true. Revelation 21:1-5
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. - Romans 6:23
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. I John 1:9
He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. Proverbs 28:13
16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than Light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the Light, neither cometh to the Light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the Light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. John 3:16-21
All of us have the natural tendency to turn away from the Light of God’s holiness, because we want to satisfy the selfish sinful desires of our fallen natures. The Bible tells us that God draws the hearts of all men to Himself, however, and those who reject the Light of this inner drawing, the Light of the Bible, as well as the undeniable evidence for His existence in creation, will be left without excuse when they stand in judgment before Him some day - a day that will come so much sooner than they think.
On the other hand, those who make an honest effort to seek out the Truth concerning their Creator will find it, for God promises that all who seek Him will find Him. I pray that you will go to this site and read the quotes, statistics, and Scripture verses for yourself with an open mind. If my presentation of the facts is unclear or incomplete in any way, please let me know so I can improve it.
Ed
April 6th, 2008 at 7:45 am
This will certainly be an interesting project.
I wonder if he will tackle the faith of atheism.
The difficulty will be to take him seriously. After all, people excuse his unfathomable ignorance on the fact that “he is just a comedian.â€
I could see people committing the ad hominen based on the fact that even if religious faith is fallacious, if the alternative is to be like Maher then, “No thanks.†Let’s face it, he is certainly not the best, or even mediocre, example of anything that could even be imagined to be decent.
He thinks that incestuous pedophilia is hilarious (http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/2008/03/bill-mahers-sad-anniversary.html), he rejoices when people such as Jerry Falwell dies (as did Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens: http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/2008/02/quadripartite-equine-riders-were-just.html), etc., etc., etc.
Maher has two difficult mountains to climb: he is a clown trying to make a serious point and he is sadly of very, very poor character even while trying to belittle others.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
agnosticism is the only valid scientific viewpoint because a scientist cannot rule out ANY possibility, no matter how ridiculous, though can say that religion is ‘highly improbable’. in the words of some author (can’t remember who)
“quantum physics is like looking at a clock and trying to figure out what’s inside, we make a model that works and agrees with everything, but in the end, it could be little demons inside the atoms.”
that is the most accurate description i have ever seen.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Perhaps one of the things that has gotten inflexible people like Stublore all riled up is just semantics. I was watching a video with Richard Dawkins (who wrote “The God Delusion”) and he mentions that there are gradients of atheism, and that even he isn’t 100% atheist, and that he is open to the [improbable and distant] idea that there could be something out there that we might perceive as “intelligent”, in the way that Einstein mentioned “God”.
So what me and many others are calling “agnostic” is what he calls “less than 100% atheist”.
And Mariano talks about “the faith of atheism”. There’s no such thing. An absence of faith isn’t a different faith. And you might say that the opposite of faith is knowledge, not disbelief or godlessness.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Hi & GOD Bless all,
My Bible defines faith for the believer like this: Hebrew 11:1-3 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible - New American Std. Ver. 1995. As a Christian this tells me there are things I have faith in that I have not seen. In science the words theory and hypothesis would lead to at least this part of that definition - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. We both have the same evidence to study or ponder whether or not all of it is used (believers use the Bible – revealing supernatural and natural processes and all science – natural processes - while atheist/evolutionists only use selective science). Agnostics who also have the same evidence say we can’t know. JESUS used parables, earthly stories to convey supernatural, heavenly truths. I will try to do the same though I am not JESUS by a long shot.
A theist, an atheist and an agnostic were discussing those things that they all have in common which have a certain history on which all can agree because they are man made. Some of their dialogue went like this: Things are getting smaller, more complex and functional, processing more and more instructions they agreed. Much of those processes we can’t see said one. But we all agree they were placed there by a being or beings with intelligence said another. If we were to follow the trail for the cell phone to the very beginning of every step it took to get the cell phone we would we find people who we would never associate with the cell phone. But the connection is there none the less said the last. They all agreed, examples would be extracting metals, heating methods and plastics. However, none of what man has created is as complex as what Darwin called the “simple cell†said the theist, and the atheist and agnostic both agreed! What makes the cell to do what it does? Where did the instructions come from? For the theist the intelligent designer is GOD. For the atheist no intelligence is required, while the agnostic can’t tell whether intelligence was required or not. How is it then that for things of far less complexity we can agree that intelligence is required yet for things of extreme complexity no intelligence is required or you can’t tell if it is so?
People who are believers are often criticized as non-thinkers, stupid and uncritical. So what are we to believe? Can something come from nothing by accident over a long period of time? Could we get the cell phone, computer, jumbo jet or any space craft by accident over a long period of time without an external information source or external manipulation? As many branches of science collide with increased critical knowledge of things that can’t have happened by accident over a long period of time, the only practical, sensible conclusion is an eternally existent being who at minimum could take eternally existing matter and fashion it into all we see or an eternally existent all powerful and all knowing being who even created the matter that became all that we see as suggested in the scripture above. OH! But think of the implications! When JESUS said this to Nicodemus in John 3:11-12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.
If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?†JESUS was speaking to each and every one of us. Expelled - No Intelligence Required, a film by Ben Stein gives a reference point for the collision occurring in science now. Many of those who think of themselves as thinkers or enlightened, evidently not theist, can be seen & heard in the dilemma of their thinking. For GOD, people fit into two camps believers and non-believers. Atheist and agnostics are non-believers. It is not that there is not enough information. It is that people do not like where the information leads! GOD help us all as this continues to unfold as it will lead to horrific times for the believer as GOD has said so in HIS word.
In HIS Grace, Joe
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Hi & GOD Bless all,
PS: Scientist already have a problem. Whether it was a singularity point or matter always existed as we see it now, how do you prove it? I guess they will just have to take it on “faith.â€
In HIS Grace, Joe
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Jose Colon writes a reasoned argument that there could possibly be some kind of intelligence behind the Universe. It’s the kind of “God” that Einstein spoke of. And it’s the kind of “God” that I and many other “almost Atheists” or “Agnostics” speak of as a possibility.
But it has nothing to do with the mythical “religious God”, the man in the sky that answers your prayers, kills people for being immoral, helps a sports team win, cures sick people if they give his Earthly organization enough money, has multiple personality disorder (hence all the religions) and commands people to do stuff that magically coincide with their own preconceived agendas.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Hello – GOD Bless everyone,
… writes a reasoned argument that there could possibly be some kind of intelligence behind the Universe. It’s the kind of “God” that Einstein spoke of. And it’s the kind of “God” that I and many other “almost Atheists” or “Agnostics” speak of as a possibility.
… speak of as a possibility? But it has nothing to do with the mythical “religious God”…
The Christian GOD in the Bible says to us in Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.†I pray you hear the dilemma of your reasoning? If that kind of GOD is a possibility, “behind the universe,†and you don’t know what HE/it is like how can you be sure what HE/it is not like? HE may be a GOD that answers prayers or kills people for being immoral? That is the unbeliever’s biggest fear – a moral GOD who will judge sin! The other things listed are taken out of context or are pure lies as that is what immoral man does (both the statement made and people who do those things). It’s not that GOD can’t do those things, because if HE can create the universe then it is “possible†HE can continue to control or manipulate it. The Bible might describe it as bless or curse. It is interesting to note there is neither any individual man nor collective conscience that could create the universe we see yet; we have a much better developed moral and ethical system than that possible GOD so that we can critique HIS moral and ethical system. Man is very content to tell GOD how HE should and shouldn’t act and what HE should and shouldn’t do and then tell HIM no thanks I make a better god that you do.
I too used to define GOD by first looking at mankind. But skin color, economic status, gender, age etc. does not define GOD. There is only one man to look at and through whom we have seen the kingdom of GOD and that is the man JESUS. Unless you believe that that possible GOD created a universe that has bugs in it that HE could not have known about, much like the everyday things we use that don’t function as intended or break down due to age, then it is possible that that possible GOD created things to work a particular way and they do not because we do not have a right relationship with HIM. Wrong relationship could replace the explanation of chance and evolution and the world could function much the same as it does now because HE has withdrawn HIS grace. If that possible GOD had the power to create then, it is possible for HIM to enter HIS creation and show us how it is done. GOD did that in the man JESUS CHRIST. And that not out of evil but out of love.
Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.†In this world we don’t have a problem devoting our time, talent, money and our kind of love to a person, to self or to things. But if this possible GOD exists then who is more worthy to devote these things to a created creature or to the creator? Which is more rational and which is more selfish? LORD please user this to glorify yourself – In JESUS name, AMEN
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Why is everyone arguing about something (an afterlife) that NONE of us can prove until we are dead…and then it really doesn’t matter.
“Religon is regarded as truth by the common people, false by the wise, and “useful” by the leaders.”