# A.N. Wilson on why he has rejected atheism.



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

By nature a doubting Thomas, I should have distrusted the symptoms when I underwent a "conversion experience" 20 years ago. Something was happening which was out of character - the inner glow of complete certainty, the heady sense of being at one with the great tide of fellow non-believers. For my conversion experience was to atheism. There were several moments of epiphany, actually, but one of the most dramatic occurred in the pulpit of a church.

At St Mary-le-Bow in the City of London, there are two pulpits, and for some decades they have been used for lunchtime dialogues. I had just published a biography of C S Lewis, and the rector of St Mary-le-Bow, Victor Stock, asked me to participate in one such exchange of views.

Memory edits, and perhaps distorts, the highlights of the discussion. Memory says that while Father Stock was asking me about Lewis, I began to "testify", denouncing Lewis's muscular defence of religious belief. Much more to my taste, I said, had been the approach of the late Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey, whose biography I had just read.

A young priest had been to see him in great distress, saying that he had lost his faith in God. Ramsey's reply was a long silence followed by a repetition of the mantra "It doesn't matter, it doesn't matter". He told the priest to continue to worship Jesus in the Sacraments and that faith would return. "But!" exclaimed Father Stock. "That priest was me!"

Like many things said by this amusing man, it brought the house down. But something had taken a grip of me, and I was thinking (did I say it out loud?): "It bloody well does matter. Just struggling on like Lord Tennyson ('and faintly trust the larger hope') is no good at all . . ."

I can remember almost yelling that reading C S Lewis's Mere Christianity made me a non-believer - not just in Lewis's version of Christianity, but in Christianity itself. On that occasion, I realised that after a lifetime of churchgoing, the whole house of cards had collapsed for me - the sense of God's presence in life, and the notion that there was any kind of God, let alone a merciful God, in this brutal, nasty world. As for Jesus having been the founder of Christianity, this idea seemed perfectly preposterous. In so far as we can discern anything about Jesus from the existing documents, he believed that the world was about to end, as did all the first Christians. So, how could he possibly have intended to start a new religion for Gentiles, let alone established a Church or instituted the Sacraments? It was a nonsense, together with the idea of a personal God, or a loving God in a suffering universe. Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense.

It was such a relief to discard it all that, for months, I walked on air. At about this time, the Independent on Sunday sent me to interview Dr Billy Graham, who was conducting a mission in Syracuse, New York State, prior to making one of his journeys to England. The pattern of these meetings was always the same. The old matinee idol spoke. The gospel choir sang some suitably affecting ditty, and then the converted made their way down the aisles to commit themselves to the new faith. Part of the glow was, surely, the knowledge that they were now part of a great fellowship of believers.

As a hesitant, doubting, religious man I'd never known how they felt. But, as a born-again atheist, I now knew exactly what satisfactions were on offer. For the first time in my 38 years I was at one with my own generation. I had become like one of the Billy Grahamites, only in reverse. If I bumped into Richard Dawkins (an old colleague from Oxford days) or had dinner in Washington with Christopher Hitchens (as I did either on that trip to interview Billy Graham or another), I did not have to feel out on a limb. Hitchens was excited to greet a new convert to his non-creed and put me through a catechism before uncorking some stupendous claret. "So - absolutely no God?" "Nope," I was able to say with Moonie-zeal. "No future life, nothing 'out there'?" "No," I obediently replied. At last! I could join in the creed shared by so many (most?) of my intelligent contemporaries in the western world - that men and women are purely material beings (whatever that is supposed to mean), that "this is all there is" (ditto), that God, Jesus and religion are a load of baloney: and worse than that, the cause of much (no, come on, let yourself go), most (why stint yourself - go for it, man), all the trouble in the world, from Jerusalem to Belfast, from Washington to Islamabad.

My doubting temperament, however, made me a very unconvincing atheist. And unconvinced. My hilarious Camden Town neighbour Colin Haycraft, the boss of Duckworth and husband of Alice Thomas Ellis, used to say, "I do wish Freddie [Ayer] wouldn't go round calling himself an atheist. It implies he takes religion seriously."

This creed that religion can be despatched in a few brisk arguments (outlined in David Hume's masterly Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion) and then laughed off kept me going for some years. When I found myself wavering, I would return to Hume in order to pull myself together, rather as a Catholic having doubts might return to the shrine of a particular saint to sustain them while the springs of faith ran dry.

But religion, once the glow of conversion had worn off, was not a matter of argument alone. It involves the whole person. Therefore I was drawn, over and over again, to the disconcerting recognition that so very many of the people I had most admired and loved, either in life or in books, had been believers. Reading Louis Fischer's Life of Mahatma Gandhi, and following it up with Gandhi's own autobiography, The Story of My Experiments With Truth, I found it impossible not to realise that all life, all being, derives from God, as Gandhi gave his life to demonstrate. Of course, there are arguments that might make you doubt the love of God. But a life like Gandhi's, which was focused on God so deeply, reminded me of all the human qualities that have to be denied if you embrace the bleak, muddled creed of a materialist atheist. It is a bit like trying to assert that music is an aberration, and that although Bach and Beethoven are very impressive, one is better off without a musical sense. Attractive and amusing as David Hume was, did he confront the complexities of human existence as deeply as his contemporary Samuel Johnson, and did I really find him as interesting?

Watching a whole cluster of friends, and my own mother, die over quite a short space of time convinced me that purely materialist "explanations" for our mysterious human existence simply won't do - on an intellectual level. The phenomenon of language alone should give us pause. A materialist Darwinian was having dinner with me a few years ago and we laughingly alluded to how, as years go by, one forgets names. Eager, as committed Darwinians often are, to testify on any occasion, my friend asserted: "It is because when we were simply anthropoid apes, there was no need to distinguish between one another by giving names."

This credal confession struck me as just as superstitious as believing in the historicity of Noah's Ark. More so, really.

Do materialists really think that language just "evolved", like finches' beaks, or have they simply never thought about the matter rationally? Where's the evidence? How could it come about that human beings all agreed that particular grunts carried particular connotations? How could it have come about that groups of anthropoid apes developed the amazing morphological complexity of a single sentence, let alone the whole grammatical mystery which has engaged Chomsky and others in our lifetime and linguists for time out of mind? No, the existence of language is one of the many phenomena - of which love and music are the two strongest - which suggest that human beings are very much more than collections of meat. They convince me that we are spiritual beings, and that the religion of the incarnation, asserting that God made humanity in His image, and continually restores humanity in His image, is simply true. As a working blueprint for life, as a template against which to measure experience, it fits.

For a few years, I resisted the admission that my atheist-conversion experience had been a bit of middle-aged madness. I do not find it easy to articulate thoughts about religion. I remain the sort of person who turns off Thought for the Day when it comes on the radio. I am shy to admit that I have followed the advice given all those years ago by a wise archbishop to a bewildered young man: that moments of unbelief "don't matter", that if you return to a practice of the faith, faith will return.

When I think about atheist friends, including my father, they seem to me like people who have no ear for music, or who have never been in love. It is not that (as they believe) they have rumbled the tremendous fraud of religion - prophets do that in every generation. Rather, these unbelievers are simply missing out on something that is not difficult to grasp. Perhaps it is too obvious to understand; obvious, as lovers feel it was obvious that they should have come together, or obvious as the final resolution of a fugue.

I haven't mentioned morality, but one thing that finally put the tin hat on any aspirations to be an unbeliever was writing a book about the Wagner family and Nazi Germany, and realising how utterly incoherent were Hitler's neo-Darwinian ravings, and how potent was the opposition, much of it from Christians; paid for, not with clear intellectual victory, but in blood. Read Pastor Bonhoeffer's book Ethics, and ask yourself what sort of mad world is created by those who think that ethics are a purely human construct. Think of Bonhoeffer's serenity before he was hanged, even though he was in love and had everything to look forward to.

My departure from the Faith was like a conversion on the road to Damascus. My return was slow, hesitant, doubting. So it will always be; but I know I shall never make the same mistake again. Gilbert Ryle, with donnish absurdity, called God "a category mistake". Yet the real category mistake made by atheists is not about God, but about human beings. Turn to the Table Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge - "Read the first chapter of Genesis without prejudice and you will be convinced at once . . . 'The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life'." And then Coleridge adds: "'And man became a living soul.' Materialism will never explain those last words."


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

Indeed.  Materialism can never explain something from nothing, intelligence from nothing, personhood from nothing, morality from nothing.  It's a vacuous, bleak, and intellectually untenable belief.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2014)

So if I post a one time Christian that is now an atheist does that cancel your post out?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Indeed.  Materialism can never explain something from nothing, intelligence from nothing, personhood from nothing, morality from nothing.  It's a vacuous, bleak, and intellectually untenable belief.



There is nothing that you are made of that is not found elsewhere in the Universe. You, me, everyone is the definition of materialism.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 21, 2014)

Yawn


----------



## 660griz (Jan 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Materialism can never explain something from nothing, intelligence from nothing, personhood from nothing, morality from nothing.  It's a vacuous, bleak, and intellectually untenable belief.



Can never explain...to YOU. Got it. 

Well, shoot! I reckon you better believe in one of the many made up, supernatural, all knowing, good, but evil, Gods. Pick one of them. Have fun.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 21, 2014)

But religion, that's just good science. That's why when we put a man in space they can see the earth is flat, oh wait, they don't. 

Or that the earth is the center of the solar system, oh wait, it's not. 

Or the center of the universe, oh wait, it's not that, either. 

Or that there is a heaven above, and a Hades below, oh wait, they lost that one, too. 

Come to think of it, religion is 0 for infinity against reality and the sciences.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> There is nothing that you are made of that is not found elsewhere in the Universe. You, me, everyone is the definition of materialism.



Really?  What are the physics of love, the chemistry of personhood, the biology of morality, the quantum mechanics of intellect, the mathematical formula for aesthetics, the atomic number of information and language?  There's so much of life that materialism cannot even address, that to call it a "materialism of the gaps" would be an insanely generous compliment.  You see God is the only explanation that can even be postulated which can act as a common thread that knits all of life's themes and contexts together and offer a comprehensive and coherent answer.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Really?  What are the physics of love, the chemistry of personhood, the biology of morality, the quantum mechanics of intellect, the mathematical formula for aesthetics, the atomic number of information and language?  There's so much of life that materialism cannot even address, that to call it a "materialism of the gaps" would be an insanely generous compliment.  You see God is the only explanation that can even be postulated which can act as a common thread that knits all of life's themes and contexts together and offer a comprehensive and coherent answer.



They are chemical reactions caused by electromagnetic impulses in your brain. All animals and creatures have them to one extent or another.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You see God is the only explanation that can even be postulated which can act as a common thread that knits all of life's themes and contexts together and offer a comprehensive and coherent answer.



Once again...to you. If, "God did it" is good enough for you, so be it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But religion, that's just good science. That's why when we put a man in space they can see the earth is flat, oh wait, they don't.
> 
> Or that the earth is the center of the solar system, oh wait, it's not.
> 
> ...



If you think scripture and science are in opposition, you have either a poor understanding of scripture,  a poor understanding of science, a poor understanding of both, or 
you are intentionally being misleading in your statement.  I would suggest you start by reading John Lennox's book "Has Science Buried God?"  before you keep repeating this less than informed mantra.  You may be very surprised by what you learn, .......or maybe you just "don't need to know".  Isn't that the stance you took on the 'origin of intelligence' which if I may say, is not a very intellectual stance for someone who touts empirical knowledge as the "be all, end all".  Just saying.....


----------



## 660griz (Jan 21, 2014)

Scripture says earth is 6000 years old, science says 4.2 billion years. 
Very important difference.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> They are chemical reactions caused by electromagnetic impulses in your brain. All animals and creatures have them to one extent or another.



Electromagnetic impulses?  That's what you're pinning the answer to EVERYTHING on....electromagnetic impulses?   Come on brother, you ain't that naive and neither am I to think you believe that for a minute.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If you think scripture and science are in opposition, you have either a poor understanding of scripture,  a poor understanding of science, a poor understanding of both, or
> you are intentionally being misleading in your statement.  I would suggest you start by reading John Lennox's book "Has Science Buried God?"  before you keep repeating this less than informed mantra.  You may be very surprised by what you learn, .......or maybe you just "don't need to know".  Isn't that the stance you took on the 'origin of intelligence' which if I may say, is not a very intellectual stance for someone who touts empirical knowledge as the "be all, end all".  Just saying.....



The only reason for me to acknowledge a god would be so I can use the expression 'Oh My God' in reply to your posts.
Intentionally Misleading and Repeating Less Than Informed Mantra should be your sig line.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

660griz said:


> Scripture says earth is 6000 years old, science says 4.2 billion years.
> Very important difference.



Fair enough.

Show me that scripture.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Electromagnetic impulses?  That's what you're pinning the answer to EVERYTHING on....electromagnetic impulses?   Come on brother, you ain't that naive and neither am I to think you believe that for a minute.



No......
I used those to explain the otherwise immeasurable nonsense you posted.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> By nature a doubting Thomas, I should have distrusted the symptoms when I underwent a "conversion experience" 20 years ago. Something was happening which was out of character - the inner glow of complete certainty, the heady sense of being at one with the great tide of fellow non-believers. For my conversion experience was to atheism. There were several moments of epiphany, actually, but one of the most dramatic occurred in the pulpit of a church.
> 
> At St Mary-le-Bow in the City of London, there are two pulpits, and for some decades they have been used for lunchtime dialogues. I had just published a biography of C S Lewis, and the rector of St Mary-le-Bow, Victor Stock, asked me to participate in one such exchange of views.
> 
> ...



http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2667


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> The only reason for me to acknowledge a god would be so I can use the expression 'Oh My God' in reply to your posts.
> Intentionally Misleading and Repeating Less Than Informed Mantra should be your sig line.



I do like your sense of humor.  No kidding.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2667



I read that before I posted this thread.  Came off as a bitter hack job.  The author himself admits to his personal bitterness in the article itself.  I chose to take him at his word.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I read that before I posted this thread.



And what is your excuse for this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> So if I post a one time Christian that is now an atheist does that cancel your post out?



Probably won't work out too well for you.  There are a lot more of us.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> And what is your excuse for this?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language



What exactly?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> If you think scripture and science are in opposition, you have either a poor understanding of scripture,  a poor understanding of science, a poor understanding of both, or
> you are intentionally being misleading in your statement.  I would suggest you start by reading John Lennox's book "Has Science Buried God?"  before you keep repeating this less than informed mantra.  You may be very surprised by what you learn, .......or maybe you just "don't need to know".  Isn't that the stance you took on the 'origin of intelligence' which if I may say, is not a very intellectual stance for someone who touts empirical knowledge as the "be all, end all".  Just saying.....



Burden of proof being on the accuser, go ahead and find the post where I stated that I took a stance of I don't need to know, and just left it at that, with regards to the origin of intelligence. Seems to me that if you're going to quote someone on something, that you should at least check your sources. Lest you be guilty of, in this case, libel. 

Further, if you think that my position is of 100% religious inaccuracy then you're just not paying attention to anything I say. 

I've frequenty said, and vehemently believe, that religion and science are two languages describing the same event. 

But go ahead and attack the messenger since that's always the first sign of a valid argument.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> No......
> I used those to explain the otherwise immeasurable nonsense you posted.



Quit, you got me laughing.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Probably won't work out too well for you.  There are a lot more of us.



There are a lot more atheists that turned christian?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What exactly?



so many possibilities


----------



## 660griz (Jan 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> Show me that scripture.



Only if you disagree that the bible suggest the earth is 6000 years old and you have a Google handicap.


This should get you started.

"Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1–5). From there, we can begin to calculate the age of the earth. 

Let’s do a rough calculation to show how this works. The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first five days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today. 

Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago). 

So a simple calculation is: 

5 days
+ ~2,000 years
+ ~4,000 years 
~6,000 years 
At this point, the first five days are negligible. Quite a few people have done this calculation using the Masoretic text (which is what most English translations are based on) and with careful attention to the biblical details, they have arrived at the same time frame of about 6,000 years, or about 4000 B.C. Two of the most popular, and perhaps best, are a recent work by Dr. Floyd Jones4 and a much earlier book by Archbishop James Ussher"


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> There are a lot more atheists that turned christian?



Well seeing how every believer was a non-believer prior to believing, I'm gonna have to call that false.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

660griz said:


> Only if you disagree that the bible suggest the earth is 6000 years old and you have a Google handicap.
> 
> 
> This should get you started.
> ...



You said "Scripture" said the earth was 6000 years old. It appears you believe it since you are using it as evidence.  My question to you is this: If you believe Scripture is correct on something so trivial as the age of the earth, then why don't you believe what it says about Christ coming and paying the penalty for your sin and offering you the free gift of eternal salvation?  That's a bit more important.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well seeing how every believer was a non-believer prior to believing, I'm gonna have to call that false.



I think you did not understand that I was asking YOU if you were saying there are more atheists that turned christian than christians that turned atheist.

But now I see you are lumping in infants as atheists in order to try to pad the numbers.....


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You said "Scripture" said the earth was 6000 years old. It appears you believe it since you are using it as evidence.  My question to you is this: If you believe Scripture is correct on something so trivial as the age of the earth, then why don't you believe what it says about Christ coming and paying the penalty for your sin and offering you the free gift of eternal salvation?  That's a bit more important.



Again you are somehow trying to twist his words to say what YOU want them to mean.

It is clear that griz is saying scripture is wrong on both accounts, and without a doubt...many others.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Burden of proof being on the accuser, go ahead and find the post where I stated that I took a stance of I don't need to know, and just left it at that, with regards to the origin of intelligence. Seems to me that if you're going to quote someone on something, that you should at least check your sources. Lest you be guilty of, in this case, libel.






> Quote:
> Originally Posted by SemperFiDawg
> Let's go back to the beginning. Even prior to evolution if you wish. Since you brought up math,and it's a great example along with the other natural laws, as to how rational and intelligible the universe is. How does one explain the regularity, rationality, and intelligence of the laws of nature.
> Quote:



Your reply:



> I don't try to. They are the way they are. I only seek in understanding the mechanics of their operation.




Would that about do it for you?




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I've frequenty said, and vehemently believe, that religion and science are two languages describing the same event.





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Come to think of it, religion is 0 for infinity against reality and the sciences.



Yeah, I totally see that now. They say the exact same thing.  Can't believe I didn't catch it the first time.  My bad.  My eyesight just ain't what it used to be.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I think you did not understand that I was asking YOU if you were saying there are more atheists that turned christian than christians that turned atheist.
> 
> But now I see you are lumping in infants as atheists in order to try to pad the numbers.....



Infants?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Again you are somehow trying to twist his words to say what YOU want them to mean.
> 
> It is clear that griz is saying scripture is wrong on both accounts, and without a doubt...many others.



I'm not twisting anything.  I'm pointing out he's attempting to discredit scripture by in fact citing it as a credible source against itself.   Doesn't that strike anyone other than me as absurd?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Infants?



The original non believers


----------



## bullethead (Jan 21, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm not twisting anything.  I'm pointing out he's attempting to discredit scripture by in fact citing it as a credible source against itself.   Doesn't that strike anyone other than me as absurd?



No he is pointing out that if you do the math according to the Bible the earth is around 6000 years old. He has to cite it as a source because no where else does it say the earth is about 6000 years old and it is the only source many of it's followers care to use. It strikes me as a perfect example of just one of many things the Bible is totally wrong about.
It is a dis-credible source against itself.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 21, 2014)

bullethead said:


> No he is pointing out that if you do the math according to the Bible the earth is around 6000 years old. He has to cite it as a source because no where else does it say the earth is about 6000 years old and it is the only source many of it's followers care to use. It strikes me as a perfect example of just one of many things the Bible is totally wrong about.
> It is a dis-credible source against itself.



Couple of points here

1). For the record.  I don't think the Bible teaches the earth is 'young'.......you pick the number.  Many do.  I don't.  I just wanted to see where Griz would go with his assertion that scripture states the earth was 6k years old.  He went with the commonly accepted, stereotypical answer and reasoning.

2). The Bible isn't meant as a science book.  Too many people are under a different impression.  That being said, I don't think what the Bible does teach and the scientific data does show are contradictory IN THE FEW INSTANCES IN WHICH THE TWO OVERLAP, nor should we expect them to be.  I think they reflect different pictures of the same image.  In other words, they each describe the same truth albeit from separate perspectives.  There are many things in science the Bible is silent on and there are many non empirical questions that science will never be able to address.   For a scientist to posit supposedly scientific theories about theological questions is as fool-hardly as the theologian who posits theological theories on scientific concepts, but again,  where they do overlap, I don't think they contradict each other.  This is what in part Wilson is saying about materialism.  It is simply not a coherent and comprehensive answer.  It can address a few of the questions, but only a few, and it requires the same amount of faith as any other belief for significantly less return on the dollar so -to-speak.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 22, 2014)

This all started because you said:


SemperFiDawg said:


> If you think scripture and science are in opposition, you have either a poor understanding of scripture, a poor understanding of science, a poor understanding of both, or


My example of scripture and science being in opposition is the age of the earth. Then, you start on tangent.



SemperFiDawg said:


> You said "Scripture" said the earth was 6000 years old. It appears you believe it since you are using it as evidence.


 he he What? It appears I believe it? You did see the part about science saying the earth is 4.2 billion years old right? 





> My question to you is this: If you believe Scripture is correct on something so trivial as the age of the earth,


 I don't believe it. It is not trivial when considering evolution. 6000 year old earth = not much evolution. 4.2 billion = yes, that is enough time.  





> then why don't you believe what it says about Christ coming and paying the penalty for your sin and offering you the free gift of eternal salvation?  That's a bit more important.


 Yes. If it had any amount of logic to it at all. A "GOD" having to jump through hoops and sacrifice his son to pay for our sin. Does God have a mob boss?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 22, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Your reply:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for finding that quote. I do believe you're misinterpreting what I said, though. 

Surely you've heard the saying, "It is what it is." Right? 

In other words, since my beliefs about the possible existence of a Creator also hinge on the notion that they are no longer active in the universe (so the only time they interacted was before the BB, and on the other side of a singularity) and that any understanding of it can not be obtained that I just accept that things have happened the way they have, and that any intent that might have been behind it is as foreign to me as particle physics is to penguins. 

So, since, within the bounds of current science, we can not understand, or experience, or relate to people on the other side, what occurs on the inside of the event horizon then it is something that I just take as it being what it is and move on. Now, if someone finds a way around that one day, in a way that I can observe myself, or once I cross the veil, then my position is open to changing. 

My position isn't that there isn't a God. That would make me an atheist, and while I know some believers lump us skeptics together, there is a difference between atheist and agnostic. My position is that I can't know God, until He reveals himself to me in life in a way that makes sense to me, or when I'm standing before him at the Throne. My position on religion is that it is created by man, and is therefore fallible and a bad basis for trying to control the behaviors of others. 

If people stopped calling religion a fact then I would shut up so fast that you'd wonder if I'd been killed. If they just put it out there that they believe that there is a God, and they believe the documents to be true for their lives, and they believe, but wouldn't force, other people should subscribe to their codices then we would have no problem. 

If I came to you with a book, that you didn't see anyone write, and told you that a God told me to write it and that you would burn in doggone-nation for eternity if you didn't do everything this book said, you'd laugh me out of the room. Wouldn't you? 

What makes this book any different? Nothing, but you won't admit that. You'll quote scripture, from the same book to me, to corroborate it, and when that fails anecdotal evidence from your life of times when your pleasure center was tickled after some important event that made you think the hand of God was upon you. I'm not saying it wasn't, just that you can't hold that up as factual to me, any more than I could to you, if you weren't inclined to believe it wholly in the first place. 

When I say that religion is 0 for infinity against the universe it's purely in the same way that a metaphor is 0 against reality for describing the same event. I believe faith, and religion, to be metaphors, with the exception of some of the facts about the life of Christ that have been independently corroborated, where science deals in the literal. 

Are they both trying to attain the same goal? Yes. A complete understanding of the reality around us. Science says here, check out this thing right here, play with it yourself, experiment with it, and only if it passes your logical judgment should you believe it. Climate science is a bad example of science since they believe in the absence of evidence. Religion says that there is naught but faith and a single book. Science also acknowledges its limitation in knowledge which is why things must be tried before they go from hypothesis, to theory, to law. Religion jumps from nothing to law. Faith doesn't, and that's an important distinction. My problem is not with faith, but with religion and purely because religion hold itself up as a science (theology- theo: dealing with a God; and -ology: the study of; anyone) and it's a very bad example of it. It's singularly sourced, and there's no ability for objective experimentation. 

Faith is about belief. Religion is about ceremony, and dogma, and rules with laws and consequences based on little more than hearsay and books written by people who want you to believe in them. 

I'm not saying you can't believe it, all I've ever asked is that you (infinitive you all throughout here) stop holding it up as fact, or that we change the definition of what a fact really is.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 22, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Couple of points here
> 
> 1). For the record.  I don't think the Bible teaches the earth is 'young'.......you pick the number.  Many do.  I don't.  I just wanted to see where Griz would go with his assertion that scripture states the earth was 6k years old.  He went with the commonly accepted, stereotypical answer and reasoning.
> 
> 2). The Bible isn't meant as a science book.  Too many people are under a different impression.  That being said, I don't think what the Bible does teach and the scientific data does show are contradictory IN THE FEW INSTANCES IN WHICH THE TWO OVERLAP, nor should we expect them to be.  I think they reflect different pictures of the same image.  In other words, they each describe the same truth albeit from separate perspectives.  There are many things in science the Bible is silent on and there are many non empirical questions that science will never be able to address.   For a scientist to posit supposedly scientific theories about theological questions is as fool-hardly as the theologian who posits theological theories on scientific concepts, but again,  where they do overlap, I don't think they contradict each other.  This is what in part Wilson is saying about materialism.  It is simply not a coherent and comprehensive answer.  It can address a few of the questions, but only a few, and it requires the same amount of faith as any other belief for significantly less return on the dollar so -to-speak.



Do you believe that the Bible provides an accurate lineage from Noah to Jesus?  In other words do you believe that the time of the Great Flood can be calculated through scripture to within maybe 500 years?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 22, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Thank you for finding that quote. I do believe you're misinterpreting what I said, though.
> 
> Surely you've heard the saying, "It is what it is." Right?
> 
> ...



Now that is something I can relate to.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 23, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> Do you believe that the Bible provides an accurate lineage from Noah to Jesus?  In other words do you believe that the time of the Great Flood can be calculated through scripture to within maybe 500 years?



I think it's an accurate lineage, but I honestly don't know if it's entirely comprehensive in its scope, or if gaps exist where generations, possibly many, were left out.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 23, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think it's an accurate lineage, but I honestly don't know if it's entirely comprehensive in its scope, or if gaps exist where generations, possibly many, were left out.



If generations were left out, would that not make it an INACCURATE lineage?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 23, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Thank you for finding that quote. I do believe you're misinterpreting what I said, though.
> 
> Surely you've heard the saying, "It is what it is." Right?
> 
> ...



I honestly don't think, and I don't say this as an insult, you have a very informed view of religion or Christianity.  Don't you think  you owe it to yourself, that before you form such strong opinions about a subject, you should have an accurate understanding of it?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 23, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> If generations were left out, would that not make it an INACCURATE lineage?



No.  If i was to state So and so was your great great grandfather, it wouldn't be inaccurate because I didn't include your great gf,  gf, or fathers name would it?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 23, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I honestly don't think, and I don't say this as an insult, you have a very informed view of religion or Christianity.  Don't you think  you owe it to yourself, that before you form such strong opinions about a subject, you should have an accurate understanding of it.



I have taken various college courses on it over the years, from both a singular religion perspective, as well as that of world religions, alive and defunct.

I have engaged many a religious leader, of all faiths, in discussion on the same topics that I discuss on here. It's more personable than this ends up turning to, but we do discuss them at length and they have yet to answer any of the questions that I pose to you all. 

I don't take it as an insult that you question my knowledge and learning history of religion. I know that it's pretty extensive.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 23, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> If generations were left out, would that not make it an INACCURATE lineage?





SemperFiDawg said:


> No.  If i was to state So and so was your great great grandfather, it wouldn't be inaccurate because I didn't include your great gf,  gf, or fathers name would it?



Okay.
Do you believe that either one of these scriptures are true and accurate?

Matthew 1:1-17
or
Luke 3:23-38


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 23, 2014)

Hawg I honestly don't have the time and probably not the inclination either if this is gonna entail me to do a side by side detailed comparison of the two genealogies.  You want to just cut to the chase and tell me what your point is.  Not being rude, just honest.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 23, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I have taken various college courses on it over the years, from both a singular religion perspective, as well as that of world religions, alive and defunct.
> 
> I have engaged many a religious leader, of all faiths, in discussion on the same topics that I discuss on here. It's more personable than this ends up turning to, but we do discuss them at length and they have yet to answer any of the questions that I pose to you all.
> 
> I don't take it as an insult that you question my knowledge and learning history of religion. I know that it's pretty extensive.



It's statements like this that made me question it:



> Faith is about belief. Religion is about ceremony, and dogma, and rules with laws and consequences based on little more than hearsay and books written by people who want you to believe in them.



This statement may be accurate to some degree, but represents a very naive view of each.  Given your education, I think in hindsight you would have to agree.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 23, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hawg I honestly don't have the time and probably not the inclination either if this is gonna entail me to do a side by side detailed comparison of the two genealogies.  You want to just cut to the chase and tell me what your point is.  Not being rude, just honest.



I have them written out but they are too long to post.  They are different genealogies but that's not my point.  My point is that if you accept the genealogies in the Bible, then we can calculate the approximate date of the Great Flood.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 23, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It's statements like this that made me question it:
> 
> 
> 
> This statement may be accurate to some degree, but represents a very naive view of each.  Given your education, I think in hindsight you would have to agree.



You say naïve, I say objective and dispassionate. There is a hard line between faith and religion. They are not interchangeable. Religion is the institutionalization of a faith through rites, rituals, and ceremony. You can have faith without the religion, you can not have religion without the faith. 

The faith is a personal construct. Religion is an institution amongst like minded people, based on nothing more than their beliefs. 

Seeing as I can't prove a negative, that there is no foundational, and objective proof, to back the claims of religion, then surely you'll easily win this disagreement. Like I said earlier, you'll win when it comes to proving that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and easily so. It's documented in many places. Why is it that his miracles, and assertions about God, and many other things, are ONLY found in the Bible? If the records of Jesus himself made it through to now, despite some people's desire to see him forgotten through all history, in more sources than just the Bible, then why are the accounts of the miracles missing, if they actually happened? 

Can you answer these questions without condescending to me? I don't need to condescend to you to punch holes completely through religion, since I'm "attacking" that and not you. Take a swipe at my arguments, and not me.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 23, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> I have them written out but they are too long to post.  They are different genealogies but that's not my point.  My point is that if you accept the genealogies in the Bible, then we can calculate the approximate date of the Great Flood.



You know we can get bogged down and follow this down the rabbit hole as far as you want to go, but let me ask you this.  Does whatever conclusion we come to regarding any of this really have any impact on the central message of the Bible.  I only ask this because I try not to get bogged down in debating different scriptural interpretations.  It's the main reason I stay out of the forums above.  You can ge so lost, you lose sight of the Forrest because of the trees.  Well that and I find it boring.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 23, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You know we can get bogged down and follow this down the rabbit hole as far as you want to go, but let me ask you this.  Does whatever conclusion we come to regarding any of this really have any impact on the central message of the Bible.  I only ask this because I try not to get bogged down in debating different scriptural interpretations.  It's the main reason I stay out of the forums above.  You can ge so lost, you lose sight of the Forrest because of the trees.  Well that and I find it boring.



Is the central message of the Bible universal or is it as open to interpretation as each verse?
The Bible was written by over forty authors over about 1,500 years in three languages and on three different continents.
What, in your opinion, is the central message?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jan 23, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You know we can get bogged down and follow this down the rabbit hole as far as you want to go, but let me ask you this.  Does whatever conclusion we come to regarding any of this really have any impact on the central message of the Bible.  I only ask this because I try not to get bogged down in debating different scriptural interpretations.  It's the main reason I stay out of the forums above.  You can ge so lost, you lose sight of the Forrest because of the trees.  Well that and I find it boring.



The impact is this:
If the Bible is not true and accurate, then how do we know if the central message of the Bible is true and accurate?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 23, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You say naïve, I say objective and dispassionate. There is a hard line between faith and religion. They are not interchangeable. Religion is the institutionalization of a faith through rites, rituals, and ceremony. You can have faith without the religion, you can not have religion without the faith.



Unfortunately from an insiders perspective, I would argue "you can not have religion without the faith. " as false and a big reason that the Church is suffering today.  Many are just empty shells: Nothing alive on the inside, but I get the point you are making.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The faith is a personal construct. Religion is an institution amongst like minded people, based on nothing more than their beliefs.
> 
> Seeing as I can't prove a negative, that there is no foundational, and objective proof, to back the claims of religion, then surely you'll easily win this disagreement. Like I said earlier, you'll win when it comes to proving that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and easily so. It's documented in many places. Why is it that his miracles, and assertions about God, and many other things, are ONLY found in the Bible? If the records of Jesus himself made it through to now, despite some people's desire to see him forgotten through all history, in more sources than just the Bible, then why are the accounts of the miracles missing, if they actually happened?



First I would answer if something is documented in only one place, that is not grounds for discounting it.  From my understanding the only evidence we have of Plato's writings is what was recorded by his student Aristotle.  We don't discount them because of that.  We are grateful that we have a record at all, and it's absurd to discount it as fallacy in the absence  of refutable contemporary sources stating otherwise.  Same with the accounts of the miracles.  There are no contemporary sources that contradict or refute the record.  So much of antiquity has been lost through the years, who knows if there weren't other sources that have been lost through the ages.  There very well could have been.  We don't know.  We can only go on what we do know and has been preserved.  

Additionally the Talmud IS a contemporary source that seems to corroborate the accounts of the miracles.  It records the crucifixion of Jesus and gives the reason as "witchcraft".  So even this hostile source notes that he was responsible for supernatural events.

One more note if I may.  You are absolutely correct when you say that there is no objective proof for proving (or disproving) religious claims, but let me ask you this, and take a couple of days to think about it:  How much of you life and how many of your decisions each day are actually based on 'objective proof'.  I think if you take the next couple of days and really look at every act you do, ask yourself "Can I validate this action solely on objective proof?" you will see very quickly that objective proof actually plays a very small in our daily decision making.  In any case regarding interpersonal relationships it is almost non existent.  Why is this important?  Simply this:  The relationship we are called to engage with God in is an interpersonal relationship and you can't very well apply objective proof to those to measure their validity.  You can't do it with your wife, your kids, your parents, your co workers nor God.  It just is not a valid tool for the job.  

We have to use subjective proofs for interpersonal relationships.  They aren't as airtight and are more prone to error, but it's what we use none the less.  

Now I ask you this:  Isn't it unfair and a bit hypocritical to measure one relationship by a totally different standard than you measure all the others.  Think about it.  What would your wife think if you told her you could never believe she loved you unless she could meet a repeatable objective standard yet every other relationship you have in your life is based on subjective values?  I know what mine would say.  She would say that's absurd, unreasonable, hypocritical, etc and she would be correct.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Can you answer these questions without condescending to me? I don't need to condescend you to punch holes completely through religion, since I'm "attacking" that and not you. Take a swipe at my arguments, and not me.



Just one note here.  Religion with its (pick one) track record for abuse is an easy target.  I don't think there's one whose teachings haven't been abused to harm others.  I'm not defending religion.  I'm not pro religion.  I am pro Christ.  He is a person.  One who is calling to everyone to join in a relationship with him.  Can you punch holes, find fault, or disparage him or what he taught?  Honestly, can you, because that's truly what important when all the pomp and sophistry is laid aside.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Jan 23, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Indeed.  Materialism can never explain something from nothing, intelligence from nothing, personhood from nothing, morality from nothing.  It's a vacuous, bleak, and intellectually untenable belief.



And yet you believe in an all seeing, all knowing, super power guy that can poof stuff into being. Certainly he is a "something from nothin" figure as well (meaning- where did god come from? When did he start?) I know you will say you don't agree. That god has always been. But really, try to imagine. Is it so much harder to believe that a micro organism would come from your so called nothing? Or a god? I have to imagine that in all the randomness, it is easier to get mold from all the energy, atoms, molecules, etc. that started our universe than to believe that a god would be the first and only thing ever. Nothing before and nothing after, unless he creates it. Both concepts are difficult for a human brain to grasp. It just seems like the single cell organisms would be far easier to come about than a god, and usually the easiest, most simple explanation is going to be the right answer.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 23, 2014)

HawgJawl said:


> The impact is this:
> If the Bible is not true and accurate, then how do we know if the central message of the Bible is true and accurate?



  I think it is true and accurate as to what it teaches.  Are there errors?  Yes.  Do they distort or take away from the meta narrative.  No, not in the least.  

The message is clear.  Those who wish to accept it, will.  Those who don't, won't.  It's that simple.  Those who say I don't accept it because___________ may accept it if that reason is resolved, but there are others who will never accept it no matter how many reasons are resolved.  They just won't.  

Why is it enough for some but not others?  I don't know the complete answer, but the individual's pride, comfort, and demeanor has a great deal to do with it.  A humble, poor or compassionate person is much more apt to believe than a prideful, wealthy, or scornful person.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 23, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Is the central message of the Bible universal or is it as open to interpretation as each verse?
> The Bible was written by over forty authors over about 1,500 years in three languages and on three different continents.
> What, in your opinion, is the central message?



I think it's "God loves each and every one of us, and wants to save us from ourselves."

What do you think the central message is?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 23, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> And yet you believe in an all seeing, all knowing, super power guy that can poof stuff into being. Certainly he is a "something from nothin" figure as well (meaning- where did god come from? When did he start?) I know you will say you don't agree. That god has always been. But really, try to imagine. Is it so much harder to believe that a micro organism would come from your so called nothing? Or a god? I have to imagine that in all the randomness, it is easier to get mold from all the energy, atoms, molecules, etc. that started our universe than to believe that a god would be the first and only thing ever. Nothing before and nothing after, unless he creates it. Both concepts are difficult for a human brain to grasp. It just seems like the single cell organisms would be far easier to come about than a god, and usually the easiest, most simple explanation is going to be the right answer.



Something HAS to be eternal.  Whatever first cause you chose, no matter how far back you go,  something had to exist before hand that is eternal, exist outside of the influence of space- time and be non material in nature.  There is simply no getting around that. A spaceless, timeless, non material something.

That leaves either an abstract being or an abstract concept/s.

Abstract concepts (numbers, mathematical formulas,) have no causative power.  

That leaves an abstract, timeless, non material, spaceless, being with causative powers known locally as _ _ _.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 23, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think it's "God loves each and every one of us, and wants to save us from ourselves."
> 
> What do you think the central message is?



I cannot narrow it down to a central message.
Believe or Burn seems to be popular throughout the book though.

For the heck of it I typed  "Central Message of the Bible" in a search engine. My goodness there are as many central messages as there are denominations and believers....


----------



## bullethead (Jan 23, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Something HAS to be eternal.  Whatever first cause you chose, no matter how far back you go,  something had to exist before hand that is eternal, exist outside of the influence of space- time and be non material in nature.  There is simply no getting around that. A spaceless, timeless, non material something.
> 
> That leaves either an abstract being or an abstract concept/s.
> 
> ...



How is there no getting around that? Your mind is the only thing limiting the possibilities.
How can one thing be eternal when you say nothing else can be eternal? It is simply how you explain to yourself what you cannot understand.
Someone will say their God is eternal but you will argue that their God had to start somewhere and that YOUR God was more eternal plus 1.
Saying something HAS to be eternal and then asserting the God you just so happen to worship is it without anything else is just not enough.
Energy quite possibly is about as eternal as anything gets. No made up deity needed to explain it.

Do you have any idea about how many Gods are credited with being eternal and responsible for creation? Their oral traditions and books are just as much "proof" as the next Gods.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 24, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Are there errors?  Yes



Isn't the Bible the inspired word of God?  Does that mean that God made a mistake?


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jan 24, 2014)

I honestly enjoyed the first post in this thread.

Years ago, I worked with a man who was a student at the Fruitland Baptist Bible College just outside Hendersonville, NC, my hometown.  He was studying to be a Baptist preacher while working for our mutual employer.  We became friends and soon realized that we were on opposite sides of the belief spectrum.

Due to the nature of our jobs, we had plenty of time to discuss our differences.  We agreed not to disparage one another on the basis of belief or non-belief, the only stipulation I had was any argument he posed could not be proven by "faith", it had to have solid evidence to support his views.

I really enjoyed my time talking with him, but he never changed my agnostic ways.

A person can make themselves anything that they care, but it doesn't make it true.  The fever with which you believe it doesn't make it true. 

I'd love to able to think that anything in my life is "God's will", but it's not.  We've all won the cosmic lottery in that the earth happened to be at the right distance from a star that supported life as we know it.  

Maybe our world is an atom in a blender in someone's kitchen in some other dimension, or maybe we're the only ones out here.  I just don't need a justification for why we're here.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jan 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> How is there no getting around that? Your mind is the only thing limiting the possibilities.
> How can one thing be eternal when you say nothing else can be eternal? It is simply how you explain to yourself what you cannot understand.
> Someone will say their God is eternal but you will argue that their God had to start somewhere and that YOUR God was more eternal plus 1.
> Saying something HAS to be eternal and then asserting the God you just so happen to worship is it without anything else is just not enough.
> ...



Bullet there are so many fallacies, red herrings, and irrational statements  in that I'm gonna take a pass.  Have a good day.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 24, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Bullet there are so many fallacies, red herrings, and irrational statements  in that I'm gonna take a pass.



Just take this part, it pretty much sums it up.



> Saying something HAS to be eternal and then asserting the God you just so happen to worship is it without anything else is just not enough.
> Energy quite possibly is about as eternal as anything gets.



What is wrong with the above?


----------

