Response to “Why Religion should be opposed”
When you write an article entitled “Why Religion should be opposed”, and you know that almost your entire audience is religious, you know that you’re going to get a few responses. I started replying to these responses individually but, realizing that many of them were similar in form, I thought it best to write a reply article dealing with each ‘type’ of response with a paragraph so that we can formalize the conversation and avoid repetition.
Yesterday I had more visitors on my site than I’ve ever had before, and almost all to the article in question. I find it amazing that you can write challenging articles about sex, love, relationships, parenting etc and no one takes personal offence, but mess with someone’s religion and all ‘hell’ breaks loose, which is exactly the nature of religion, and why I oppose it. Thank you to everyone who has read my article – you were not so closed minded that you applied the “Thou shalt not read articles written by vile heathen” philosophy. Thank you to all those who shared an opinion and responded in some way – please share your thoughts on my other articles too.
I am now going to speak to each ‘type’ of response I received. I have no doubt that I will offend people all over again with this, but fortunately I’m not one of those Methodist-don’t-rock-the-boat-keep-your-opinions-to-yourself kinds of people who care about the word ‘offend’. “You offended me!” is not an argument in itself. If you wrote to me then you will find your reply in these words somewhere.
To the people who responded without taking the trouble to actually read the article
I was tempted to just copy and paste your thoughtless text with references following every unintelligent sentence saying “see paragraph 2″ or “did you skip paragraph 4?!” but I won’t. Feel free to read the article again, actually understanding the words I carefully strung together and then feel free to write an intelligent response.
To the bible bashers
These are the people who insist on using circular logic or Circulus in Probando, arguing that the Bible says that God exists, and the Bible is always right (because it was inspired by God), so God must exist. The problem with this is that the premises are circular in nature because each premise assumes the validity of the other. I have read the bible many times end to end, not to mention an equivalent number of times via piecemeal reading of scripture as required for sermons, devotions etc. There was a time I simply ‘believed’ that it was all true because (and please don’t skip over this): I was born and brought up in a Christian society; I was scared of hell and offending God; I was convinced by everyone around me that belief was better than intellect; I had a notion (because of conditioning) that to question the Bible’s absolute truth and perfection was ‘blasphemous’ and ‘rebellious’ (manipulative words used by religion to control). Bible bashers interpret scripture as it suits them for any particular cause or going church trend. 1000 years ago the scripture about women needing to cover their heads was taken very literally, but today most Christians choose to apply some rational thought to the subject, yet these same Christians will use other scriptures very literally when it suits them to do so. This also changes from congregation to congregation and denomination to denomination – so who makes the rules? Who’s interpretational methods are correct? It stands to reason that if one of them were ‘correct’ in the eyes of God then all the others would be wrong – if not, then God and all his followers are confused and God is not perfect. Telling me that something is true because the Bible says so is a fallacial argument. Feel free however to quote a particular argument, found in the Bible, that appeals to some sense of reason or logic and I’ll consider it with as much respect as anything Einstein or Hitchens has to say. So far I have had nothing like this. C’mon Christians!! You can do better than that. I myself could put forward some valid biblical arguments – I offer an open invitation to reasonable debate.
To those who have ‘personal experiences’ with God
These are the people who claimed they had ‘heard’ from God personally or had an ‘experience’ somehow involving God. This is probably the most difficult response to respond to. I remember (with a cold chill) the days of being an assistant pastor in a charismatic church in Benoni, times when we (the elders) would get together to discuss something, and in the middle of heated debate the senior pastor would say something like, “God told me we have to do it so let’s get started.” Well, who could argue with that? If God said it, who are we to question it? The result being that anything this particular man wanted, happened. You can’t argue with someone who has God in their corner. I could just as easily say, “I saw a unicorn at the bottom of my garden this morning – prove me wrong!” You know I am wrong because you know there are no unicorns, because if there were unicorns we’d have photos of them, and their discovery would be published in every newspaper in the world with probably a specimen in The Hague for testing and so forth. In this you use reason, so you would roll your eyes and say, “I’m sure you thought you saw a unicorn…” and pat me on the back condescendingly. So my response to you is, “I’m sure you thought you heard God – pity you don’t have any evidence (pat pat). If I were to believe all the ‘personal testimonies’ of people who claim God did something ‘good’ for them I’d also have to believe the suicide bombers of 9/11′s claims that God instructed them in their mission, or all the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens somewhere in the Midwest of the USA. You yourselves use rational thinking in all areas except this! I have, many times, wished that I could walk through my closet and end up in Narnia, but no amount of staring at the closet is going to help me understand the truth of my world. There are coats in the closet. Santa does not exist. God does not exist.
To the condescending self righteous
Ah, my favourite group! I wish there were fish like you in the water the last five times I went unsuccessfully fishing in dams and rivers around South Africa. The damn fish just stare at my bait and never bite. You however, are the most predictable and toothache inducing group of the lot. The people I refer to here are those who don’t bother showing my articles an ounce of respect by responding to the propositions put forward, but instead choose to take the: “you’re sick and in need of help from someone like me” approach. I refer to statements like, “Are you free my friend?” or “…but are you happy?” or “you are clearly speaking out of a place of hurt…” Spare me your noxious, patronizing, dripping, putrid self righteousness and amateur psycho-analysis! I pity you for needing to feel accepted or acceptable in society above truth; and thinking that anyone who doesn’t share your view must be somehow broken, un-whole or lost. Read my article on being a Salmon vs. a Sheep. Let me say this once, and never again: I am free! I am happy! I am fulfilled! I am not lonely! I am all these things more than I have ever been and that is precisely why I share my life with the world online. I’d gladly accept loneliness and suffering over oppression and mysticism any day, and if I was unhappy or lonely it would have nothing to do with you anyway – but that is not my fate – so respond to apples with apples and stop throwing lemons at me.
To the fence sitters
In some ways, this group irks me the most. These are the people who respond with paragraphs about how they believe in everything and nothing at all. My article is as much an argument against faith as it is against religion. People who say, “I agree with you that religion is wrong, but I still believe that a god or gods or some spiritual entity exists…” are religious, plain and simple. To sit on the fence is to avoid confrontation with society without having to conform particularly. It is at best a spineless agnosticism and at worst, closet atheism. Get out of the closet! You either believe, which requires the suppression of your reasoning; or you reason, and therefore have no need of faith. I don’t have to sit and philosophically ponder the weight, colour, acidity or molecular structure of an apple because the knowledge is already revealed through scientific means. All I need do is pick up a few books on the matter and the evidence presented simply removes any need for faith, or confusion about the apple. Sure, there are things we’re only beginning to understand in the realms of sub-atomic and quantum physics, but the key word is ‘understand’ – we’re not seeking to ‘believe’, we’re seeking to understand! We KNOW how the Earth was formed – we don’t need to BELIEVE some ancient myth about 7 days, or turtles holding up a flat earth etc. I have to confess that in my journey (like a pendulum swing) from belief to reasoning, I took a short stop at universalism and agnosticism, but only a short one – my mind could never be satisfied with believing in belief, or believing that anything was ‘unknowable’. Join me on the other side – it’s incredibly liberating!
To those who engaged in enlightened conversation!
You were a breath of fresh air!! These were the Christians, Muslims and Atheists who responded to my propositions with reasonable counter arguments – who did not ‘hide’ behind “God exists and that’s all there is to it” – but instead, spent a little time thinking about their position and responding with facts and sound reasoning, with respect for the subject. Although our views may be a universe apart, I welcome your comments and hope to engage with many more of you out there in the virtual universe.
Deon,
The concept of God is something I’d say no human can ever comprehend. And it is perfect to wonder and ask if there really exist God, we all have every right to do so.
However Deon, what I’d suggest here is for you to discuss evidences that will disprove the existence of God, I mean, let’s forget about “beleiving” (objective or subjective) that God exist. Maybe then, we can go further to make people (including you and I) “understand” that God does/do not exist.
Bash,
The reality is that currently God cannot be disproved scientifically (yet) but the issue is one of probability. It is far more logically probable that he doesn’t exist than that he does, and therefore is the most reasonable theory to adopt as an intellectual mind. I will write on this probability soon. PS: I’m a defender of everyone’s right to wonder and ask… I hope you see that. Keep posting.
Deon you strike me as the type of person who is obviously learned and very intelligent but it also seems to me that you only deal in absolutes in your mind. You are either for or against and I’m sure you were fairly convincing in your argument to yourself and to others when you on the religous side of the fence. It doesn’t have to be black and white there is plenty space for a grey area. You dont have to put your point across in an antagonistic way. Is this a character trait? Did you do this when you were religous? And if so, how do you feel now about pushing religon onto people and then doing an about turn? It seems to me you are over-compensating. There is space for all people to question and “fence sitters” as you would call them could still be putting together their pieces of the puzzle. Not everyone is as sure as you portray..
Denis,
I make no apologies for my style or character traits. If you want to start a fan page called “Deon is insensitive and too black or white” then please do so, and I’ll be your first fan. If you have an opinion about the content of my article, i.e. Why Religion should be opposed, then please enlighten us with it, even if it’s grey (of which I am very tolerant over a cigar and whiskey).
So many comments, strong emotions and thoughts over such an intangible issue, I can see why so many wars have been made over such a thing, or nothing.
Let’s face it, it’s hard to be without an opinion, almost like an orphan without a mother, but most people either don’t want to interact due to laziness or fear, uncertainty or stubborness and those that do take the risk of opening up themselves, the soft tender sides, to ridicule if their thoughts or words cannot contribute meaningfully.
I’d like to try, so what if i’m ridiculed, or you think less of me.
I was born and raised orthodox christian, drilled into making the sign of the cross over my chest from top to bottom, right to left, never left to right because that’s how the catholics do it, since I was old enough to understand.
When I asked why I had to do this I was lovingly answered, ‘because it shows that you love God’.
My intellect has never been studious, scholarly and my education ended in a matric, but my ‘inner’ me that has allowed me to survive this long has always steered me clear of ‘unconscious habits’ without concious thought of why I am doing them. Those who know me well joke at my constant ‘analysis’ of everything around me, maybe now you understand.
I recently read ‘a short history of nearly everything’ and they make a comparison between the timescale of our galaxy which is roughly 5 billion years and our portion of history , nearly 5 thousand years. Our brief existence is the tip (literally 1mm) of our fingernails on our outstretched arm which in turn makes up the balance of the five billion years.
How arrogant are we to assume that ‘we’ (pick a religion) are the chosen people of God, that he has given us lord and dominion over the earth and all that exists on it.
This is one of the sides of the fence that I look at when I sit there and I do it often.
I find it hard to believe that we cannot explain, after 100 years of empiracle and scientific work with the greatest minds on our planet, what an atom actually does and the best we can come up with is a theory of how atoms function, which I find absolutely amazing by the way. To me it is strange that atoms behave in the way that they do when they are ‘observed’ or ‘measured’ and completely differently on their own (Deon maybe here is another article for you). Could it be that there is an ‘underlying current of energy’ that can neither be created nor destroyed, is everywhere and nowhere at the same time and is part of everything in our universe and binds us in ways that we haven’t begun to understand?… sound familiar? If so, could that be ‘God’ but not the kind that religions talk about? This god doesn’t need prayer, ‘it’ doesn’t need fancy churches, red velvet, holy water or even books on ‘how to’ i.e. the bible. This God works on the most important energy of all, Love. There is something about a creation of ‘love’, a child, a masterpiece, a great song… atoms can’t do that all by themselves, even through our ‘influence’, it’s a ‘kind of magic’ that creates those things.
You see Deon (and company) i’m stuck on this fence, I really want to belive that God exists but can’t prove it enough to believe it. I also want to believe that he doesn’t exist because then I am the master of my own destiny.
Running within me, I can feel something, I am somehow connected to it, him, she, whatever you like to call it, this energy I feel in many ways and in many people in my life. As if I am here to experience something and report back to something in order to be ‘better’, ‘wiser’, I don’t know what to call it, there is too much coincidental experience in my life for me to believe that we are born, we live, we die, and that’s what life is all about.
There is more.
I believe that science is doing a whole lot more to find out than religions are. So back to the fence I go, because I don’t have to make my mind up today… or tomorrow.
Hi Bas, always good to hear from you.
Firstly, thank you for a thoughtful response, even though it was fairly non committal for the most part. I really have no problem with anyone having any opinion at all (as you more than anyone know) – I simply want people to take responsibility for their views and spend a little time in thought – both of which you have done. I know that it is extremely difficult to move from Agnosticism to Atheism (or Religion) when there is so much that is unknown in the world. My view of course is that science reveals a hundred times more of the truth than does religion. I write controversial articles that take a firm (in the words of Denis) ‘Black or White’ approach because then we can cut the devotional bullshit and get to what really matters. The reality of the matter is that sometimes I too wish there were unicorns and fairies and even a loving, all powerful, God – because then I’d live forever in a strange and wonderful place called heaven. There are times when I retreat to the safety of agnosticism because its easier to deal with the other 6 000 000 000 people living in the world when ‘m not opposing them, and when I want a little peace to do simple things that don’t require convictions about God and Truth like playing with my kids in a garden, or listening to “The Best of Dire Straights”. But then again, as you know more than anyone, I am not ‘cut out’ for being ‘normal’ or ‘conventional’ – as your bumper sticker says, I’m into doing ‘Epic Shit’ like offending the whole religious world so that they’ll look at their superstitions and consider the facts. I can’t do that by writing ‘middle of the road’ arguments. I’ve taken my stand, and my stand is Atheism. Now I’m waiting for someone who has taken a Christian or Muslim stand to tell me WHY???!!!
Ok… got you.
I will be here on the fence… but I might just surprise you one of these days and hop on over and build a pub and invite you for a guiness! Or two.
Hi Deon
Im always fascinated by the power of organised religion its subtle indoctrination that even you as an athiest seem to have trouble letting go.
This concept that god is male,refered to by the constant use of he or him in yours and and others responses.
Your arguments are sound but you sometimes come across a bit angry as if deep down you are still struggling with it.
Religion is a new concept.
In discussions with religous people i am often asked about creation, what existed before the big bang.I like to counter with the traffic jam all those souls who existed before religion must be in at heavens gate.
Religion is an immature societies response to a violent and unsofiticated world,we need to move on.
If suddenly one morning everyones long term memories were gone i believe the middle east would be a peaceful place.
When religion and history are combined you then have unforgiving war.
The one bit of solace i feel is that in armageddon the human race will cease to exist but the earth will carry on for at least the next 4 billion years and the universe will not even notice.
Grant, an interesting basket of ideas. I have let go of religion – I write about it in its own terms because its there and someone has to speak out about it.
Anger? Who cares? Not sure what your point is?
Religion is not new at all in terms of grouped societies – its over 6000 years old. Before that there were very few organised groups of any kind and based on what I see today religion was there back then too – probably some sort of animism or tribal type religions.
Armageddon? I though I was holding on to religion…
Hi Deon, very interesting points of view – the main article and your response to the responses. I hear your view and definition of fence sitters, but would like to share this thought.
My reading has led me to the point where I think organised religion is the biggest con in mankind’s history. I have read many books on pre-history and we just don’t know, but there is compelling evidence that history as we ‘know’ it is wrong. Zacharia Stitchen who has translated the Sumerian tablets puts some serious light on our interpretation of the past, genetic engineering etc. Most of the early bible can be traced back to these tablets, but with very different interpretations. In more modern times the Catholic church was developed as the arm of the Roman Empire to control the populace. Much of Christian doctrine is based on this fact. For example the Council of Nicea (excuse spelling) in 300AD confirmed Christ as a deity, a bunch of old dudes decided he was a god 300 years after his death (+-). This was in line with Roman belief whereby their emperors were deemed deities as well. Much of the other myth of Christian belief links to Egyptian mythology. Christianity in fact became the catch all religion for the Empire and had to appeal to as many as possible. Add to it confession and the inquisition and you have full control of your populace.
Now to my fence sitting bit, there is something about spirituality that we don’t know and the science model as we know it is also flawed. (read books like Web of Life). Given this we just don’t know. We live consciously in a 3 dimensional space with a time line that does not behave according to our day to day lives. Can spirituality be the 4th, 5th or nth dimension. On thsi platform we just don’t know, but there is a lot of evidence that there is something else. Its not god and its not religion, but there is something there and that’s the space I am most interested in.
Great comment Richard. Yes, I have toned down on the fence sitting thing over the past few months and even when I wrote the article my intention was to get people to stand for a point of view. I’m more than happy with the agnostic point of view because it’s the only one that’s 100% valid. Having said that, I still see the evidence of growing scientific discovery vs. religious bullshit and my logical mind says that science will eventually work it all out – maybe not now, or in our lifetime, but distant future generations will not be agnostics and they will certainly not be religious. I agree with everything you’ve said.
Nice article.
Specifically as an answer to Bash’s request (first reply to this post), unfortunately the request is backwards.
You do not set out to disprove the improbable (especially since it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, the limitation that stymies many people, trapping them in agnosticism) but rather need to prove the unlikely Hypothesis.
Example: I claim the Tooth Fairy exists. My father told me she’d take my tooth from under my pillow and leave me money (his gospel), and Lo and Behold it came to pass. I now put it to you to disprove the Tooth Fairy. sure you may find some fraudulent parents pretending to be the Tooth Fairy, but somewhere in the world the real Tooth Fairy is doing her good work.
Now obviously this hypothesis is preposterous. But the beauty of it is that it cannot be disproved – there is no reasonable way to examine every pillow in the world for a sodding tooth fairy. The logical fallacy here is that I’m asking you to disprove it – I’m putting forward an unlikely hypothesis, and therefore the burden of proof is on ME to prove my ridiculous claims. The same applies to proponents of the Creation Fairy – the burden of proof is on you to show (not necessarily even prove, simply show weight of probability if you can) that there is a god.
-Ed.
Nicely said Ed. The challenge of course is shaking people out of their stupor enough to even hear that beautiful piece of reasoning.
I can construct a well-reasoned argument Deon, but you’re asking me to move mountains. For that, apparently, you require Mohammed.
Hi Deon,
I’m probably some-one you’ll classify as a “True-Theists”, which is true to some extent, I suppose. Personally I believe that no-one will be able to change my mind not because of blind faith in God, but because I personally believe in the fallibility of the human mind. All of us think we know some-thing, and then creation comes along and pulls the rug right out from under us. Ex. In Europe, in the early 1900′s , I think, people believed and stated that black swans could not and do not exist. And then when they started the colonization of Australia, low and behold… they do. A few years ago very smart PhD level people actually believed that if you diversified risk enough it ceases to exist. So they spread their high risks right across the globe thinking the risk would simply go away. And none of those “smart” people saw that they were sowing the seeds of the biggest financial disaster in human history.
I can really tell that this whole religion thing is really a big deal to you. Why else would you spend so much time and effort on it? But from reading your article I kind of feel that you’ve missed something. Okay, maybe not really something. Rather some-one. A person called Jesus Christ. (I can see you rolling your eyes at me, please give me a minute to explain.)
The whole article “Imagine No Religion” hinges on the acts of man. You only looked at the things people do to make themselves right before God. How can the mere human acts redeem people before God if he had to send His only and beloved Son to pay for our transgressions? The point I’m trying to make is as follows: If we could redeem ourselves through our actions before God, then Jesus died in vain.
Let me make it even clearer. By the actions of Christ and by His actions alone, those that believe on Him, are redeemed before God. In a nut shell this means that nothing you can ever do in this life will count towards your browny points total before the throne of heaven one day. This also means that if you accept Christ into your life then nothing you ever did could deduct points ever again either.
Unfortunately not many people now this, so they try to earn the favour of God by their “good” deeds. And then when these dead works turn out ugly, people start writing articles about how religion is evil etc.
I used to be a very zealous person. I really love Warhammer fiction, but as you may now the forces of the imperium often come up against the vile hordes of chaos and the daemons that do their bidding. As a religiously minded Xtian I kind of had an issue with this. Until finally one day my guilty conscious could take it no more and I decided to burn all my books as an offering to my Just and Noble Lord. But a funny thing happened then. It was raining. So I thought I’d do it later. Then as time went on it kind of dawned on me, if the Lord wanted me to burn all my books, then why the hell was it raining? I later realized that my salvation did not depend on what I read. I later realized that one of the ways the Lord leads us is by the desires he writes on our harts, and to trust that He always loves us, no-matter what.
I still have my books, and I’ve added a great number of other ones to their ranks as well
And I enjoy them immensely. I’m no longer led by my consciousness of sin. Rather I’m now conscious of Christ and of what He has done for me. His work is finished and nothing I can do can ever add anything to it. And He is showing me a great many things. And it’s awesome. And sometimes I feel a bit nutty. But it’s a small price to pay 
,I suppose.
Jacques – your whole response is based on the assumption that any of the stuff you refer to from the Bible is true. You didn’t tell us how “creation comes along and pulls the rug” whatever that means and I’m not sure what you’re trying to say in your swan and risk analogies. I think you might have something to say but you’re not saying it. You haven’t shown me why your faith is not “blind”, and you’ve told me about a bunch of spiritual revelations you’ve had that are entirely application of your own personal biblical interpretations, which again is based on the Bible having any kind of authority in the first place.
Hi Deon,
What I’m trying to say is that every so often very smart people get very comfortable in the thought that they’ve figured it all out. That they’ve mentally built this infallible fortress in their heads based on certain “facts” that they’ve collected over the course of their life times. And then one Tuesday morning something comes along that totally shatters that pretty little mental palace. I used to be one of those people.
I know how science works. It’s nothing more than a game of connecting the dots. Or rather finding a function that more or less passes through most of the dots. The dots in this case are facts and the function is a scientific theory.
But get this, if there are few enough dots, or if my function is sufficiently complicated, I can find a function or theory that will pass through every single one of those dots. To the layman it would look like I found the perfect fit. That is until a new dot pops up in a location that my function cannot fit through. Then it’s back to the drawing board. And I can either deny that the new dot that couldn’t possibly be there (but still is) exists, or I can make my function sufficiently complicated to accommodate the new dot. But then as people discover more stuff, another one pops up.
That makes for a very shaky foundation. (That being science). And did not accommodate too well with me.
People find a few skeletons here and there and then they need to create this mind blowingly complex web of theories to accommodate it all. (To fit through all the points.) But every so often they find something new that doesn’t fit in their web and they either have to deny it’s existence or they have to rewrite the entire theory web (again!).
I prefer the much simpler solution, because in my experience the simplest solutions are the most brilliant ones. But it’s the one solution science cannot embrace, the one that quite simply points to a Creator.
Also, I deliberately tried not to make any references to the bible in my first response. (Because it doesn’t seem to carry much weight with you.) I tried to not use any biblical foundations, but where I did it was to try and show you that I believe in a deity bigger than myself yet I do not feel obliged to smite unbelievers who do not share my point of view.
I tried to convey the idea that when you hear and accept the good news about Christ, there really isn’t any thing you have to do other than believe. Actually there is nothing you can do to increase your favour with God other than just believing in Christ. On the surface this probably looks like religious bible mumbo jumbo to you, but I said it in order to convey the idea that I don’t have to fight “Countless wars” or commit “Religious genocide ” or to “Resisting (often violently) scientific progress” in order to please my God. All I need to do is to believe that His Son died for me, and that alone pleases Him and saves me.
And whether the bible tells me this in this context is irrelevant to the argument. Seeing as the argument is about how religious beliefs will incite me consciously or unconsciously to do stuff to the detriment of mankind. But here I am, obviously believing in something religious/spiritual yet this belief at its core is not about my actions at all, but about believing the wonderfulness of Christ. And I don’t have to DO anything (at all) in order to faithfully live in that truth.
And I mentioned this because it seemed to be a facet that your argument was missing.
Jacques,
You talk about how science is a shaky foundation based on a process of reason and logic and then claim to believe in a God that has no foundation in reason and logic at all. If you’re going to ‘believe’ in Jesus, you may as well believe in Allah or Unicorns or Science for that matter, because faith has no foundation at all except in personal preference. I will gladly take the incomplete but ever improving process of science and reason over faith any day. I would rather work with the few dots we have even though I know they may be replaced with more perfect dots in time to come, than work with the ‘perfect’ picture of a religion that cannot be questioned.
Hi Deon,
You speak of science as if it is this cool unbiased unemotional entity that will bring the great “truth” upon the people. But it’s not. Science can be, and is, just as prejudicial as any of the most conservative religious sects.
Don’t get me wrong, I give credit and I am thankful for the contributions of these men and women of science. Without them we would not be having this conversation. I am really great full for having been born in this cyber age
But we must always remember that those scientists are just people, with their own convictions and insecurities. And it’s these qualities which would make them not always fully truthful.
I’ve heard about some “dots” that’s never been published. Things like relatively fresh Dinosaur bones with blood in them. Things like a ornamental copper bowl found in coal “millions” of years old. Or a human footprint found in a Dinosaur one. Now I’m not saying these facts are true. But suppose one of them was, and a scientist found and confirmed it. Do you honestly think they’ll ever publish something so totally and radically against the main streams of thought? They would be the laughing stocks of the scientific community.
Just look at the whole Copenhagen email hack incident. I believe the emails showed how scientists tend to ostracize those with opposing views than themselves.
Try taking the other side of the global warming debate some time, and you’ll quickly find something else that cannot be questioned.
Jacques – I don’t know that science is cool, unbiased or unemotional… neither do I think it is some sort of religion – I do think it is the most effective method we have of testing what we think we know. Science never claims to know everything – quite the opposite, science is always trying to counter it’s own propositions to test it’s validity. When one scientist comes up with a theory there are any number of scientists who are glad to try and disprove it. Whatever one scientist may try and hide, another scientist will try and expose. The system keeps itself honest. I don’t see that in religion. I see people making sure that no-one gets to ask any questions that might “shake people’s faith”. The whole system of religion is rife with censorship and propaganda.
Just to throw a spanner in the works here, Jacques, let me list a couple of the assumptions you’ve made in your statements, ranging from simply “insupportable”, through to “ludicrous” and finally even “Disgusting”:
1) There is a God. (Insupportable)
The likelihood of a God is so terminally minute as to be insignificant. Like my earlier post, the burden of proof is on you to show his existence.
2) Jesus christ is the son of God (Ludicrous)
A being claimed to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient has a “Son”? How absurd. If we’re all created by the wonder-spook, we’re all his children. No being this powerful could need a single vessel for his own family – all of creation is his family. Praying to Jesus that it gets through to God easier? Has the omniscient now become hard of hearing? This personalised attention by a deity little more than a scared child’s pipe-dream.
3) Jesus died for our sins (Ludicrous)
According to what records remain of his life, Jesus Christ died due to political machinations of the time that he failed to safely navigate. He had no choice in the matter, and certainly didn’t string himself up on the cross.
4) We require redemption (Disgusting)
This is truly revolting. The idea that we are born in “sin”, doomed to eternal suffering for the crime of drawing our first frightened breath upon this earth, is possibly the greatest crime to lay at Christianity’s doorstep (and I include it’s various genocides and witch-hunts among said crimes). To take the joy of being human, and living life, and pretend it to be a crime punishable by unimaginable torture is truly disgusting. The ease with which we all let this atrocity pass us by only illustrates how many absurdities society has accepted from religion.
Those are my major complaints, but before signing off I’ll answer your complaint, namely the fallibility of man. You are correct, we are not perfect. Enlightened minds make mistakes. But that’s the beauty of science – we accept that mistakes can happen, and when shown to be a mistake, we correct and update what we know. Religion, conversely, speaks in unprovable absolutes, untestable and hence uncorrectable.
-Ed.
Hi Deon,
BRILLIANT set of articles/blogs on this subject. And the comments… WELL, I am reminded of that hoary old Standard Bank ad… Priceless!
As for the content of some of the comments, you go boy!
I, too, have taken the step away from the road enforced through religious dogma and bigotry, and found that there are things out there, outside of the “traditional” religious views that make my life a more fulfilling and all-encompassing viewpoint outside of the mainstream. One that is tolerant of others views yet not so dictatorial as to say as so many of my friends from those days have said… “If God said it, that settles it, I believe it…!” Bullshit!
I wrote a similar blog in my own blogging way, just no where near as eloquent as yours… attacking sacred cows and other mad ideas…
Keep up the good work, I shall be and have now become a follower, oh god no… pleeeaasse… not another messiah…
@Evan Hurwitz
1) It’s impossible to prove that God exists. In His wisdom God decided to hide Himself from the “wise” and reveal Himself in the foolishness of preaching. (Thats scriptural.) There’s an assumption in science that only that which is measurable and observable exists. How would you measure God? But in all honesty, I don’t have an idea why He chose to do that. But I trust in His judgement. Since He knows best. (And yes, Deon, this is probably the exact mentality you are rebelling against. But is suits me.)
2) Have you ever considered that the only reason we have been given the ability to create offspring is to give us an idea of how much God loves us? In nr 2 you are assuming that the cycle of parent and child is some-how above God. What if God created the parent child cycle specifically because He Himself has a Son? We were created in His image after all. And to get to your point – only the saved are His children. And you can only be saved through faith in Jesus.
3)At any moment Jesus, being the Son of the living God, could have called on whole armies of angles to free Him. He didn’t. He endured the pain, poverty and humiliation of the cross. And He endured it for you…
4) Have you ever seen Lord of the flies? I truly believe that if children were stranded on an island somewhere, that is exactly what would happen. We aren’t naturally good. Any newspaper will tell you that. Nothing pure can come from something thats been tainted. We were all born as sinners. And joy isn’t the crime. Sin is.
@ Jacques
One of the biggest mistakes in the Christianity is that premise that you don’t have to DO anything, “All I need to do is to believe that His Son died for me, and that alone pleases Him and saves me.” Firstly that is creepy, and secondly stupid.
Somebody dying for me 2000 years ago or today for that matter, cannot take away the consequences and repercussions of any harm that I have created. No amount of prayer or absolution from me believing in Jesus will change any pain I have created.
What I do everyday and how I choose to be 100% affects other people, so I choose to think about what I do and act kindly. I choose morality, ethics and common sense amongst other things. My children learn from my example and how to be good custodians of this place called home. What kind of Mother would I be if I could violate or torment them and based on the fact that Jesus died on the cross for me – hey suddenly all is forgiven, but no wait there is more (and yes it sounds like a Verimark advert), it was fine for me to do that in the first place because I was pre-forgiven? Absurd. And to pass this ideology on to them, that would constitute a BAD mother!
I look around and see the good that people do everyday and how this makes a difference in our world. And it makes me really angry when I see committed Christians such as yourself committing “sins” or causing pain due to this lazy belief system, and on top if it judging all and sundry, in that we will be excluded from salvation. I do not need salvation or heaven or Jesus Christ, I need this world to pull itself straight, for people to treat one another with compassion and acceptance, then we will see real results.
And the burden of proof of existence of GOD/JESUS/HOLY SPIRIT, lies with them. Firstly, if he/they were that awesome and powerful etc, my belief or disbelief would not matter.