OK, Jay, for starters, I did like this Bill Maher film more than I liked Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”. I saw it last night at a pre-opening screening sponsored by the Washington Area Secular Humanists and the American Humanist Association.
I am a huge film fan.I really try to approach every cinema experience hoping for the best. I try to evaluate films under the standard: “do they achieve what the filmmaker wants to do?” In this case, Maher and director Larry Charles want to accomplish two things: make a funny film and make a documentary about the dangers of religion, as in all religion. There were some bits here that were hilarious. I laugh easily, though, and even found a few sections of Mike Myer’s “The Love Guru” high comedy. But as a documentary on religion, and the real dangers it can pose, it really missed the mark. Why? Bluntly, it was too “preachy”.
Here’s the setup. Raised a Catholic, in a mixed Jewish-Catholic family, Maher begins the film by discussing his abandonment of faith. He is sitting in what looks like the passenger side of a van speaking to the director off camera. He then chats with his Jewish mother and his sister about some of the funny things that happened during his childhood. He liked girls and baseball more than going to church. Most of us can relate to that.
Then the long slide begins. Most of his interviews are with fairly obscure religious “leaders” who make astonishing claims. He chats with a pastor who was once a member of the famous doo-wop group the Bluenotes, who is now doing very fine financially as the pastor of a church. He wears $2000 suits and lots of bling. He assures Maher that his congregation wants him to look good and that God wants him happy as well. He concedes that some of the women in his church may have a crush on him, noting that he’d have a crush on himself if he was in the audience. For most of us Christians, this “prosperity gospel” message–love God and you’ll be “blessed” with dough–is unbiblical and predatory.
Maher visits the leader of one of those “ex-gay” ministries, that tries to scam people into believing that they can be “cured” of their homosexuality. There is a whole cottage industry of these fellows, so they are hardly hard to locate hiding their dim lights under baskets. On the other hand, millions of other Christians reject this “mission”. I speak out regularly against them myself.
A few other interviews go the same way. Listening to Ken Ham, the founder of a Kentucky creationist museum, attempt to explain how science and Biblical literalism mesh is breathtakingly inane. However, most people have seen all this before, presented by Jon Stewart or Penn and Teller or maybe the local college biology teacher adding a little humor to his community outreach lecture on evolution.
During a trip to the Vatican, however, after no officials from the Holy See will see him, he finds two interesting characters. One is the former official Vatican astronomer; the other a jovial old priest apparently on a visit to Rome himself. The astronomer explains to Maher that the Bible is not a science book because during the period of its creation, 2000 B.C until 300 A.D. there really anything we’d call science. The still devout astonomer thus makes the critical point that you can’t do Twenty-First Century science with First Century Bible proof-texting. The old priest tells Maher that most Catholics these days have repudiated ideas preached during Maher’s tenure with the church, even the concept of hell. What’s important to the film’s structure, though, is Maher’s reaction to all this. Here are just two more examples of religious buffoons. If you don’t literally accept all the Scripture and/or Church says, and you pick and choose what to believe, you are obviously still holding on to the fig leaf after the fig has fallen away–and that makes you foolish.
There is a rather obvious alternative view. People who move away from Scriptural literalism often become more clearheaded thinkers about the very issues that are at the heart of the “religion question.” Is there a purpose to the universe? What is the source of evil if you believe that God is good? Why should we be moral actors anyway? There are really serious theologians who have taken this path, including my friend Bishop John Shelby Spong. If in the end you are arguing that all religion is dangerous, really dangerous, shouldn’t you be willing to confront the best thinkers, not just the weirdest ones?
Of course, there are plenty of interviews with Muslims, including a Muslim rapper, a Muslim elected official in Amsterdam, a Muslim scholar, and lots of historical footage of angry Muslims would wanted to kill Salman Rushdie and airplanes flying into the Twin Towers. Most of those interviewed attempt to convince Maher that fundamentalist attacks on the West are more political than religious. Maher finds such thinking preposterous. (So does the Religious Right.) Most experts on the Middle East know Maher is wrong–religion is the excuse (sometimes the rallying cry) for what are in fact long-standing political power plays.
Here is the fundamental flaw in the film. Most devout Muslims, Christians and Jews have long ago moved away from the very thinking Maher is criticizing. Believe me, I know how damaging to the Constitution and to freedom the views of the Christian Right would be if they became law. I’ve spent much of my life stopping this movement. I am acutely aware that the Christian Right is 18-20% of the American electorate. I also know that most of the rest of us Christians have no interest in the very things this film justifiably criticizes: we don’t want to “convert” gays to heterosexual bliss; we don’t want to stop women from exercising their own moral judgment about abortion (an issue given short shrift in Maher’s film). We are happy to concede that all of the Gospels give differing accounts of the life of Jesus (and that the earliest description of Jesus, in the book of Acts, just says he was born, lived and then died, not mentioning any resurrection) and know that such is the result of the all too human construction of a book decades, even centuries, after events ocurred.
The last few minutes of the film, though, contain the documentarian’s dagger to his own heart. Maher spends several minutes speaking to the camera about how we must stop all religion–presumably even Barry Lynn’s–because it will lead to nothing short of nuclear conflagration. As he speaks, the most violent Koranic and Biblical passages are emblazoned on the screen, often accompanied by the detonation of nuclear devices. We are told: this is the inevitable result of religion. DO YOU HEAR ME AUDIENCE OF PEOPLE NOT AS SMART AS I AM–THIS IS THE END OF THE WORLD! Look, to the extent this is a documentary it either makes its point in 90 minutes or its doesn’t. If you have to tell me what I’ve seen, it is you the filmmaker that has failed.
of any religionist or secularist who thinks maybe we should have a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran (you know who you are); don’t tell the Methodist minister in Louisiana that he is a moron for believing God wanted him to go to New Orleans to keep people alive after Katrina.
posted October 3, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Jerry, you wrote:
“We are happy to concede that all of the Gospels give differing accounts of the life of Jesus (and that the earliest description of Jesus, in the book of Acts, just says he was born, lived and then died, not mentioning any resurrection) and know that such is the result of the all too human construction of a book decades, even centuries, after events ocurred.”
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point but is it your contention that the resurrection did not take place since no mention of it is given at the start of Acts? In the first few verses (1-3) of Acts, Luke refers to his pervious writing and states:
“In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.”
How can you state that no resurrection is mentioned in Acts when verse 3 clearing states that Jesus “gave many convincing proofs that he was alive”?
I hope that I am misunderstanding. Can you please respond to this comment? Thank you.
posted October 20, 2008 at 3:19 pm
You wrote: “A few other interviews go the same way. Listening to Ken Ham, the founder of a Kentucky creationist museum, attempt to explain how science and Biblical literalism mesh is breathtakingly inane.”
Consider telling us *how* or *why* it was “breathtakingly inane” (instead of pile driving with blinders).
Thanks!
posted October 20, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Reverend, in your article you stated: “People who move away from Scriptural literalism often become more clearheaded thinkers about the very issues that are at the heart of the ‘religion question.’”
I would argue that Jesus, the “author and perfector” of the Christian faith (Hebrews 12)was a Scriptural Literalist when you look at his opinion of the creation, the flood, and Jonah. Jesus had plenty of opportunities to set the record straight, as it were, when it came to the age of the Earth and miracles, for example, but he did just the opposite by literally interpreting the teachings from the Old Testamentas actual events in history. Maybe Jesus just wasn’t a “clearheaded” enough thinker, by your standards. I’ll side with Jesus on this one, because to do any less undermines who He is and what He came here to do.
posted October 21, 2008 at 2:36 am
Mark,
When Jesus finally told the disciples at the end of his earthly ministry he would no longer speak to you in figures (John 16:25) they seemed overjoyed: His disciples said, “Yes, now you are speaking plainly, not in any figure of speech!” (John 16:29)
Up until that time Jesus used metaphor, allegory, hyperbole, symbolism all different types of figures of speech to convey his various messages. When some of the scribes and Pharisees asked for a sign from Jesus he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matt 12:39). Jesus knew that these people didn’t understand that the story of Jonah was an entertaining piece of allegorical satire that was not to be taken literally and therefore would not understand the story’s polemic purpose nor his. Thus no sign was given. The author of Mark’s Gospel was so sure that the Pharisees would not understand the reference to Jonah by Jesus he felt that it was not even significant enough to mention it in his version of the story: Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.” And he left them, and getting into the boat again, he went across to the other side (Mark 8:12-13). The author of Mark knew the scribes wouldn’t understand either so he doesn’t even mention them, just the Pharisees (cf. Mark 8:11)
Bible scholars know that the Creation stories in Genesis are symbolic mythical accounts of Creation because Jesus spoke of them allegorically as he did everything else: “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female?” (Matt 19:4). Jesus most certainly would not have spoken literally about the creation of the first humans and then not literally about anything else before that time or after it, until the very end of his ministry. Some people ignore this fact and still insist on taking everything in the Bible to be true in the literal sense. Jesus left a message for those people that they can take literally: I never knew you (Matt 7:23).
posted October 21, 2008 at 8:56 am
Boris,
Not true. Everything Jesus said was not allegoric. Jesus said, “THESE things hav I spoken unto you in proverbs….” “These things” are not “everything”. Jesus was referring to what he had just said in verse 21. John 16:25 is not a blanket statement over everything he had said in his ministry. Therefore, he did mean some things literally.
There is nothing in scripture that indicates that the Genesis account of creation is allegoric.
posted October 21, 2008 at 9:33 am
Jeff,
Actually, like most independent thinkers, I do not believe that such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed. Everything in Genesis points to it being allegoric. Historical narratives do not contain word for word dialog between people in a dramatic setting. When we read dialog we should know we are reading fiction. Genesis and the rest of the Bible not only have dialog between people, there’s dialog between angels and people, demons and people, Satan and people, God and people, talking animals and people and even talking vegetation and people. Historical narratives do not contain stories about angels and Gods mingling with people, moralizing, tales of the supernatural and bad poetry. Those are all the elements of fictive narratives. If there was a Jesus and he believed the Old Testament was historical then he could not have been a God or even a prophet. But Jesus thought epilepsy and other diseases were caused by demon possession. So since he was wrong about that we have too assume he was wrong about most everything else. And just about everyone else is wrong about him.
posted October 21, 2008 at 9:59 am
Boris,
You would be right if the Bible was just a normal book. However, we believe that God wrote the book by moving upon men. If God wrote the book, then because he is God, he can write it anyway he wishes to.
Let’s say I had someone come into my office and have a two sentence conversation with me. Let’s say for sake of argument that I remembered every single word. I then communicated that conversation to someone else and included the dialogue to someone else. That does not mean that my account is untrue. Who says accurate historical narratives cannot contain dialogue?
I know that to human logic, the Bible seems crazy. But with God, all things are possible. Jesus didn’t say that all epilepsy is caused by demonic possession. And you can’t prove that certain people are not demon possessed. So, he might have been right. So, my friend, fundamental Christians might not be the ones who are wrong about Jesus.
This is kind of a different subject, but I was just wondering. How do you account for the miraculous healings that take place in Christendom? I realize that true healings are getting fewer, but that is because people as a whole are not spending as much time with God. Anyway, in our church, paralytics have walked, tumors have disappeared, drug addicts (my brother in particular)have instantaenously been cleaned up, homosexuals have been changed, along with many other things. How do you account for these things? Just wondering.
posted October 21, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Jeff,
You said: You would be right if the Bible was just a normal book. However, we believe that God wrote the book by moving upon men. If God wrote the book, then because he is God, he can write it anyway he wishes to.
Boris says: In order to believe the absurd stories in the Bible first we should believe something even more absurd – that the supposed creator of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars and who knows what all in them actually wrote this collection of fairy tales and barbaric myths. Two wrongs then somehow make a right.
You said: Let’s say I had someone come into my office and have a two sentence conversation with me. Let’s say for sake of argument that I remembered every single word. I then communicated that conversation to someone else and included the dialogue to someone else. That does not mean that my account is untrue. Who says accurate historical narratives cannot contain dialogue?
Boris says: We’re not talking about some casual conversation. We’re talking about literature and how one can easily tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction. Historical narratives never contain dialog in a dramatic story setting and a bunch of moralizing interspersed with poetry and wisdom literature.
You said: I know that to human logic, the Bible seems crazy. But with God, all things are possible. Jesus didn’t say that all epilepsy is caused by demonic possession. And you can’t prove that certain people are not demon possessed. So, he might have been right. So, my friend, fundamental Christians might not be the ones who are wrong about Jesus.
Boris says: Science tells us that diseases have naturalistic causes. I don’t have to prove that people are never demon possessed. Demons have never been proved to exist and belief in them is no different than belief in leprechauns or mermaids or tooth fairies. Can you prove leprechauns and mermaids and tooth fairies don’t exist? Why should we bother right? It’s the same with demons.
You said: This is kind of a different subject, but I was just wondering. How do you account for the miraculous healings that take place in Christendom? I realize that true healings are getting fewer, but that is because people as a whole are not spending as much time with God. Anyway, in our church, paralytics have walked, tumors have disappeared, drug addicts (my brother in particular)have instantaenously been cleaned up, homosexuals have been changed, along with many other things. How do you account for these things? Just wondering.
Boris says: How do you account for the fact that none of these supposed miraculous events have been documented by the scientific or medical community not to mention none of them mentioned in even any local newspapers? Had anything supernatural actually occurred, we would never hear the end of it from the charismatic snake-handling crowd. “There is nothing more awe-inspiring than a miracle except the credulity that can take it at par.” – Mark Twain. I will state flatly that there have never been any proved miraculous healings in Christendom. Not on, not ever.
posted October 22, 2008 at 12:46 am
Boris,
I appreciate your comments and your familiarity with Jesus’ teachings. I respectfully disagree with your characterization of the nature of Jesus’ sermons. He did speak in parables. That is agreed. He did, however, often explain the literal meaning of his parables immediately thereafter.
My interpretation of the “sign of Jonah” is that his rising from the dead 3 days status post crucifixion, just as Jonah was 3 days in a large fish, was the only sign they needed in order to know Jesus’ authority. That truly is the sign of Jesus’ authority to Christians
to this day.
As to your opinion of Jesus not speaking plainly, which you use John 16:25 & 29 to support- my arguement is that if you take the whole chapter in its entirety, those statments pertain to things he said previously in that chapter:
John 16:
17 Some of his disciples spoke to one another. They said, “What does he mean by saying, ‘In a little while, you will no longer see me. Then after a little while, you will see me’? And what does he mean by saying, ‘I am going to the Father’?” 18 They kept asking, “What does he mean by ‘a little while’? We don’t understand what he is saying.”
He exlains himself and they say, “Oh, I get it.” What he doesn’t say here is, “You see, during my entire Earthly ministry I have been speaking in ‘metaphor, allegory, hyperbole, symbolism and all different types of figures of speech to convey [my]various messages’(quoted from your previous post).”
In regards to demons, they are by nature a part of the metaphysical world and their existance can’t be proven, and therefore any causitive effect on the material world can’t be proven either. Take into account the existence of the human soul (I don’t know your opinion on this, but please grant me this for the sake of the arguement). Assuming the soul exists, where does it exert its influence on the human brain (ie the ghost in the machine scenario)? If one assumes that it has a causitive effect on the innervation of the brain, which in turn innervates the body and produces feelings, sensations, and such, you essentially have a chain of command. An epileptic person could have problems anywhere along the way.
Anti-epileptics treat chemical problems in the brain. That fact doesn’t disprove the supposition that a demon (meta-physical in nature) was causing the problems in the first place. Granted, it can’t be proven either. It does probably sound a little hokie to talk about demons in this way, but I brought up the soul because it is a much more palatable concept for many and its interactions with the physical world could be by a similar process. To believe in God does open the door for the existance of angels and demons, all of which having varying degrees of influence on the world around us.
Jesus healed many other physical conditions without introducing the “demon” aspect (eg healing a blind person or a crippled person who was made that way by a demon). There seems to be a specific case when they are involved, from a Biblical standpoint.
posted October 22, 2008 at 3:07 am
Mark,
You claim that human beings possess “souls” that somehow represent consciousness and personality. You declare that these “souls” can exist separately from our bodies. You assert that these “souls” somehow leave our bodies at death and go somewhere else, employing some inexplicable means of locomotion. This is all nonsense, of course. This is wild speculation about things that you cannot know, and that you do not know. Have you ever tried to figure out what a “soul” actually is? I have asked numerous Christians to explain the term, and they can’t do it, because they don’t know what it is actually supposed to be. No one does. The simple fact of the matter is that there is no evidence for a mind/brain duality, or a “ghost in the machine.”
As a Christian, you really have to ask yourself some questions. You have to ask yourself, “Am I being manipulated? Is it at all possible that the reason I argue so passionately about the ineffable and the unknowable, about things that I cannot possibly know, is that I am simply trying to convince myself that I will inherit eternal bliss-and that I will escape eternal torture in hell? Is it possible that all my orgiastic expressions of religious fervor derive from the primal will to survive, something far more ancient than any holy book? Is it possible that my religion’s founders cynically co-opted this primal will to survive and the universal fear of pain in order to gain converts-and thus increase their wealth and power? Is it also possible that these leaders were deluded?”
posted October 22, 2008 at 8:49 am
Boris,
How do you know that none of the healings have been medically verified? In fact, there are numerous medically verified miracles that have happened. I know people that have tried to put it in the media, but are always dismissed as a deluded idiot. I have seen CT Scan films along with doctor reports confirming healings myself, more than once One of them is my mother-in-law. Another is my pastor’s wife. Another is my brother. If I were allowed, I would get you the doctor’s reports, but HIPAA prevents me. So don’t say all of the supposed miracles have never been medically verified.
And as for your questions to Mark…the answer to all is an emphatic NO.
posted October 22, 2008 at 10:14 am
Jeff,
One common factor common to all “medical miracles” is ambiguity. Just how sick really was this person in the first place? Would he have recovered without prayer? The answers to the questions are always nebulous. Why are God’s “miracles” never clear-cut? Why couldn’t a man who had had no legs whatever for twenty years suddenly wake-up one day with a brand new pair? Is this feat impossible for God to achieve? If God has the power to miraculously cure others (though invariably in a vague and uncertain way), why doesn’t God ever help amputees?
When God cures an amputee that will be proof of medical miracles. But God never cures amputees now does he? And that should be all the proof an intelligent person needs that medical miracles are all religious hoaxes. The only person more dishonest than a faith healer is his patient!
As for your emphatic no, the fact that you believe in medical miracles proves just how easily you are willing to believe in nonsense. Let me illustrate how evangelists dupe people like you:
There is no question for which there is not some kind of answer, and these answers are non-disprovable, using the internal terminology and assumptions of the system and therefore appearing convincing to the person wanting very much to believe. The seeming defeat of all criticism constitutes a masterful manipulation. The convert is often enormously impressed with the seasoned believer who can repeat all of the canned responses, most of which either “answer” simply by denying the validity of the question or by evoking the perfection of God and the sinfullness of mankind, as some examples show:
Q: I have accepted Jesus as my savior but I don’t feel any different.
A: Being saved is not about feelings it’s about obeying the Word of God.
Q: How is it fair for millions of people who have never heard of Christ to go to hell?
A: God is just and we must trust Him to make those judgments. Just because you don’t believe in hell doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Q: What if you’re the one that’s wrong about this? We can’t really know for sure can we?
A: I’ll be okay either way, whereas you are taking a great risk. If you accept Jesus, there’s nothing to lose.
Q: I see a lot of Christians who are no better than anyone else.
A: Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven. You aren’t supposed to look at other people for examples. Jesus is our only role model.
Q: What about other religions that also claim to know God?
A: Humans will naturally seek a relationship with God, and many false religions have grown up. It only proves that man needs God, not that they are true.
Another aspect of this closed system is the way all of your personal experiences can be explained. If good things happen, God is blessing you. If bad things happen, God is teaching you. No matter what, you cannot fault God or the religion. In 1 Corinthians 10:13 you are told that nothing is too hard for you to handle. The God who tortured Job was okay, because, “He wounds but he binds up; he smites but his hands heal” (Job 5:17-18). So if you are having a problem, it is you who are wrong, and you must rearrange your perceptions. This is a masterful manipulation sufficient to make you feel crazy if you do not mold your mind.
posted October 22, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Boris, if you were to see an amputee receive a new limb, would you then believe in the God of the Bible?
posted October 23, 2008 at 12:18 am
James,
That question is ridiculous. If a Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist witnessed an amputee receive a new limb do you think they would credit the God of the Bible with that miracle? Who says the God of the Bible rather than the God of the Koran or Lord Krishna of the Bhagavad-Gita didn’t perform that miracle? I am quite convinced that the God of the Bible does NOT exist. So therefore I wouldn’t credit him with anything. I would be inclined to think the amputee was touched by the noodly appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster rather than any God. Or that I was having a delusion and needed a check-up from the neck-up. But we both know amputees never get miraculously healed and so there is no reason to think anyone else does either.
posted October 23, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Ok, let me rephrase the question:
If you were to see a Christian specifically pray for an amputee to receive their limb back by miracle and it happened, would you then believe in the God of the Bible?
posted October 23, 2008 at 3:43 pm
James,
Your questions get more and more absurd as you become increasingly desperate. That situation is NEVER going to happen and we both know this. Amputees NEVER get non-artificial limbs and this is all the proof one needs to know that supposed Christian healings are nothing but typical Christian hoaxes. I already know the God of the Bible does NOT exist. The Bible has been completely debunked and proved absolutely to be nothing but retarded fairy tales and barbaric myths. That is has been proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, which is why people like you must keep their heads buried in the sand. So again, if there is a God it isn’t the Christian God.
posted October 23, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Boris insted of dodging the the question from James why don’t you just answer it.
And then give me one source that has debunked the Bible and I can point to several on the completely liberal discovery stattion that when they tried to disprove the Bible they finaly had to admit that they couldn’t.
You call some of the stories in the Bible barbaric myths are you speaking of the wars that the Isrealites took part in these are well documented battles in actual places that still exist today that you can go to and stand there, many with the same names now as they had then, the vast amount of artifacts that have been unearthed from these battles are proof enough or should be to the logical minded person that you claim to be.
I must admit that I wonder if something awful happened to you as a child that you would feel the way that you do. I mention this only becuase you sound like many other people that I have talked with and in most all the cases they have had a bad experience in a church or with someone that they trusted that was suppose to be a Christain and did something they shouldn’t have.
Please do not take offense to this, this may not be true in your case and I hope not, it is just an observation.
posted October 23, 2008 at 11:41 pm
“Your questions get more and more absurd as you become increasingly desperate.”
And your answer dodging does also. A simple yes or no will suffice.
posted October 24, 2008 at 12:20 am
Robert,
The source that debunks the Bible is the Bible itself. The Bible says vegetation was on the Earth before the sun, which the Bible also clearly says orbits the Earth. Case closed. If there was even one artifact that could prove anything in the Bible even might be true why is it all we ever see is one? And what is this artifact? An obviously fake burial shroud that only proves what nonsense Christians will accept as evidence! 27 different TV specials about this hoax but not ONE about ANYTHING else. To show you how ridiculous your claims of evidence are suppose this: What if we found a jawbone of a donkey that had inscribed this is the very donkey jawbone that Samson killed 1000 Philistines with? What would that prove? Absolutely nothing. It could not be proved to be authentic but people like you would claim it was the greatest evidence for their faith yet. It’s no wonder American Christian fundamentalists are the laughingstock of the entire world.
As for your answer James. How many times do I have to say NO? NOTHING could convince to believe in the Christian God. Nothing because I already know that God does NOT exist. How many times do I have to tell you this? What would it take for you to believe in Santa Claus?
posted October 25, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Boris, I have another question, if you don’t mind:
If you believe that there may be a ‘god’, how would you classify this ‘god’?
posted October 25, 2008 at 9:18 pm
James,
You said: Boris, I have another question, if you don’t mind:
If you believe that there may be a ‘god’, how would you classify this ‘god’?
Boris says: That isn’t another question. It’s the same question you keep asking rephrased. I do not see how it is possible that ANY god exists. Just because I don’t think it’s possible doesn’t make it so. But a scientific cosmology can contain no residue of the idea that the world was constructed by some being who is not part of it. We know that structure and complexity can be self-organized. So I cannot imagine how any god exists. So it would be impossible for me to describe that which I cannot imagine. You can imagine God which, among many other things, proves to me that God is imaginary. God has to many similarities with none existence than anything real.
“God is not matter, neither is non-existence. God does not have limitations; neither does non-existence. God is not visible; neither is non-existence. God cannot be described; neither can non-existence.” – George Smith
posted October 27, 2008 at 1:10 pm
“That isn’t another question. It’s the same question you keep asking rephrased. I do not see how it is possible that ANY god exists.”
- It sounds to me that you’ve chosen to believe in ‘no god’. Therefore, we can conclude you have a belief system that no god exists. You actually back up this claim in the your next sentence:
“Just because I don’t think it’s possible doesn’t make it so.”
- You are choosing to believe there is no god based on evidence, experience and emotion; through your personal filter…even though you won’t admit that there is no possibility of a god at all.
This is even more solidified because you keep avoiding the question: “If you believe that there may be a ‘god’, how would you classify this ‘god’?”
- If you truly believed in the possibility of a god, then you could give some kind of an answer. But you don’t. All of your answers are pointing to the impossibility of a god. Therefore, you have a belief system of ‘no god’.
I was acutally giving you the benefit of the doubt because I truly wanted to know what a ‘god’ would be defined as to you. Since you kept avoiding the question, I now know what your belief system is.
posted October 27, 2008 at 10:53 pm
James,
You said: It sounds to me that you’ve chosen to believe in ‘no god’. Therefore, we can conclude you have a belief system that no god exists. You actually back up this claim in the your next sentence:
Boris says: It only sounds to you like I’ve chosen to believe there is no God because you cannot understand how it is that many other people do not have belief systems. This irks you to no end because your cult leaders have convinced you that that is impossible. Your belief in God influences everything you do. Conversely I never consider whether there is a God or not in any of my decisions or actions.
You said: You are choosing to believe there is no god based on evidence, experience and emotion; through your personal filter…even though you won’t admit that there is no possibility of a god at all.
Boris says: No one can say for sure whether some kind of God exists or not. I never said it was impossible that there is a God. Notice how you erect straw man arguments that I never made and then claim to have defeated them. Meanwhile you ignore the arguments that soundly refute your positions. This is a typical creationist ploy. It isn’t working James. Anyone can go back and look at our posts and see how easily your positions and statements have been refuted and even mocked.
You said: This is even more solidified because you keep avoiding the question: “If you believe that there may be a ‘god’, how would you classify this ‘god’?”
Boris says: How would you classify anything that you don’t think exists? Let’s see how you would classify that first so I can figure out what it is you’re asking me to do.
You said: If you truly believed in the possibility of a god, then you could give some kind of an answer. But you don’t. All of your answers are pointing to the impossibility of a god. Therefore, you have a belief system of ‘no god’.
Boris says: I do not have a belief system of ‘no god’ or any other. You are so frustrated now that you must attempt to invent a belief system and force it upon me. No dice. I know I don’t have a belief system.
You said: I was acutally giving you the benefit of the doubt because I truly wanted to know what a ‘god’ would be defined as to you. Since you kept avoiding the question, I now know what your belief system is.
Boris says: The definition of a belief system is “The basis on which beliefs are based.” For example a religious belief system is based on faith and dogma whereas a scientific belief system is based on observation and reason. Scientific belief systems are self-generating structured transformation systems. In other words you could say I “believe” in science. But a belief in science is a way to broaden challenge, and change currently held beliefs. Contrasting this, you are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old. You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs — though excluding those in all rival sects – will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most “tolerant” and “loving.” While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, the fables in the Bible or some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in “tongues” may be all the evidence you need to “prove” Christianity. No matter what evidence you are presented that refutes your beliefs or even your false claims and goofy straw man arguments you absolutely refuse to change your beliefs or belief system or even admit that you are wrong about something. I know about what it would take for me to change my mind about there being a God. You know absolutely nothing could ever change yours. Therefore YOU have a belief system and I DO NOT.
posted October 28, 2008 at 11:52 am
“I know about what it would take for me to change my mind about there being a God.”
- And what would that take?
posted October 31, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Boris, please answer this 1 question. Thanks.
“I know about what it would take for me to change my mind about there being a God.”
- And what would that take?
posted October 31, 2008 at 11:17 pm
James,
For me to change my mind about the existence of a God I would need to see solid evidence coming directly from this God itself. No arguments from human beings will ever convince me that any God exists because arguments are NOT evidence. The scientific evidence we have points to there being no God.
posted November 2, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Boris,
I will be specifically praying for a direct God intervention in your life that is undeniably from Him; one that will satisfy your qualifications in every way. Just do me one favor, let me know when it happens! Seriously.
Thanks.
posted November 3, 2008 at 10:09 am
James,
Good we can kill two birds with one stone. I will assume you’ve already prayed one prayer and obviously it wasn’t answered. So we will not only be able to prove God isn’t revealing itself to anyone but also that prayer definitely doesn’t work. All prayers are reduced to this: “Oh God, please bend the laws of the universe for my convenience.” So you keep praying and I’ll THINK for both of us.
posted September 11, 2009 at 7:04 pm
If one wants to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they consider authoritative or infallible, then why believe in the Bible at all? Why not create a religion for your own self? Obviously, I am being sarcastic here, but what good is believing in something when you pick and choose what parts you want to believe in? It just doesn’t make any sense to me.
posted September 11, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Lindzee the Bible says the earth is immovable. Do you believe that?