Theism.net Options: home
| articles | books
| search | webmaster
.gif){kind=small}
e-mail:
j
The following rebuttal is in response to the initial postings at: http://members.tripod.com/~AtheistEvangelist666/debate1.html
This response is also posted at http://members.tripod.com/~AtheistEvangelist666/debate2.html
My Response to
by Temy R. Beal (October 1999)
Warning: Copyleft projected!
[
[First, let me clarify my use of "Christian," for it is as broad a term as "non-theist." I present "Christian" when referring to Christ’s followers, not followers of Christian denominational authorities. Nevertheless, Temy expressed other concerns. Although I find those concerns irrelevant, I address them point-by-point. My faith is built upon Christ’s resurrection. The real issue lies in whether Christ existed, endured crucifixion, and escaped His tomb. An individual who determines (as I have) that the resurrection is factual has reason to question whether the extant God is good or bad; sane or crazed; loving or hateful. It does not follow logically that deeming God’s ethics faulty means God does not exist.]
In one sense,
[I agree.]
I seem to remember someone once saying something like, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." I feel that way with respect to truth.
[You have my vote on that. In the following pages, I will put your claim to the test.]
One troubling difference in our ideologies is that if one truly follows Christianity to an extreme, one is bound to kill other people.
[". . .bound to kill other people" needs elaboration. In my one and a half years of following Christ, I have learned nothing even remotely supporting that claim. Christ proved passive and yielding. I challenge you to present one passage from Christ’s teachings that would lead a follower to kill other people. In fact, following Christ "to an extreme" would mean not even defending oneself.]
For better or worse most of the many millions of Christians in this country are lukewarm at best. Very few read the Bible, even fewer un-derstand it, and fewer still have any inkling of the history of their religion and what it is founded upon.
[Okay, well, thanks for reiterating my article’s main point. Differentiating Christians from Christ’s teachings and example exhibits who Christ is and what He represents. I see no point in defending Christian behavior. I defend my faith in Christ’s teachings and example. However, your statement has me figuring that you consider your knowledge superior to that of all Christians, as I will evidence in future points. Further, most Christians with whom I keep company are quite the opposite. They are devoted followers who engage in daily prayer time and Bible study.]
Though you and I do not yet know each other very well, I think you do know me well enough to know that I could not let the assertions made in your testimony to pass unchallenged. Indeed, I intend to challenge them with both barrels blazing (figuratively, of course). First, I offer my sympathies on being addicted to drugs and the "failures" you experienced. This culture is extremely well-adapted – mainly by influence from Christianity – to heaping guilt upon those who do not succeed in playing the games it is founded on.
[The same holds true in many freethought circles. Although both guilt and shame can be good, it is bad if one abuses them to manipulate another person.]
"Shame and disgrace" are the trophies awarded anyone here who "fails" in business, or who has the "moral failing" of succumbing to a psychological or mental illness, disorder, or addiction.
[My addiction is water many years under the bridge now, but thank you, Temy; I appreciate it. My feelings of guilt and shame led to my remorse and turn-around.]
You say "Christianity repulsed me" and "I felt conned." These are almost inevitable feelings one will experience when the door of reason is really opened and the light of truth shines upon Christian ugliness.
[Again, I contrast Christian behavior to Christ’s teachings. Indeed, Christian ugliness conned me; it cheated me from knowing who Jesus is.]
There are several possible paths one may take from that point onward. Many of us took the path of searching for truth and vowed to never stop the search until it was found. Unfortunately, you apparently did not follow this path to its conclusion. This is evident from "I described myself as philosophically agnostic." The agnostic who has left religion behind has stopped in the middle of the road and cannot or will not proceed, and will argue that at either end of the road lies madness, despite the fact that he has not yet been to the other end.
[Your huge claim discounts the intelligence of agnostic SOAR readers. Atheists and theists are well aware God’s existence cannot be proved or disproved to everyone’s complete satisfaction. All individuals must weigh the available evidence for themselves. Recent evidence presented to me regarding Christ’s existence and resurrection convinced me that 1) He existed, and 2) He died and rose again. Agnosticism means not gnostic--lacking knowledge -- period. Some agnostics perhaps have a vision of where "roads" go, but that is irrelevant to my article’s self-description, "philosophically agnostic."]
To retain the label "freethinker… second only to Christian" is to abandon freethought. For a freethinker worthy of the appellation, in my opinion, "my thoughts are free" is not second to anything. The moment that you exempt Christianity – or anything else – from skeptical and critical analysis, in that moment you have accepted dogma or emotional "warm fuzzies" as superior in that field instead of thought.
[I hoped you would go there. Thank you. First, Temy, you have exempted Christianity from critical analysis because you do not even consider it in your search for truth. SOAR’s cover provides your definition of freethought. Consider persons who turn to, say, Merriam Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary: "freethinker n. (1692): one that forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; esp.: one who doubts or denies religious dogma." Throughout my atheism, Robert Ingersoll, along with Thomas Jefferson, remained a historical figure I revered. Now, as a Christian, both Jefferson and Ingersoll remain historical figures I revere.
Few Christians embrace Ingersoll’s writings. I, a freethinker, embrace them. I form opinions based on reason, independently of authority, especially doubting or denying religious dogma. Ingersoll’s writings illuminate evils perpetrated in Christ’s name. Revisit my article; my separation of Christians’ behavior from Christ’s teachings fueled my conversion.
When I encountered a Christian asserting, "Evidence for the resurrection outweighs any case against it," I (the freethinking atheist) had to examine the claim. I doubted Christ’s existence. Nevertheless, I had to review the evidence to know everything knowable regarding my disbelief. True to freethought, I had to allow it into my mind’s court. My freethought integrity depends not on the seeming soundness of evidence I ponder, but that I ponder all evidence. When I weighed the evidence for the resurrection, it astoundingly weighed stronger than my assumption against it. That is freethought at its truest: venturing from embraced beliefs to explore all available information (pro or con).
Having determined Christ died and rose again, I have greater faith in His guidance than any scientist or philosopher whom Temy affords credence (faith) in his quest of truth..
Regarding your claim that Christianity and freethought are antithetical, I
continue applying "critical analysis" to Christian doctrine, as
evidenced by my opposition to
"Christian Right" politics. Members of the Christian community
commonly reject my political views. However, I was baptized not in the name of
my pastor, any church, the Southern Baptist Convention, or the
You and I embrace fundamental beliefs. Yours center on science and humanism, whereas mine center on Christ. From these perspectives we both think freely. In thinking freely, we question established authorities. My independent position coincides with the "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" terminology Christians espouse, not my relationship with my pastor, denominational authority, etc.]
It is perhaps unfortunate that your first encounter with "real atheists" was with Madalyn O’Hair. Though I never met her, I have read many different sources which paint her as an especially obnoxious person. True or not, she does not represent all atheists any more than Jerry Falwell represents all Christians.
[Agreed, but Madalyn’s works are as biased as Jerry’s. Both advance a political agenda, but ultimate political truth resides in neither analysis. Incidentally, most American Atheists I encountered appreciated, defended, and applauded her "especially obnoxious" personality.]
In reading a great many of
[Here’s where I get into trouble with my "Christian Right" foes, but again, I am a freethinker.
Source: THE HISTORY OF
AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL or COMMON LAW. 1995, Howard
Fisher, The Message Company,
In their letter to which
"Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty; that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor."
Yet now the "Christian Right" supports legislation against unchristian victimless "crimes." Conversely, the religion of Secular Humanism enjoys "undo influence on SECULAR government." The American Humanists Association affirms at their link to: (they have since removed it but try this one: http://church.freethought.org/) that Secular Humanism is a religion. Note the commonality: Secular Humanism--secular government. Every recent "wall of separation" victory advances secular humanistic values onto the public. By teaching evolutionary theory, and carefully avoiding creation theory (my position is both should be taught), government schools side with Secular Humanism. Should government honor your professed wall of separation? Tyrannical Secular Humanistic government is as wrong as tyrannical Christian government. The principle applies to both sides, no? You, the political anarchist, and I, the political libertarian, should agree to keep governmental power out of the religious picture. Theists have a right to influence how secularists govern them. Simultaneously, secularists have a right to influence how secularists govern them. By "a wall I later learned was nonexistent," I mean secularists too often throw in the wall-of-separation phrase rather than quote the amendment: "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." Secularists tend to conveniently forget the free exercise clause.]
The idea of a "one-sided wall" is a convenient fiction invented by those Christians (such as D. James Kennedy) who wish to completely do away with ALL secular power and have the government be the enforcing arm of the church. Now tell me, Jordan, when was the last time you saw a wall which had only one side? Such a discovery would overturn all of physics!
[The amendment contains no wall.
It is one unfortunate aspect of human nature – to which atheists are not immune – that hierarchical groups form and either an individual or a small group arises to "take charge" of things. From my reading it is apparent that Madalyn was not one who "worked well with others." I see some evidence of heavy-handedness in the leadership of FFRF. This is the single worst problem "organized" atheism has – it is the major reason that there are so many "lone wolf" atheists. Many of us admire most of the work that some of these groups do, but are simply unable in good conscience to stifle our own autonomy to the extent required by some atheist or freethought groups. A great many churches and larger organizations such as the Southern Baptists have similar problems, though not nearly to the degree the athe-ists do. This is primarily because the same personal attributes that help make one an atheist, also make one wary of "groupthink."
[That about says it. However, autonomy can be both self-defeating and defeating to ideals, values and loved ones, for no man (other than a complete hermit, who, in chaos theory, would not even be excepted) is an "island unto himself." Yes, Christians do humble themselves (even Southern Baptists) to a common bond of Christ quicker than freethinkers humble themselves to anything.]
Christianity is utterly dependent on groupthink, and all "rebelliousness" is discouraged from the pulpit at least, and often harshly stamped out by whatever means necessary.
[Organized religion -- yes. Christ needs nothing of the sort; He never
advocated organized religion. He said to Peter, "And I say unto you that
you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades
shall not prevail against it" (Matthew
The "intellectual elite" can indeed be a problem in freethought groups, just as the "spiritual elite" can be in religious groups. This is due to another unfortunate innate human problem – lust for power and prestige. Those who fall into this trap have not found the wisdom or integrity to acknowledge when they are wrong. It is often said that truth is the first casualty in war. Unfortunately, it is also all too often the first apostate of many groups of all kinds.
[C’mon, atheist Preacher! Amen!]
As Bill points out [SOAR Nov. 99 issue], you seem to have a tendency for wild swings.
[How red-herringly ad hominem of him.]
You go from being a Christian to hating Christians.
[Where did I say I was a Christian? I experienced Christian indoctrination and assessed it based on churchgoers and historical church atrocities. Look again. When I assessed it as an adult, I rejected it. Former Christian or not, my repulsion for Christian ugliness did and does parallel yours. My atheistic "hatred" of Christians demonstrated the same revulsion you express. Again, you avoid the message by attacking the messenger. Okay, so I am a nut; now let us deal with the message.]
Makes one wonder whether you now hate atheists.
[Perhaps you were bogged down with editing when you read my article. At the time of my, let us say, emotional-psychotic-salvific "swing" experience, I clearly reported that a love and compassion for my former atheist colleagues flowed in. Also, I said "animosity," not "hate." I chose my words carefully. As you know from our private e-mails, I regard you highly, particularly your poetry. I just plain like you.]
I too, felt conned and was very angry for a time after coming out of religion. But I was able to direct my anger, which blossomed into a profound loathing, toward religion and not its adherents. There are many "liberal" Christians, of which you are now apparently one, who truly are good-natured and kind people. However, "liberalism" is sharply at odds with biblical Christianity.
[That is an accurate observation. Now, again, here is where my "Christian Right" foes and I are at odds: the whole New Testament clearly shows we followers live in a non-Christian world. We are taught that, to follow Christ, WE are to do away with those (liberal) ideas and behaviors. Nowhere are we commanded to force others to do away with them. We are to let Christ shine through us to non-believers so they will want Him too.]
It is apparent from the whole of your writing that you were an atheist in name only at best, apparently a relatively brief period in which you might not have believed there was a god. Since you indicate that you were a Christian before this period,
[Again, where did I say I was a Christian? In the current edition of SOAR,
one non-theist (Sierichs) asserted I remain an atheist because I reject gods
other than Jesus. Meanwhile, another non-theist (Thompson) claimed if
Makes one wonder whether you now hate atheists.
[I addressed that above.]
it is more like a case of a Christian becoming disgruntled with god, than of a serious deconversion to atheism.
[Sorry, but are you telling me I believed a God existed? I know I rejected any god[s]’s existence. I claimed agnosticism only because I could not prove He did not exist. I remain the authority of my own theistic and non-theistic perceptions. How do we know then that you, Temy, are truly an atheist? Perhaps you are a Christian in rebellion. Will the "true" atheists please rise? Of course, according to Sierichs, I remain an atheist although I accept Jesus’ supernatural aspects. Perhaps I should abandon the Bible due to its "contradictions," freeing me to embrace non-theistic consistency. Again, how does that bear on my message? You claim Jesus Christ probably did not even exist. But the historical evidence shows that He existed, was crucified, and somehow left His tomb.]
An atheist who has been an atheist for some years and who thoroughly understands why he is an atheist is not going back if he is intellectually honest.
[I covered that when addressing your claim I cannot be a freethinker. Freethinking is intellectual honesty. "Intellectual freedom is only the right to be honest" (R. G. Ingersoll). Are you claiming that theists are intellectually dishonest and atheists are honest? Your a priori statement implies that a theist who turns to atheism is not subject to such intellectual "dishonesty."]
It would be like trying to unlearn the alphabet.
[Attacking analogies seems pointless, but you made one and I promised a point-by-point response. Because you assume atheism is as true as the alphabet, you are overlooking that our alphabet is established and not under attack as to its reality, authenticity, or interpretation by theists, atheists, philosophers, or scientists. You compared apples to orangutans.]
This lack of understanding of what atheism is about is evidenced later on when you say you were convinced that your beliefs were held only by faith and indoctrination.
[I also said I never looked up the atheists’ claims about the Bible. Again, revisit my article. I agree: tsk, tsk on me for not looking up atheists’ claims. Does it follow that when I eventually looked up the claims and found them false, they really were true? By "lack of understanding," do you refer to my lack of Temy’s understanding? I understood a-theism to mean not theistic.]
Atheism requires no faith whatever
[You do not deem science and human reason capable of solving man’s ills (i.e., place faith in secular humanism)? I lacked that faith even when I rejected God’s existence. ]
and I seriously doubt it would be possible to "indoctrinate" anyone into being an atheist,
[In their testimonies, both atheists and Christians profess breaking the chains of their indoctrination. Do you believe someone can be indoctrinated only into theistic religion? ]
and would certainly be unethical if it were. This is the methodology of religions and cults, not freethought.
[Yet Secular Humanism, by its own definition, is a religion.]
While atheists may certainly agree with some of the politics of some Christians, no real atheist,
[What is a "real" atheist? In his ending years,
in my opinion, will be "impressed" by anyone’s "religiosity."
[As my article attests, I found Swindall’s respect for non-Christians and their rights surprising. Christian or Humanistic "religiosity" could even lead one to extraordinary humanistic feats.]
I know virtually nothing of Pat Swindall.
[Obviously, but no crime in that.]
and have no idea whether he is guilty of the accusations or not. In any case, I don’t see the relevance of that to Christianity and atheism.
[Through investigating Swindall’s case, I learned much about the Jesus he worshipped. Walking with Christ need not require force, coercion, and totalitarianism. God’s Holy Spirit enlightens the lost to the Truth far more effectively than do any human institutions. Some Christians are aware of that and maintain complete faith in Christ, not the government. Swindall modeled Christ’s example.]
Nor do I see the relevance of the slam against Ed and Michael Buckner. Your implication is that they may have deliberately misquoted historical figures to further a political agenda.
[Oh? As I explained in their "defense," they could have merely trusted their source.]
I know Ed Buckner fairly well and consider him one of the most honest people I know.
[I, too, know the host of ceremonies of my wedding, Ed Buckner, fairly well. I agree he is one of "the most honest people" anyone will know. That is why I added my "in the Buckners’ defense" paragraph. I doubt he or Michael contrived a misrepresentation. I do believe they trusted a less-than-trustworthy source.]
He often makes a point, when speaking to freethought groups, of telling his audience to check and double check all quotes to be certain of their authenticity.
[You are accurate. That is how I discovered that altered quotation.]
If he made an error, I have no doubt it was an honest (and rare) error.
[I agree. However, he is still responsible for the work he puts his name to.]
As the former editor of a freethought group’s newsletter, I can certainly understand possible reasons why My Appeal to the AFS was not printed. In my personal opinion, it should have, and should have been answered. But if an AFA member had submitted something similar to The Alabama Freethinker (TAF) while I was editor, it would probably not have seen print there either. Though I was the editor, I understood that TAF was the group’s newsletter, not mine, and for whatever reasons, many of the leadership of the group would not have wanted such a thing in their newsletter.
[Understood. Nevertheless, AFS’s Ed Buckner requested and encouraged I write the article. Indeed, he later told me that other AFS members (though a minority) shared my concerns. Freethinkers could take pride in exposing truth. I commend you, Temy, for printing all points of view in SOAR.]
This is one reason I probably would have started SOAR even if I had continued as editor of TAF.
[As well you should have.]
suppose for one second that if I were still attending my old Assembly of God church that I would get space to criticize anything about Christianity in their newsletter?
[They are the Assembly of God, not the Assembly of Freethinkers.]
Your charge that some freethinkers "embrace a God of government," only with a small "g," has merit.
[I know. Thank you.]
A typical Christian assertion is that people cannot be moral without the threat of eternal punishment from their god.
[You are right. Christians commonly assert that. I challenge those Christians. However, I attribute all moral truths to God’s initial design.]
Too many freethinkers seem to think that people cannot be moral without the threat of physical punishment from government (is this anyone you know?).
[Yes, yes it is. This is most atheists, humanists, and "Christian Right" advocates I know.]
The Christian version of this is based on the notion of "original sin." The secular version seems unduly influenced by that as well – it seems to assume that humans are naturally bad.
[As an atheist, I thought humans are basically bad. I still do. I think we have to learn to be good. Though not criminals, most humans naturally are self-centered and self-absorbed.]
However, your charge that Humanism is a "religious faith" is bunk. Humanism, as defined by Encarta Dictionary, is: "A system of thought that centers on human beings and their values, capacities, and worth."
[Does Encarta Dictionary’s definition override that of the Humanist Manifestos I and II, which delineate Humanism in practice? You place faith in mankind’s abilities, not in theism. You choose one faith (Humanism) over another (Christianity). Nevertheless, preferring one definition does not make other definitions go away.]
I know some people call themselves "religious humanists." There are even some who call themselves religious atheists. To quote Clark Adams of the Internet Infidels, "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color!" Perhaps these folks want to be people of reason but fear of Pascal’s Wager has them dangerously spreadeagled with one foot in each camp and the gap is ever widening. I don’t believe that one can hold "a system of thought that centers on human beings…" and simultaneously embrace religion, which is an ideology that centers on one or more deities.
[Now, now, Temy, even the Infidels’ own site (http://www.infidels.org/org/aha/ceremonies/)
claims that Secular Humanism is indeed a religion. The American Humanists
Association site (http://humanist.net/)
describes humanism as a religion and mentions its chaplains and religious
order. Additionally, "Humanist Magazine" described how the religion
of Secular Humanism should be indoctrinated into the minds of American youth,
particularly through
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith . . . . These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved (The Humanist, Jan/Feb. l983, ‘A Religion for a New Age’)."
Sixteen years ago, Dunphy explicated Secular Humanism’s religious ideals. Yet you insist Secular Humanism is not a religion. Consider the Humanist Web site’s description that the AHA "represents both secular and religious naturalistic humanism. . . ." The AHA site offers Humanist Invocations and Benedictions; Humanist Holidays Order of Service for World Humanist Day; A Humanist Child Dedication Ceremony; A Humanist Memorial Service; Non-theistic Religious Meditation Ritual; and Humanist Wedding. Notice any resemblance to theistic rituals? Our nation’s Supreme Court established Secular Humanism (Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961) and Atheism (Theriault v. Silber & Malnak v. Yogi, 1977) as religions.]
You say you have a " ‘net results’ orientation" which I take to mean you are a "bottom line" person. This is good because, believe it or not, this writing will eventually get to a bottom line. It is much easier in some ways to live in a society in which, as you put it, "up was up, down was down, good was good, and bad was bad." But only for those who wish to abdicate their own decision making responsibilities for themselves to some external power, be it a god or a government.
[I have reason to believe God exists and rules over governments. You abdicate your thinking to believing science and humans can lead mankind to your desired ends. The oversimplification you presented applies to you also. One need not deposit one’s brain into a trash receptacle to embrace Christ, science, or government as authorities. Life consists of thinking and decision-making regardless of one’s world view.]
It is all-too-religious a notion to blame all society’s ills (drug use, fatherless children, etc.) on a lack of morals. This is a gross oversimplification and ignores the fact that there are myriad factors which influence these things, including some of the most cherished ideologies in the society.
[A correlation does not a causation make -- granted. Explanation (description and prediction) of a phenomenon requires delineation of any factors mediating or moderating its outcome. Nevertheless, establishment of causation requires demonstration of correlation.]
I have not read LaHaye’s Battle for the Mind, but I can tell from the author’s name and the title that it is the typical Christian view of things, i.e., will your mind be controlled by "God" or by "the world."
[In other words, "My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with the facts"? You discount the author’s point by assuming that only an atheist (and certainly not a Christian) can present accurate information. You know, Temy, that you and I agree on many social and political issues. Our only real disagreement lies in that I accept the resurrection as an actual event, whereas you reject it.]
The humanist/atheist/freethought view is (or should be)
["or should be" according to what authority? Yours?]
that the individual should think for himself about all things without regard to dogma or authority – something which is anathema to all religion and most of what we call politics.
[My pilgrimage to Christ resulted from investigating beyond established atheistic claims. Jesus won.]
You say, "Anything that Jesus fella actually said or did is not particularly offensive." Really? Aside from the fact that it has certainly never been proven that "that Jesus fella" ever existed in the first place,
[If you dispute Josephus, Tacitus, and rabbinical writings, et al., please show how they are in error and explain why both theistic and non-theistic scholars accept them. Here are some relevant sites:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/
http://www.atlantaapologist.org/
I found the evidence presented to me for Christ’s existence compelling. That is not to imply you would. Enough evidence and reasoning were presented to me to deduce that disbelief demands greater faith than belief.]
many things he supposedly said and did are offensive to most of us.
[Of course, some people simply cannot deal with the idea there is a head honcho. Hey, I did not make it that way; I am just bringing you the Good News.]
Examples? Luke
[Clearly, Jesus quoted the parable figure of the previous verses. The
reporting faultiness lies in you. To be accurate, you should have included
inner quotation marks with the outer. He did not command or suggest His
followers kill anyone. In this parable, Jesus teaches that God will handle
final judgment. I make no apologies about that, nor should I. Again, I did not
make the news; I am merely reporting it. This is a shining example of how
people (such as
Mark
[Jesus approached the tree finding only leaves; there were no pre-season "taqsh" (Palestinian Arabic). Peasants ate the taqsh. Having no taqsh, the tree would never bear fruit. Destroying the tree represented the death following fruitlessness. F.F. Bruce elaborates on that point in "The Hard Sayings of Jesus" (1983).]
Ah, your 10 points.
[No, as I wrote, "after great agonizing and investigation, I determined . . ." Everyone must draw their own conclusions – there you have mine.]
1. I have already answered. Secular Humanism is not a religion. More and more I am convinced there is no such thing as a "non-theistic" religion. I say the minimum definition of "religion" is belief in and/or worship of one or more supernatural beings.
[I have already presented it is a religion. Not only has the US Supreme Court established Secular Humanism as a religion, the American Humanist Association describes it as a religion. Buddhists do not worship a theistic being; is the Buddhist philosophy not a religion when practiced?]
2. "Humanists control mainstream media, politicians, and the entertainment industry." Replace the word "humanists" in that sentence with "Jews" and you would have a statement that could have come from any white supremacist group. Such a statement from the white supremacist would be closer to the truth – it can be shown that a huge number of Jews do hold high positions in these areas, especially politics. While there are almost certainly some humanists involved in these areas, their numbers are extremely low. That humanists control these areas is simply false.
[Although you apparently assume LaHaye cannot teach you anything, he (among others) provides names, positions, and corporations. The Humanists in the areas I mentioned in my article hold high-level positions. Remember, cultural Jews are often atheists. Let us not remove and replace each other’s words. I said Humanists, and that is what I meant. Perhaps an inquisitive, open mind searching for truth could learn something from LaHaye. I did.]
3. I have never heard anyone assert that "religiosity" was not a
factor in
[Temy, I present this respectfully because I know at heart you’re a
wonderful man. Now, a rose by any other name is still a rose. Secular Humanism
is a religion, is a religion, is a religion. I didn’t make it that way.
Further, I neither advocate nor support "Christian Right" politics.
As I presented in my article, I examined political propaganda from both sides.
Although I claim no authoritative knowledge of the two camps, I claim authority
of my own investigative analysis.
Most secular people want government to be completely neutral regarding religion. This may arguably be a desirable ideal but it is simply impossible in practice because government does not exist as an entity unto itself – it is made up of people. And as long as religious
[Excluding Humanists?]
people are allowed to hold governmental positions, the government cannot be neutral toward religion. Any person who is sincere in his religious beliefs, will attempt to live those beliefs.
[Excluding Humanists?]
If a sincere Christian is in any government office he will attempt to make policy, vote, etc., based on his beliefs. To do otherwise would be hypocritical. A Christian who is truly trying to live according to biblical principles will understand that he is ordered by his god to evangelize at every opportunity.
[I clearly saw Swindall (still do) as a devoted Christian who evangelized at every opportunity to share with others the love he found, not to follow orders. That is why I embarked on this debate. It is because I stumbled onto the Truth named Christ. He is not at all as I and other atheists perceived. Jesus proved such an awesome discovery to me, I desire others know who He was, is, and will always be. I admired Swindall’s sincere religiosity. Unlike all too many Christians, he did not force it upon others. I admired his politics. He swore to uphold the Constitution and honored that commitment. Ignoring that oath by voting in favor of his religiosity would demonstrate hypocrisy. His position on school prayer upset many in the Christian community who desired forced prayer in schools and considered Swindall just the congressman to enforce such religious tyranny. He held then, as now, that it is unconstitutional to force children to pray. He encouraged parents to instill a value for prayer in their children and maintained that children on free time should be allowed to pray on school grounds.]
This will obviously include using whatever political power he has to that end
[Not by Christ’s example.]
because, to a sincere Christian, doing what he perceives to be the will of his god is and always will be number one priority.
[As you stated earlier, you know little about Swindall. Swindall disproved that claim as Congressman. His number one priority was leading others to Christ outside his congressional capacity. Nowhere in my readings have I found Jesus to advocate or attempt utilizing the Roman (or any other) government to further His name or the Father’s will. It simply is not there, and I challenge any Christian who asserts it is. By His own example, Jesus beckons voluntary hearts. Nowhere have I found in Swindall’s politics an attempt to utilize governmental force in advancing his religiosity. Jesus revealed Himself to me through Swindall.]
This is why I only reluctantly support the notion of "separation of church and state." It would be good if it could be achieved but it cannot. This is also why I assert that BOTH church and state should be abolished utterly.
4. A) I certainly agree that American government is growing more totalitarian and coercive – this due mainly to Christian influence – it being by far the most dominant religion in the country.
[Please demonstrate how our government is totalitarian and coercive because of Jesus.]
I cannot imagine any government being nearly as totalitarian and coercive as Christianity.
[Oh? Try Islamic regimes, the former
B) "Jesus still seeks voluntary hearts" is pure nonsense. Remember Luke 19:[2?]7.
Yeah, sounds real "voluntary" to me!
[I addressed that earlier. Jesus quoted a parable figure without commanding or suggesting His followers kill anyone.]
5. Considering that Christianity absorbed such a huge amount of the pagan dates, rituals, etc., and considering that throughout history Christianity has lived the above verse, literally slaying millions who would not conform, it’s hardly surprising that it "flourished."
[Christianity’s birth defied enormous odds. For example, Christianity flourished while Christians were fed to lions. Christianity introduced ideals and values against the established religious order and had no might to enforce it. Again, I never defended Christian behavior, only Christ’s teachings.]
6. By "atheistic regimes have committed equally atrocious acts," I presume you refer to Stalin.
[Add Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, and current communist
It is true that such regimes committed atrocious acts, but there are two points on that: 1) the number of acts and the number of dead pale in comparison to those committed by religions and,
[Please present your numbers. Here are mine (courtesy of Carey Martin): So
far this century, the score is Soviet Socialist Russia: at least 65 million;
Maoist Socialist China: at least 40 million; National Socialist Germany: at
least 12 million; Khmer Rouge Socialist Cambodia: at least 3 million. I’ll
withhold the 40 million casualties of WW II, caused largely by the actions of
Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, because theists and atheists keep throwing
Hitler into the others’ camp. That leaves a death toll for just this century of
120 million genocide victims. This completely ignores the victims of socialism
in
Now, a generous estimate of all the victims of all the Christian horrors from 33 AD to present is 23 million. That works out to 11,693 per year. The total kill rate, from the publication of the Communist Manifesto (1848), to date is 1.05 million per year. Compared to socialism, the worst elements of Christendom are bush-league benchwarmers in killing. And, of course, every socialist state mentioned was officially atheist. I am not claiming that those Christian atrocities are okay, for they have no biblical support. My point is that atheists enjoy no monopoly on sanctity of human life, quite contraire.]
2) the terrible things done by atheistic regimes were not done because of atheism,
[...but because the offenders were not restricted by atheist evolution. Darwinism presents "survival of the fittest," (i.e., might makes right). Atheism provides no ultimate right or wrong. Jesus does. Christians who twist verse remain accountable to Christ’s teachings. To whom are atheists accountable?]
whereas those done by religion are al-most always done because of the religious beliefs. The Jewish belief that "God gave us this land" is the reason they made war on the Palestinians and took their land. The same belief by Christians caused them to take the lands of many people.
[Where did Christ command it? Sounds to me like a case of naughty religionists believing what they want. How is Christ accountable?]
Granted this makes little difference to the dead, but it should matter a great deal to the living.
[The atrocities committed by both sides resulted from human reasoning. Had either side followed Christ, the atrocities would never have happened. They each used whatever source they could to rationalize their evil behavior. Christians twist verse, whereas despots twist Darwinism.]
7. I have to go through this one point by point. "I reject the idea that the apostles allowed themselves to be persecuted over something they knew to be false." A) You have no proof there were apostles,
[Even Sierichs acknowledges that Paul (who met Christ only after the resurrection) probably existed. If indeed there were no apostles, who wrote the other New Testament letters to the churches? What was their motive?]
B) if there were and they thought their beliefs were true, it only shows their gullibility.
[It shows their gullibility to what? You presume Christianity is false.]
Whether or not they believed this stuff is irrelevant to whether it is actually true.
[It is relevant that they would not have accepted persecution over a known
lie. Please present a case of someone’s willingness to be persecuted and killed
over something he/she knew to be false. We have churches on almost every
"I…reject that the apostles and the 500 witnesses to His ascension into Heaven experienced joint hallucinations. Science has yet to prove such hallucinations are possible." A) You don’t know that there were either 500 witnesses (who were they?) or an ascension.
[The historicity of the gospel writers is more reliable than Alexander the Great’s. Non-theistic scholars claim reports about the disciples arose after sufficient time elapsed to develop legends. In contrast, historical documentation for Alexander the Great’s existence appeared nearly 400 years after his death. Nevertheless, scholars agree he existed. If the gospels were written 150 years after the crucifixion (and some historians have dated the letters to the churches to under 30 years after the event), they are more reliable than accounts of Alexander the Great. Scholars of both theistic mind-sets accept Alexander the Great’s historicity, but theism versus atheism splits scholars regarding the Gospels. Other established historical figures include Suetonius, Tacitus, Thucydides, and Herodotus. Writings about them appeared 800 to 1300 years after their existence yet are considered credible by scholars of either theistic camp. Other than disliking the message, what is the reason for this split? Here I call in Sierichs. I truly admire his versing in history and ability to articulate his knowledge in print (that is a sincere compliment and expression of respect). I would like to know his non-theistic take on documentation of historical figures. Mr. Sierichs, please chime in; I request your expertise.]
It is only one ridiculous claim in a book chock full of ridiculous claims.
[We have just covered one "ridiculous" claim. What others flow from this "chock?"]
B) Mass hallucination is a well known and fairly common occurrence. Recently
thousands claimed to have witnessed appearances of the Virgin Mary and all
manner of "miracles" in
[Please demonstrate the veracity of your claim that, "Mass hallucination is a well known and fairly common occurrence." Atheistic Harvard professor Michael Martin ("The Case Against Christianity," 1991, p. 92) wrote:
Is it really true that there is no such thing as mass hallucination? In fact, psychologists have studied a closely related phenomenon known as collective delusion or mass hysteria. In this phenomenon . . ..
Notice he shifts to a "closely related phenomenon [collective delusion]," not the phenomenon at issue [mass hallucination]. Charge me with splitting hairs. However, hallucinations are sensory experiences (e.g., "I see the Abominable Snowman sitting on my sofa drinking coffee, I hear his growl, and I feel his claws ripping my flesh"), whereas delusions are beliefs (e.g., "The Abominable Snowman is out to get me.")
Temy, Martin took a huge leap to explain sensory phenomena using delusionary
phenomena. You claim, "Mass hallucination is a well known and fairly
common occurrence." First, define "common," then define
"fairly." Mass hallucination is not a common, a fairly common, nor an
established phenomenon. Notice Martin challenged the established scientific
understanding that mass hallucinations are non-existent. Further, your Conyers
scenario [visions of Virgin Mary in
Further, mass optical illusion phenomenon such as the Conyers, Georgia sightings are no indication of veracity of mass hallucinations, for all seers of such had to travel to Conyers to see it, unlike the phenomenon of the disciples. Mass optical illusions I can buy, or, for all we know, Mary was actually there. Personally, I would not know.]
"The disciples were neither cultists, nor kamikaze styled religious fanatics, for they were steadfast over something they personally witnessed." You are simply assuming the truth of something you want to believe. The Heaven’s Gate bunch sincerely believed that they would be "going home" on a spaceship. Did that sincerity make it true? Where is the hard evidence that these disciples existed, or personally witnessed these things?
[Strobel’s (1998) The Case for Christ provides serious, valid evidence. The Web sites I presented earlier may enlighten you. I did not simply assume the truth of something I wanted to believe. I wanted to be non-Christian. I found my journey unpleasant until Truth unfolded.]
8. "If Jesus and His disciples … existed and were truthful, the empty tomb is beyond secular explanation." Very big IF on both counts. There are many possible "secular" answers to why a tomb might be empty.
[Then, in detail, please share with your readers your explanation(s).]
I’m sure you could think of some if you try.
[I tried, but those "answers" failed. Throughout my atheism, I rejected the historicity of the gospel story. Then a Christian challenged my position. I investigated. I learned that even atheistic authorities acknowledge the gospel figures existed and, by Godly hook or earthly crook, Jesus’ body left the tomb. Secularists such as Martin attempt to explain away the mechanism. I am aware of secular explanations (e.g., the women went to the wrong tomb, the disciples stole the body while the guards slept, etc.) Challenging them from an open mind, I rejected them. Such atheistic apologetics posed more questions than they answered.
"Why would lives be changed by it?" People’s lives can and do dramatically change all the time based on beliefs the individual acquires. This says nothing whatever about the truth or falsity of the beliefs.
[I included Christian testimonies of changed lives in my anecdotal evidence while exploring the case for Christ. I now see this truth from first-hand experience. Like it or not, Jesus is alive. Granted, the death of a loved one, a close call in an accident, etc. can account for a person’s changed life. Christ, too, changes lives. Would I embrace Christ solely on the testimony of a person’s changed life by Him? Certainly not. However, a changed life should follow when someone accepts Him.]
9. "Bible prophecies have come to pass against enormous odds." If enough people "prophecy" enough things and enough people "interpret" them for long enough, it would be astounding if none of them "came true." Most biblical prophecies are either not prophecies at all or were made after the fact.
[Please explain your generalization, providing specifics. Dr. Hugh Ross (an astronomer converted from deist to Christian) presented a case regarding biblical prophecy too rational for me to reject. For example, he calculated the probability that both Jeremiah and Isaiah would accurately prophecy King Cyrus’s name, date, and locale at one in a million-trillion. He calculated the odds of Old Testament prophecy of the Messiah’s birthplace at 1/100,000. He presented 13 prophecies to demonstrate their happening by chance alone at 10123. Add the odds of the known fulfilled prophecies and you will have a number beyond human comprehension. To reject biblical prophecy would be, to use your words, to "simply assume the truth" of the atheistic position I embraced.]
But Farrell Till’s The Skeptical Review is a better place for in-depth discussion of prophecy fulfillment claims.
[I challenge you to read and listen to the publications presented at the end of my article. I’ve been reading skeptical, atheistic, and agnostic works for over 10 years. The Christian apologists present the real news. The sites I present address skeptic claims.]
10. "Women are not the subjugated maleinferiors that non-Christians
perceive the Bible teaches. Husbands are to sacrifice themselves for their
wives as Christ did for the church (Ephesians
[First, I don’t defend Christians’ behavior. Men have twisted scripture to degrade women. That goes back to my point of judging Christ on His own merit, not man’s misuse of scripture. Second, Christ’s running theme is that we are to live for God and others, not ourselves. We are to live serving God, our employers, neighbors, and yes, our wives. Prior to Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, women were indeed the chattel you mentioned (in all known cultures). It was bizarre and unpopular when he instructed husbands to sacrifice for and love what they viewed as their property. Christianity produced a respect and love for wives contrary to the times.]
Most atheists I know are repulsed by the idea of being subservient, especially as to a king. As an atheist, as an autonomous being, as a man, the mindset of a person willingly abdicating their dignity and responsibility for their own lives is troubling.
[You just described my problem with socialism: bowing down to man almighty.
Blind trust of State (comprised of humans) allows atrocities such as those
perpetrated at
The notion of letting someone else live for me, either real or imaginary, is repugnant. As a Christian for over 25 years, I certainly understand the feeling, and how it seemed a good thing at the time. As an atheist it is sometimes difficult to believe that I ever thought that way, and it’s most embarrassing. I value my life highly, but I would die before I would willingly bow or kneel to anyone, god or otherwise. I keep my seat in a courtroom when all are ordered to rise. I do not take orders.
[Okay, so humility is not your strong point. Nevertheless, your statement confuses me. The Temy I have encountered is polite, yielding, and considerate to his readers, even me. Sorry to deliver this bad news, but, Temy, you are a nice guy whether you like it or not. Your arrogance is directed at a God you believe does not exist, a God you have misperceived. Also, if you did not "take orders," you would not have even entered the courtroom. What about employers or cops? Should blue lights flash in your rearview mirror (unconstitutionality aside), would you not pull over? ]
"It is the most awesome story ever told." Not hardly. I think the story of a man actually setting foot on the moon passes this one by a mile.
[Do you truly find the story of moon-walking more awesome than the story of tomb-escaping? Dying and rising again?]
I would credit the "Jesus story" with being one of the dumbest and most asinine ever told. You have a being of incredible power – enough to make an entire universe (somehow). Yet that "omnipotent" being cannot fathom a better way to communicate with his creatures than "inspiring" a few of them to write a book! How absurd! He could have as easily "inspired" all humans to behave as he wanted couldn’t he?
[He communicates quite effectively with me through prayer, His Holy Spirit, fellowship, and yes, that book. Sure, He could have created robots, but He did not. You have expressed a desire for autonomy without free-will (hmm . . .).]
Then the "omnipresent" being sends a part of himself (somehow – God works in mysterious ways)
[Please elaborate.]
to live a while among humans to die to redeem them from punishment that he would otherwise impart to them – for behaving as he surely knew they would to start with if he was so smart. The very notion of "vicarious atonement" is vile and goes against any reasoned sense of justice.
[Not against any reasoned sense of justice I understand. The act seems quite loving and understanding to me. Please tell me more about your "reasoned sense of justice."]
Christians make a big deal of the alleged death of Jesus, which is a crock on several levels. A) He probably never existed at all.
[Again, even secular scholars dispute that claim. He existed. Was He a liar, lunatic, legend, or Lord? Please explain your answer.]
B) If he did, and said and did the things attributed to him in the Bible, he was obviously a pathetic and severely deluded fellow.
[Excuse me, Temy, but if Jesus rose from death, those who reject his divinity would be the deluded fellows. Explore His resurrection.]
If he had been what the Bible claims he was, then his dying, while very painful (though it need not have been)
[He (not Jordan or Temy) would be the authority on what is needed.]
was hardly a big deal. If I knew with certainty that I would be resurrected very shortly, dying would be at most a minor inconvenience.
[Strobel’s The Case for Christ details Christ’s crucifixion from the initial flogging to the last breath. We are not dealing with a bullet to the head. Minor inconvenience or major annoyance, the question is whether He rose from the dead.]
The bottom line? Yes, at last we have arrived! Here it is: There is not a shred of evidence that the biblical god ever existed or could exist, and the historical existence of many other biblical characters, including Jesus, Moses, Solomon and David, is in doubt.
[That used to be said about the Hittites, Lysanias (the tetrarch of Abilene), the Pool of Bethesda, etc. Remember, scholars in both theistic camps acknowledge Paul’s existence. Non-theists question his reliability and/or sanity, not his existence. Again, even atheist scholars concede Christ’s existence. Fellow Christian SOAR contributor, apologist John Richards, has charged numerous times that skeptics too often trust outdated skeptic authorities such as Joseph Wheless. Consider my claim in my initial article. I wrote that when I looked up Bible "contradictions" presented in my atheist reference material, the claims proved false. For example, in American Atheist (August 1989, pg. 39) Madalyn O’Hair presents Wheless’s contention that Matthew 2:23; 13: 54-55 claims Jesus was a "native" of Galilee, directly contradicting John 4:43-44’s claim that He was a "native" of Judaea. Look it up: none of those verses mention Jesus’ nativity.
O’Hair also presented other alleged inconsistencies between the gospel accounts of Christ’s nativity. Citing Wheless, she claimed Matthew 2:1 reports that King Herod ruled at the time, whereas Luke 2:1-7 reports that Governor Quirinius (also spelled Cyrenius) ruled. The article presents this as a destructive contradiction, because 13 years elapsed between the governor’s rule and the king’s rule. However, consider John McRay’s (Wheaton College professor of New Testament and archaeology) response to Strobel in The Case for Christ:
Archaeology has not produced anything that is unequivocally a contradiction to the Bible, on the contrary, as we’ve seen, there have been many opinions of skeptical scholars that have become codified into ‘fact’ over the years but that archaeology has shown to be wrong (pg. 100).
Indeed, archaeologist Jerry Vardaman recently uncovered a coin bearing the Quirinius name in the disputed time period, meaning either Quirinius ruled in two periods or two Quiriniuses ruled. Both Luke and Matthew proved accurate.]
Further, the "omni" attributes contradict themselves, each other and common sense – therefore no being can exist which possesses them.
[If God can do anything, can He create a stone too heavy for Him to lift? That puerile (sophomoric at best) argument fails to address whether Jesus died and rose again. God could not create a square circle, for example. Nor could God lie, etc.]
One of the most fundamental precepts of science is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed – only its form changes. You either accept that as true or not.
[Donald Dicks of the Atlanta Christian Apologetics Project (ACAP) asserted: "There is a third option...that Temy misunderstands the First Law of Thermodynamics (Law of the Conservation of Energy). The law has nothing to do with how matter or energy came into existence in the first place."]
If so, it blows the god hypothesis out of the water because the universe obviously exists and is made of matter – therefore the universe itself is eternal (in some form) and had no need of a creator. If you do not accept that as fact, then you should provide compelling evidence that it is false.
[I accept the corporeal as is. My point is that Jesus came to demonstrate what is beyond the world we know. The historical evidence demonstrates Christ’s reality (e.g., by dating the gospels and New Testament letters, secular writings, etc.). Jesus existed, was crucified, and the tomb became empty.
Donald Dicks is more concerned about the science of your claim than I. He presents:
"OK! There are, at least, two ‘compelling’ arguments confuting the idea of the universe being eternal, one philosophical and the other scientific.
1) Argument from the Impossibility of an Actual Infinite Number of Things
a. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
b. A beginningless series of events in time entails an actually infinite number of things.
c. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.
2) Another way of looking at it is that the universe cannot be eternal because this would mean that in order to get to today, we would have had to traverse an infinite number of days (‘events in time’)."
Time permitting, Mr. Dicks plans to submit a detailed explanation of these points to the site.]
Any being which demands to be worshipped, no matter how powerful, is unworthy of even respect, much less wor-ship. Worship is a demeaning act which is beneath human dignity…. and it truly saddens me that a good man would subjugate himself so, into an Orwellian world of double-speak where groveling is a privilege, suffering and persecution are blessings, and dying means eternal life.
[I used to perceive it that way. However, "Irony can be pretty ironic" (Airplane 2: The Sequel). I now find Christian "double-speak" quite rewarding, for it is not double-speak at all. But that’s another article for another place. The issue is whether Jesus died and rose again]
Did you forget that you like a world where up is up and down is down? That is my bottom line.
[No, I did not forget. I do not plan to accompany you down. I pray you will eventually accompany me up. God is calling you back, Temy. That is the top-line.]
[In summary, my faith rests on the Resurrection. We have covered many points, many of which I find irrelevant. Because you raised them, I answered them. If Jesus Christ is real, as evidenced by the Resurrection, other points are side issues. Now that I have addressed each of your points, I must limit my debating to the Resurrection. You wrote in SOAR (Nov. 99, pg.18) that you hope to "win him [Jordan] or some other reader to the atheist side." The best way to win Jordan to the atheist side lies in convincing him: 1) Jesus did not exist; 2) His disciples did not exist; 3) the crucifixion never took place; 4) the tomb became empty by means other than resurrection; and 5) the New Testament was written by a person or group of persons who were either deluded or lying. You will find a wealth of information at the sites I provided. Weigh them against your skeptic/humanist/atheist sites. Again, please visit:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/
http://www.atlantaapologist.org/
The meat of the coconut here is that you and I accept two different miracles. I accept a resurrected Christ, whereas you accept mass hallucinations. Both break the laws of known science. Your miracle requires you to accept, for example, that not just one man, but nearly a dozen faced persecution and death over a known hoax. I ask and pray that you and your readers consider my points in the previous pages. I do not expect to win you over (only Christ can do that). I do expect that those of you who are honest with yourselves will change your view that Christians are automatically wrong or "nuts." I thank all of you for your openness in taking the time to examine this issue from both sides.
-G. Zeineldé Jordan, Se.]
e-mail:
j
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no
evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith
that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we
wish to substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of emotion for evidence is
apt to lead to strife, since different groups, substitute different emotions."
– Bertrand Russell
["I would rather be absolutely honest, and have everybody in the world think I was dishonest than to be dishonest and have the whole world believe in my honesty." -Robert G. Ingersoll]
e-mail:
j
Theism.net Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster