www.freethoughtperspective.net

Comment

Stephen H. Frey

Editor, Freethought Perspective

The problem with Christians. Christians have a serious problem with non-believers, especially at this time in history. They refuse to accept non-belief and turn against secularists. They cause their own problems by refusing to learn about secularism and non-belief predicated on god worship. Why? Because they are afraid of the truth concerning their god-beliefs. They refuse to have anything to do with free-thought, and won’t even take the time to try to learn or face the reality that their beliefs may not, and are not, based on realistic assumptions.

Some get extremely angry when they are told, and exposed to the fact that they are superstitious. This is the root cause of their problem, which also is our problem, because their belief systems have an adverse affect on our activities. They say they have every right to believe anything they want to believe, and they do, but they don’t have the right to limit our freedom to believe and do what we want as long as we do no harm to anyone.

I don’t think there would be any problems if Christians would just learn to face reality and accept the truth concerning their god-beliefs. And, stop interfering with our freedoms. Let’s face it, they are afraid of the truth and reality. They are afraid that their faith, if exposed for what it is, would weaken and over time, create the circumstances that could eventually cause fewer and fewer people to believe in a god whose existence is highly questionable.

Reply: Stephen is correct in his comments. The religious establishment has for centuries used its dominating influence to sway public opinion and coerce legislators—usually those on the political right—to enforce legislation that gives them even more authority within our society. Because of the religious establishment in the USA, the medical community, scientific, cultural, political, etc., is suppressed and even prevented—for instance, stem cell research—from making advancements that would benefit humanity. The religious right is the dominant antagonist in the never ending fight to keep society from ever emerging from a system of religious belief that has its roots in a Dark Ages theological perspective of existence. Not to specifically state that the Catholic Church is responsible, the fundamentalist religious community in the USA is also responsible, but this Church has been the leading advocate against any form of birth control. The Pope (holy dictator) of this religion recently reaffirmed his Church’s opposition to birth control by stating, “What was true yesterday, remains true today.” No religious fundamentalist, right wing theocon, or other pro-life advocate would disagree with this opinion from a Church leader whose head has been for decades overly stuffed with lunatic religious impressions.

When it comes to atheism, humanism and secularism, the religious are as Stephen remarked, “…afraid of the truth.” The truth concerning the entire concept of a non-existing god can cause some religious individuals  to have anxiety attacks or even suffer the nightmare of a world where the religious establishment is no longer in the dominant position of saddling the public with bizarre orthodox religious beliefs that are no longer relevant in this era. The religious are afraid of the truth mainly, because knowing the truth is not a primary concern of the religious establishment. The religious establishment is not concerned with reality, it is concerned with the non-reality of a faith structured on a mountain of supernatural absurdities and a false perception of reality. In their extreme view of society, those who are among the hardcore religious, would, if they could get away with it, make it a crime to not believe. At this point in time they don’t, and hopefully will not—as is currently a practice in countries dominated by one or another of the Islamic sects—ever have the ability to do as they did in previous centuries when the Christian establishment used a variety of means including torture, death and extreme brutality to convert anyone suspected of not being a true believer.

Of course, any attempt to persuade a hardcore religionist to look at existence from another perspective, is an attempt bound to fail. You cannot debate someone whose mind has for years been reinforced with a stockpile of religious whatisms. It would be like trying to break into a bank that is fortified with the best security known. The fundamentalist has secured his mind with daily and weekly sessions that constantly reinforce his mind with supernatural delusions of reality. God in the mind of such a convert, has an overwhelming influence that shields him from anyone or anything that might be suspected of attempting to create any doubt in his mind, that his god may not be what he has learned, but rather a figment of his imagination. (Leland W. Ruble)

———————————————————————————————————–

Naive

William F. Henness

Others are always saying that I did not REALLY believe in Jesus and was not saved, so I will let you all in on a little of my early personality, which did carry over into adulthood.

When I was about ten, my dad and I were walking home from uptown and I found a firecracker. It did not have a fuse and I asked him if it was any good. He said, “No.” So when we got home I took the fuseless firecracker and pretended it was a cigarette. I took a needle and poked a hole through both ends of it, then lit one end as I started sucking on the other end.

BANG! I had drew the fire back to the powder and it went off in my mouth. It peeled back both lips like an African American and plugged my nose full. They took me to the local Doctor and he got the paper from  my nose and said my lips would heal in time. They did.

Another time, when I was about age 7 or 8, I was at a neighbor-boy’s house. Their garden had a single strand of wire around the garden. It was an electric fence to keep dogs out I suppose. The other boy told me to touch it, and when I did, I got zapped real good. When he was done laughing he said if I touched it with an old cow-leg bone it wouldn’t shock me. I did again and got zapped again. He laughed again. Then he got all serious and said if I touched it with one of those old “click/cock” metal pistols, it wouldn’t hurt me. Guess what? Yep, I believed him again and got zapped the third time.

Some time later or about the same time, I was informed, in all seriousness, that Jesus was God’s son, was taught what God is, became acquainted with the Bible, etc. I naturally believed what I was told.

When I was twenty, I heard the plan of salvation and I accepted Jesus as my personal savior. I truly believed the Bible, word for word, in its entirety, and lived what I believed by acting  and working according to my beliefs.

I say all this to let you know that I was really naive and believing, and my belief in God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Bible, etc., was very real to me. Not any more.

It wasn’t until I was about 50 years old that I began questioning my beliefs.

Reply: I suspect that many current non-believers have been at one time or another exposed to the dominating influence of religious propaganda. I call it propaganda, others may call it whatever they want. Since William has, unlike many present converts to Christianity, extensively studied the Bible, and not just skimmed over the parts that are highly questionable, this may explain how, after many years, he finally came to the conclusion he mentions in his comment. For some, making the drastic move from god-belief to non-belief is extremely difficult. In fact there are probably many Christians who do not believe what they’ve been taught, but because of social, family, and other circumstances refrain from making the final, bold move to entirely break off any further involvement in religious authoritarianism.

I also, have had a personal experience with religious indoctrination. In my circumstances, about nine years in a county-run orphanage, religion was heavily involved in every aspect of the social life in that environment, it was nearly impossible to know that there was something other than god-belief to base one’s life on. When one is impelled to say grace before every meal, repeat the Lord’s prayer, pledge allegiance to the flag, and sing (every night) “Onward Christian Soldiers,” or “What a friend we have in Jesus,” while climbing the three floors of stairs to the dormitory at night, it became, as I later discovered in life, that all of this religious proselytizing during a very young age, was a deliberate attempt to convince one that god-belief was the only intelligent objective worth achieving in this life.

There also were week-days and intolerable, drab, monotonous  Sunday mornings when one was compelled to sit in the confines of an auditorium listening to whatever preacher from whatever denomination volunteered to offer his time to introduce into the minds of young children his concept of god, the bible, and always of course, the mythical Jesus. When thinking back to that awful period in my life, I can’t help but think that the main intention of the matrons and the administration was a deliberate attempt to make us believe as they did. By being in the position of not being able to protest, we were perfect candidates for whatever religious concepts they could impress upon our still immature minds. We were prisoners in an authoritarian environment that none of us chose or  wished  for. You might say we were a captive audience for whatever our jailers (the administration and matrons) desired to satisfy their absurd religious ambitions.

It was many years later that I became an atheist, and now totally reject any and all dogmas predicated on god-belief.

Once exposed to the writing of such authors as Thomas Paine, Robert G. Ingersoll, Bertrand Russell, and especially  historian Joseph McCabe, my perspective changed dramatically and I went from being moderately religious, to Deist, and eventually to what I am now, a confirmed atheist. I came to the realization that neither the clergy nor established religions can, or ever have been capable of providing concrete evidence for a god. They say there is a god, “Believe us,” but how do you believe in something that not even they, the religious establishment has no proof of?  If the religious hierarchy can’t provide evidence that proves their god exists, then it’s neither reasonable nor rational to believe in something (god) for which no evidence exists.

I have no expectation that the etablished religions will now or in the distant future ever provide the evidence for their delusional concept of an existing god. Therefore, I remain today, tomorrow, and until deceased, an atheist. (Leland W. Ruble)

———————————————————————————————————

Comment

Josh

http://www.HXCChristian.com josh@hxcchristian.com

I like your article, you attempt to construct a valid argument for the non-existence of God, but I think that you fall well short. Here is what I would suggest, read the bible. I think if you dug in and read the bible cover to cover, then all your questions above, about how man wrote the bible, the difference between the OT and NT, Jesus being deity, etc. would be answered quickly.

Here is something for you to chew on, just because you don’t believe in God or the bible doesn’t make it true. Actually, you writing this, makes it all the more true and justifies what is written in the bible about people in the end times (which we are in) whom doubt the existence of God.

Please read the bible, it will change your life and answer your questions.

Josh

Reply: (The writer is referring to the article, Is the Bible Mainly based on Fiction, Fantasy and Hyperbole? ) Josh, has explained that I should read the Bible and I will reach the same conclusions he has in regard to his understanding of a god. I am not superstitious enough to believe the nonsense that is included in this book. Nor do I think the supernatural—on which the Bible is based—presents a valid argument for believing in what is asserted in its text. One can read the bible for decades. But if one does not understand what one is reading, and just accepts the text as is, without some doubt, or critical analysis of its content, then reading it is an exercise in futility.

Others, unlike Josh, who do not accept the contents of the Bible as a true depiction of reality have arrived at different conclusions regarding its text, often with a view completely in opposition to the opinions with which  Josh regards the Bible. It does not require reading the entire Bible in order to reach the definite conclusion that this book was written by deluded authors. Writers whose primary perception of existence was entirely focused on the definite probability that their god was the being responsible for their birth, death, and future destination after they ceased to physically function. They did not have any other explanation for existence. Everything they imagined, thought, or did, as far as they were concerned was done—they assumed—under the ever-watchful eye of an unseen being named “God.” For anyone in this era, to realistically accept the conclusions of god-obsessed authors as a valid argument for believing that what they wrote, is reason enough to go on persuading others to accept such absurdities, makes no sense whatsoever.

As for the end times that Josh mentions. My “end time” will be when I’m no longer physically alive. I don’t expect as some religious do, to meet some unimaginable creature (god) who has been endowed with the authority to zap me into whatever region of the universe it has reserved for my having too often given it the finger, and denied to acknowledge its existence. Nor do I ever expect as Josh does, the possibility of an “end times” scenario where this being turns the planet upside down, and supernaturally projects all the religious fundamentalists into the atmosphere to reside in ultimate, eternal oblivion with this authoritarian being. Although, if this were a possibility, it would be a far more rational planet without the worst of the religious fundamentalists propagandizing, killing, and endlessly proposing devious schemes, political and otherwise, based on their absurd, lunatic version of a world totally dominated under the theofascist authority of their god infected minds.

The NT made the proclamation that he, Jesus, would return shortly, what happened? Isn’t it possible that he (if he even existed) is as dead as any one who physically expires?  (Leland W. Ruble)

———————————————————————————————————

For the following reply, first read the entire comment from Frederick L. Ebersole, Jr., under “Comments.”

Reply: Frederick says, “…I believe you are looking for someone to prove how they know that God exists, and that is impossible. Read Immanuel Kant, probably one of the greatest philosophers that ever lived, and you will see that for Kant, god lies outside of the things that are able to be “known.”

I agree! It is impossible to prove a god exists. But if, as Kant suggested, that god exists beyond our physical ability to comprehend and know, then how do you explain that the biblical authors wrote as though they had physical evidence for the existence of God? If they had no means of identifying the  god they incorporated into their biblical text, why did they write as though they knew when, how, and why it did whatever it did? Kant may have reached the conclusion that the identity of a god is beyond physical comprehension, but isn’t that the same as saying before a judge, “I know who killed so and so, but because he was an alien with three eyes, four arms, and an extended head, and uses a highly evolved instrument that can make him, when he wants to escape detection, invisible, I can’t physically present him bodily as evidence at this time.” There are other philosophers, former theologians, and scholars that would disagree with Kant’s assumption. Was Kant alluding to the possibility that a god, indeed, does exist, but because we are human, and it of a non-physical nature, we are incapable of comprehending its supernatural existence?

I imagine you are acquainted with, and know what Bertrand Russell wrote in regard to god-belief, if not, here  is a  brief explanation.  In his essay, Why I Am Not a Christian, he says, “Therefore I take it that when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you two different things: first, why I do not believe in God and in immortality; and secondly, why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant him a high degree of moral goodness.”

Russell goes on to say in regard to God: “To come to this question of the existence of God, it is a large and serious question, and if I were to attempt to deal with it in any adequate manner I should have to keep you here until Kingdom Come, so that you will have to excuse me if I deal with it in a somewhat summary fashion. You know, of course, that the Catholic Church has laid down as a dogma that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason. This is a somewhat curious dogma, but it is one of their dogmas. They had to introduce it because at one time the Freethinkers adopted the habit of saying that there were such and such arguments which mere reason might urge against the existence of God, but of course they knew as a matter of faith that God did not exist. The arguments and the reasons were set out at great length, and the Catholic Church felt they must stop it. Therefore they laid it down that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason, and they had to set up what they considered were arguments to prove it. There are, of course, a number of them, but I shall take only a few.”

Since it is too long to submit in this reply, I suggest that  readers view his entire essay and draw their own conclusions. The facts against the existence of an existing god have been disproven by many other philosophers besides the esteemed B. Russell.

You’re correct to an extent, in stating that “…the middle age arguments for many things in the Bible, and that people that are biblical literalists that believe in the 7 day creation are ex nihlo, are not the whole but a small minority of Christians.” However, if one listens to the radio, TV, reads the newspaper, and navigates the web, one can barely avoid noticing that this small minority—American fundamentalists, and fundamentalists of other denominations—usually dominate the news with their “end times” predictions, proclamations, and zealous desire to turn, as in the USA, this nation into a holier than thou, theofascist autocracy. And, not to leave out the dominant influence worldwide, of the Catholic Church, which is closely allied theologically and dogmatically with the same ambitions as the wacko fundamentalists.

In opposition to Kant’s assumption, on the basis that what  he proposed: His assumption closely resembles the thought process of someone who occasionally or frequently views the supernatural as a credible proposition. Again, if the authors of the Bible were incapable of viewing their god physically, how did they write as though they knew exactly when it did what it did? They wrote from a point of view, as though they knew exactly what motivated God to do what it did. They did not write as science fiction writers, nor as writers of fairy tales, they wrote as authors who had—as a psychiatrist would have—a personal knowledge of the god they depicted in the text of the Bible. If they did not have a personal and physical knowledge of the god they wrote about, but then still wrote as though they were observers of its thoughts, actions, and motives, they were either outright lairs, or fabricators on the same level as L. Ron Hubbard of Scientology fame, and the deceptive Joseph Smith and his ludicrous tale of an angel named Moroni, and  the unverified golden tablets that evolved into the religion of Mormonism.

As for the conjecture that I set up a “strawman” in an attempt to discredit the Christian establishment, that is your assumption, not mine. Of course, it would be nearly unavoidable to mention Jesus without including Christianity, since this character is the primary reason for the existence of the supernatural religion of Christianity. Without this character, as a believable being, the foundation of Christianity would collapse in a pile of rubbish.

It was my attempt to propose the question of a god’s existence, and the reader, regardless of whatever denomination, religious or non-religious, to reach whatever conclusion, as you did, in regard to my article. Thanks for the feedback. (Leland W. Ruble)

———————————————————————————————————-

Comments on any subject posted on this site are welcome.

———————————————————————————————————–