Tract #24: Tough Questions About the Bible

Tract #24, Tough Questions About the Bible, is ready for you to download and review. Download it, see page #3 for printing instructions, and let me know your comments! Thanks!

024_bible-questions.pdf

It’s possible to be both philosophically rigorous and believe that the Bible is God’s word, but far too many Christians have not asked themselves enough tough questions about the Bible to make sure that they are indeed rigorous. Here are a few they might consider:

• Which parts of the Bible are literally true and which are stories that have been simplified so they could be understood by the book’s original audience?
• What parts of the Bible do you think are okay for children? Do you think the “adult” parts of some Bible stories should be edited for children, or should children not learn those stories until they are older?
• If the Bible appears to contradict science (as it does in Genesis, for example), should you doubt scripture, doubt science, or doubt both?
• If the Bible was written under God’s direction, why doesn’t everyone agree what it means? Shouldn’t it be perfectly clear?
• There are scriptures that did not make it into the Bible. How can you tell true and false scripture apart?
• Is it moral to punish children for things their parents did? (Genesis 9, for example)
• Why did God “harden Pharoah’s heart” when Pharoah wanted to let the Israelites go? (Exodus 4-9)
• Does God still like how animal sacrifices smell? (Genesis 8, for example)
• Why doesn’t the Bible condemn slavery? (Exodus 21)
• Why did God order Moses to kill children? (Deuteronomy 3, for example)
• What precisely does “Thou shalt not kill” mean? When is it okay to kill a person?
• How can you tell which of the Jewish laws (such as the Ten Commandments, or eating lobster and being homosexual being abominations) should be obeyed by Christians?
• Are the Jews still God’s chosen people?
• How can you tell which Old Testament passages are the ones that have a “hidden” second meaning as a prophecy about Jesus?
• Did you know that there are at least two different endings for the book of Mark?
• Why did Jesus curse a tree? (Mark 11)
• Doesn’t Jesus’ rampage in the temple (John 2, for example) contradict turning the other cheek?
• Doesn’t Jesus want you to give away all your possessions? (Luke 14:33)
• What do you think happened to all the people who rose from the dead when Jesus died? (Matthew 27)
• Didn’t Jesus’ followers think that the second coming was going to happen soon? (Matthew 16)
• Why does Jesus think God has forsaken him if he is God? (Mark 15, for example)
• The Gospels don’t agree on a number of things, such as Jesus’ last words or the number of people who found the empty tomb. Can you explain how these are not contradictions, using reasoning that you would allow in the discussion of other topics?

Category: Bible, Tract | Tags: | 2 Comments »

Tract #23: Tough Questions for Christians

Tract #23, Tough Questions for Christians, is ready for you to download and review. Download it, see page #3 for printing instructions, and let me know your comments! Thanks!

023_questions-for-christians.pdf

It’s possible to be both philosophically rigorous and a Christian, but far too many Christians have not asked themselves enough tough questions about their own beliefs to make sure that they are indeed rigorous. Here are a few they might consider:

• Does God have free will? Could He choose to do evil?
• What crime deserves an eternity of punishment?
• What does it mean when you say that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one? Can you form an analogy to make this more clear?
• Some Christians pray to Jesus in the hope that he will intercede with God. Does this make sense if Jesus and God are the same person?
• If human evils must be allowed so that we can have free will, why did God also create natural evils, like floods and disease?
• You believe in the supernatural. How do you know when to reject supernatural explanations for things like UFOs or spontaneous human combustion?
• How can you tell false and true religions apart? Where do false religions — including false Christian sects — come from?
• What is a Christian? Are there any groups of people who call themselves Christians that are not really Christians?
• If God sometimes interferes in human events, why didn’t he either prevent the Holocaust or arrange for it to end sooner?
• If prayer can help someone get into Heaven, does this mean that someone who went to Hell might have been saved if someone had prayed for them? Is that fair?
• If God told you to kill a child, would you do it? If God told someone else to kill a child, would you interfere?
• If you believe homosexuality is wrong, would you encourage Christian girls to marry gay men and end their lives of sin?
• Why aren’t amputees ever miraculously cured?
• Why are modern-day miracles less impressive than those in Biblical times?
• Does God value faith more than He values belief based on evidence? If so, does that make sense?
• If you pray for an answer to a question, how do you know when God answers? Could it be that you are being deceived by a demon?
• How can you tell the difference between a prayer that’s been answered by God and a coincidence that happens to coincide with your desires?
• If some of your beliefs are based on what you feel in your heart, do you accept as true what others feel?
• Did all of the people who lived before the time of Jesus go to Hell? Is that just?
• Can people who never hear about Jesus go to Heaven?
• If God gave us intelligence, wouldn’t he want us to examine our beliefs with reason?

Category: Dealing with religious folks, Tract | Tags: | 1 Comment »

What God never did

ok I would like to startby saying that no I am not an atheist. I am a proud Chistian. And God never orderd Moses to kill babies or burn animals if he does show me where. We dont all believe in the pope or that atheists are satanic. I respest your beliefs i just dont agree with them there is a difference. And you didnt prove anything with your argument all you proved was how rude you are.

Glad to hear that you don’t think atheists are Satanic. For what it’s worth, atheists don’t think all Christians are wrongheaded.

When you refer to my arguments as rude, I assume you are talking about the site’s “Arguments against atheism” page. That page isn’t intended to be taken seriously.

Now, for the Bible questions, let’s start with the least distasteful one, God ordering Moses to burn an animal. Here’s one example:

Exodus 29:15-18: “Thou shalt also take one ram; and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the ram. And thou shalt slay the ram, and thou shalt take his blood, and sprinkle it round about upon the altar. And thou shalt cut the ram in pieces, and wash the inwards of him, and his legs, and put them unto his pieces, and unto his head. And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar: it is a burnt offering unto the LORD: it is a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.”

Moses and his people killed children on many occasions, pretty obviously with God’s blessing. One case in which it seems pretty clear to me that this under God’s orders:

Deuteronomy 3:2-7: “And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves.”

If we can look to folks other than Moses to confirm that this is not a misreading of God’s intentions::

1 Samual 15: 2-3: “Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

Category: Bible | Tags: | 1 Comment »

Tract #22: What Can We Conclude from Ignorance?

Tract #22, What Can We Conclude from Ignorance?, is ready for you to download and review. Download it, see page #3 for printing instructions, and let me know your comments! Thanks!

022_ignorance.pdf

One common difference between atheists and theists is evident in the different ways that they handle ignorance. You might say that theists sometimes treat ignorance as evidence for something, while atheists don’t treat it as evidence at all.

Perhaps the most common example of this difference involves how theists and atheists treat the Big Bang.

Both atheists and theists agree that our universe is not timeless but rather began with the Big Bang. But the Big Bang brings with it a question: what came before the Big Bang?

A theist might argue that only God is sufficient to create a universe since we know of no physical process with that kind of power. We have no way of telling what came before the Big Bang, and since it is possible that the universe’s creation was supernatural in nature and we have proof of no natural explanation, the Big Bang is evidence for the existence of God.

An atheist looks at the situation rather differently.

An atheist might agree that if God existed, God might create a universe, but an atheist would also admit that since we have next to no information on what existed before the Big Bang it’s impossible to draw any conclusions about it.

Everything that exists that we have been able to investigate in details seems to be fully explainable naturalistically, so relying on past experience it is reasonable to expect that when we are able to investigate what came before the Big Bang we will find nothing supernatural. But until such time as more information is available, the atheist is fine with having no certainty about where our universe came from. Being right is more important than being certain.

Let’s look at another example of this type of thinking (inspired by the book Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men).

Every year, there are hundreds of people who see unidentified flying objects (UFOs). What percentage of these unidentified lights are attributable to the work of demonic forces?

Assume that an atheist and a theist working together investigate 1,000 UFO sightings. In 98% of the cases, they are able to find reasonable natural explanations for the sighting, but in 2% of the cases there is not enough information to reach any definite conclusions.

From this, the atheist might conclude that since 98% of cases have natural explanations, those cases that cannot be readily explained likely also have natural explanations that we are unable to discover. Since no evidence of demon-caused UFOs has been found, that hypothesis can be put aside as highly unlikely.

On the other hand, the theist might conclude that since 2% of the UFOs cannot be explained and we cannot rule out supernatural causes, as many as 2% of UFOs are caused by demons.

The problem with the theistic point of view is that it opens the door for any conceivable supernatural explanation whenever something is unknown. And when you’re dealing with something that does not obey natural laws and cannot be scientifically investigated, such explanations may quickly become unfalsifiable and therefore useless.

Category: Tract | Tags: | Be the First to Comment »

Tract #21: Should I Follow the Golden Rule

Tract #21, Should I Follow the Golden Rule?, is ready for you to download and review. Download it, see page #3 for printing instructions, and let me know your comments! Thanks!

021_golden-rule.pdf

The Golden Rule states that you should treat others in the way you would like them to treat you. This sounds like a good piece of ethical advice, but should the moral atheist rely on it?

The Golden Rule has been around for centuries and it has been used in one form or another in many cultures. Unfortunately, it has a problems.

Because it is a little vague, the Golden Rule has the potential to be misleading. For example, by a literal reading of the Golden Rule:

If parents would not want to be treated like children, they should not treat their young offspring like children.

If a man wants a woman to hug him, he should hug her.

A Christian should treat an atheist like a Christian (and vice versa).

A woman should treat a man like a woman.

A masochist should act like a sadist.

A self-destructive person should attack people.

Some of these examples point out that projecting your desires onto other people isn’t always the correct path to acceptable behavior. This is because the Golden Rule deals only with behavior and not with the thought behind that behavior.

Perhaps the Golden Rule would be more globally valid if it were phrased, “You should treat others in the way you would like them to treat you if you were in their place.” That’s a little more difficult to wrap your head around, but it leads to far fewer problems.

Category: Morality, Tract | Tags: | 2 Comments »

Tract #20: Can You Prove There’s No God

Tract #20, Can You Prove There’s No God?, is ready for you to download and review. Download it, see page #3 for printing instructions, and let me know your comments! Thanks!

020_no-god.pdf

Can an atheist prove that deities do not exist? There are a number of reasons an atheist might conclude that neither God nor any other deity exists, and those reasons might be logical, philosophical, linguistic, scientific, social, or faith based/emotional.

Logical reasons include the belief that deities are logically impossible. For example, you might argue that it is impossible for something to be at once infinitely good, omniscient, and omnipotent. But at best this only proves that any deities that exist don’t have those qualities.

Philosophical reasons include the belief that deities could not possibly exist because, for example, the existence of evil proves that there is no infinite force for good. But religion has a number of counters for such arguments, and since religion is defining the terms here, it has a good chance of not being disproved in this way.

Linguistic reasons include the belief that God cannot even be discussed because nobody can really define the word “God.” But does this argument prove that nothing we would refer to as a deity exists, or does it at most prove that people lack the ability to describe or conceive of something that, if it exists, they would label “God”?

Scientific reasons include the belief that deities do not exist because science can explain everything without invoking them. But at most this proves that deities are not scientifically required or that they have created a universe that follows strict physical rules.

Social reasons include the belief that religious traditions are unreliable because they developed over the centuries in the same way stories we now consider myths developed. But proving something unreliable doesn’t prove it false.

Faith-based/emotional reasons include the belief that God does not exist because you just know there’s no such thing. Such an argument is not compelling to those who don’t share your feelings.

It is generally impossible to prove that something absolutely does not exist — particularly, in this case, because there is the possibility that a deity exists that you have not (or cannot) even conceive of.

Does this mean that atheists have to make allowances for the possibility that deities exist? Not at all.

It may not be possible to prove with absolute certainty that there are no deities, but if there are neither compelling arguments nor apparent necessity for their existence, then the moral atheist can conclude that the existence of deities is so unlikely that we should go ahead and behave as if there is no chance they exist. To do otherwise would be to open ourselves to having to make allowances for any vanishingly possible thing that anyone can come up with, and that’s no way to lead a rational life.

Category: Evidence, Tract | Tags: | Be the First to Comment »

Tract #19: Does God Exist?

Tract #19, Does God Exist?, is ready for you to download and review. Download it, see page #3 for printing instructions, and let me know your comments! Thanks!

019_does-god-exist.pdf

Does God Exist? There are a number of reasons you might conclude that God exists, and those reasons might be logical, philosophical, linguistic, scientific, social, historical, or faith-based.

Logical reasons include the “first cause” argument or the argument that infinite time spans cannot exist. Atheists have excellent counter arguments for all of these.

Philosophical reasons include the argument that moral laws require a lawgiver or that there can be no justice without divine justice. Atheists either disagree with these arguments or find that they include assumptions that atheists don’t share.

Linguistic reasons to believe that God exist include statements like, “nature is God.” To an atheist, this is just a word game — it makes “God” almost meaningless.

Scientific reasons include things like concluding that God must exist because the odds of the universe existing without divine planning are vanishingly small, or that God must exist because there is no possible scientific explanation for existence. Atheists either disagree with the science invoked, or believe that the argument is creating a “God of the gaps” by replacing ignorance with a deity instead of with research.

Social reasons include beliefs based on tradition or the assumption that a popular belief is likely true. Atheists don’t consider either of these sufficient reasons to believe in something as significant and disjoint from human experience as an all-powerful being.

Historical reasons include the belief that ancient texts contain proof that God exists. Atheists don’t believe these texts to be reliable on the subject.

Faith-based reasons include belief based on a strong, personal conviction or sense that God exists. Atheists do not have these convictions or sensations.

If you say that you have a compelling argument for the existence of God, what would you do if someone came up with a bulletproof refutation of the argument? Would you then change your mind about God’s existence or would you just look for another argument to support your belief in God? If you would not change your mind, then is your argument really your reason for belief, or is it a justification you use when in truth you would believe in God for other reasons? And if your belief is based on something other than your argument, then why use the argument in the first place?

This is one of the places where moral atheism diverges most from religion. Given a sufficiently powerful argument, the moral atheist would consider a change in position on the existence of God. Most religious people are not open to the possibility of such a significant change in their beliefs.

Category: Evidence, Tract | Tags: | Be the First to Comment »

Tract #18: Isn’t Atheism Depressing?

Tract #18, Isn’t Atheism Depressing?, is ready for you to download and review. Download it, see page #3 for printing instructions, and let me know your comments! Thanks!

018_depressing.pdf

Some theists feel that atheism is a depressing philosophy. Some even go so far as to ask questions like, “How can you believe in something that is so hopeless?”

There are two mistaken beliefs at work here. The first is the belief that whether a philosophy is depressing or uplifting is somehow an indicator of whether it is worth believing. This only makes sense if we are choosing a philosophy based on how it makes us feel instead of based on whether it is true or not.

Atheism might have components — like lack of an afterlife — that some people find depressing, but that does nothing to prove that atheism isn’t true. At best, it proves that reality is depressing.

But is it depressing?

The second mistaken belief is that atheism is a negative world view. It is true that atheism does not incorporate a chance at eternal bliss, a divine power watching over us, a guarantee of ultimate justice, or a divine plan for humanity, but the lack of these things does not imply that life is depressing, pointless, or hopeless.

Atheists understand that life ends, but this does not make atheists fatalist. Rather, it gives life that much more importance. Life is a thing to be treasured and used wisely.

Knowing that there is no protecting divinity or guardian angel watching over us does not make the atheist feel insecure or hopeless. Instead, it emphasizes how well we must care for what we have, carefully consider our actions, and master our own fate, so far as that is possible.

A lack of guaranteed justice impels atheists to create a just world instead of relaxing in the knowledge that punishment is supernaturally meted out to wrongdoers for eternity after they are gone.

That humanity was not created for some grand metaphysical purpose does not make life pointless, but rather shows us that we need to create meaning in our own lives.

Are atheists sometimes saddened by the thought that there are no guarantees and that life will one day come to an end? Yes. But atheists would rather face these realities head on than believe something that, though comforting, may be nothing more than wishful thinking or fairy stories.

Category: Atheists' problems, Tract | Tags: | Be the First to Comment »

Tract #17: Should I Follow the Ten Commandments?

Tract #17, Should I Follow the Ten Commandments?, is ready for you to download and review. Download it, see page #3 for printing instructions, and let me know your comments! Thanks!

017_ten-commandments.pdf

The The Commandments, as described in the Biblical books of Exodus and Deuteronomy, is an icon of moral law. Some religious people would go so far as to say that they are the foundation or the definition of morality.

Obviously, an atheist doesn’t feel compelled to obey commands in the Bible in general, but should a moral atheist obey the Ten Commandments simply because they are a good guideline for morality?

The first four commandments — have no other gods, make no idols, don’t take God’s name in vain, and keep the sabbath — have very little meaning to an atheist. An atheist believes in neither gods nor idols, and sees no day as holy, so almost by definition cannot break the first, second, and fourth commandments. An atheist might use bad language, but cannot be showing God disrespect by cursing in His name since the atheist doesn’t think that God exists in the first place (and you can’t meaningfully disrespect someone you don’t believe exists).

Is there a good argument for following these commandments for purely secular reasons? One might argue against cursing because it is rude or might offend others, but aside from that, it’s hard to argue that one must obey these commandments to be considered moral.

The fifth commandment is a command of respect toward parents. This is a good idea, but a moral atheist could argue that some parents don’t deserve respect, or that a moral person should respect everyone who has made sacrifices for the atheist’s benefit.

The next three commandments — against murdering, committing adultery, and stealing — most people would agree are excellent ones (so long as we define our terms carefully).

The command against bearing false witness is also a good one, but a moral atheist might argue that it doesn’t go far enough — condemning lying only in a certain context instead of in general.

The Ten Commandments ends with rules against coveting a neighbor’s wife or possessions. A moral atheist likely doesn’t see merely wanting something as a moral failure (although it might be evidence of a character flaw), and might argue that if wanting something is bad, then it should be bad regardless of whether the person whose thing you want is your neighbor or not.

The Ten Commandments are also insufficient as a yardstick of morality because they do not condemn many practices that are generally considered immoral (spousal abuse, kidnapping, torture, rape, incest, indecency, cannibalism, mistreating animals, etc.) You might argue that these are implied by the Ten Commandments (kidnapping is stealing, rape is adultery, incest is disrespecting a parent, euthanasia is murder, etc.), but this seems to be pushing a point.

So for the moral atheist, the Ten Commandments might be an important historical document, and it might be something to ponder while developing an ethical system, but it is not a good stand-alone solution for living a moral life.

Category: Morality, Tract | Tags: | 1 Comment »

Tract #16: Is Atheism a Religion?

Tract #16, Is Atheism a Religion?, is ready for you to download and review. Download it, see page #3 for printing instructions, and let me know your comments! Thanks!

016_atheism-a-religion.pdf

Is atheism a religion? Can atheists speak against religion without speaking against themselves? If atheism is not a religion, is it still legally protected?

Let’s start with what religion is. Dictionary.com defines religion as, “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

Let’s take these elements one at a time.

A set of beliefs. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity and nothing more. If it is a set of beliefs, it is an empty set.

Concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheists generally stick with science on the cause and nature of the universe, so atheism would not be a religion on these grounds unless science is also a religion. Atheists do not believe that a purpose has been given to the universe, so the atheist belief about the universe’s purpose is that there isn’t one.

Creation of a superhuman agency. Not something an atheist believes in.

Devotional and ritual observances. Atheists have no being to be devotional to, but some do participate in ritual observances as part of their culture or for a feeling of community.

A moral code. Atheism does not have a moral code of its own. Such things are up to the individual atheist.

Because atheism fails to meet most of the criteria in the definition of a religion, it would seem to not be a religion. The only way to consider atheism a religion would be to define religion as any set of beliefs about the nature of the universe, no matter where they come from. But to do that would be to invite the possibility of astronomy or physics being classified as a religion, and that clearly would be problematic.

Legal issues

If atheism is not a religion, is it protected by the U.S. Constitution, which bans the government from making laws concerning the establishment of religion? Or may the government promote religion so long as it does not promote one religion over another?

Not having religion is a decision about religion, even though it is not a religion in and of itself. For this reason, atheism should be protected under the Constitution even though it is not a religion. Similarly, if there were a constitutional requirement that the government not interfere with individuals’ choice of a car, the government could not pass a law requiring people to purchase a car, since having no car is a legitimate automobile choice.

Category: About atheism, Tract | Tags: | Be the First to Comment »