1. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39626 by Jessie on May 11, 2007 at 10:54 am

3legcat - My problem with Doug's reasoning is alluded to in your last statement. You state that we can and will get past these problems, and I agree - we can. And it will, indeed, be difficult.

However, people like Doug seem to think that, without some external God, we may as well "quit" and let anarchy rule.

First: let us not forget that, if the existence of a man in the sky allows some to more easily come up with a moral code, that does not make him real.

There's no evidence for a caring God that really concerns itself with us. Therefore, we must rely on human empathy and reasoning to guide us, because that is all we have. Ultimately, we (and this earth) are all that matters, because that's all that CAN matter. We - all of us humans - are stuck here together, and we must make the best of this situation. Since this is our only chance at existence, we must at least try to make it bearable for everyone, because even in this material world, we all have unique minds, even if we don't know why. We do matter...we're all that even can matter, for now.

2. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39472 by Jessie on May 10, 2007 at 7:47 pm

I wish you logical, evidence based atheists would stop picking on these religious guys for their "wooley-headed" responses. Cut them a little slack, people. How else are they supposed to respond?

I suppose you have a point. They more or less have to defend the indefensible. I sure wouldn't be able to defend the idea that the Bible should be taken seriously as a moral guide, that having to live under this repulsive God character would be a positive thing and not similar to living in North Korea, and that non-believers deserve eternal torment. At first I figured that most religions are simply false; the more I think about it, the more revolting they seem as well. The common claim is that we should be happy that we can be saved through Christ. How could I ever be happy if I knew so many of my fellow humans would have such a fate? The majority of people on earth are not Christian, and not being Christian does not represent some kind of moral failure.

I'm also scratching my head at their bizarre claim that if we're made of molecules, then nothing matters or has meaning. Somehow, I've been able to live on and fulfill some of my goals without believing in God. Meaning is so subjective, anyway. I think that we should all make our own meanings by doing the things we find fulfilling, be it writing, raising a family, volunteering or ~whatever~. I'm not sure what the meaning of life under the Christian worldview is anyway.

3. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39373 by Jessie on May 10, 2007 at 12:38 pm

The second I saw that Wilson and Hitchens were corresponding, I thought, "How long will it be before Wilson brings up his whole 'according to atheists, we are just atoms, or chemical reactions.' argument."

And, hey, he didn't disappoint. His solipsistic arguments are so predictable. Is he incapable of understanding, that even in a materialist world, that the rest of us have minds and are capable of experiencing pain and suffering? Yes, we don't know what exactly produces our subjective experiences, but that does not mean there is not explanation. Can't he understand that the rest of us normal people generally can't stand seeing innocent people suffer, and that's why we behave morally? I'm beginning to think he may be a psychopath, or incapable of empathy. To a normal, empathetic being, the reasons as to why we shouldn't rape or murder are immediately obvious.

I like how Hitchens compares the world under a Christian worldview to the current situation in North Korea. I've always said that most totalitarian dictators are very "Godlike," in that they demand total adoration and torture those who don't revere them unconditionally. God goes one step further and torments those he's displeased with beyond the grave.

I noticed that Wilson also dodged the point regarding the absolutely revolting concept of eternal punishment for those who chose the wrong religion. Deep down, any sane person knows that the whole idea of eternal torture for non-Christians is utterly insane. I suspect a lot of Christians feel this way, but that they won't say so or have to do all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify this belief, because they fear Hell.

But they don't have to! There's no evidence it exists, but there are plenty of reasons to believe that the idea of Hell is a hold over from other mythologies. Furthermore, it's a useful punishment for authority figures to threaten masses of people with to keep them subservient and afraid. It's no coincidence that the two most widespread religions have a Hell for non-believers. What better way to win converts? Threaten all sorts of horrid things to those who don't convert!

Edit: Ooh, there's a part two.

A choice quote from Hitchens:

The existence or otherwise of an indifferent cosmos (the overwhelmingly probable state of the case) would no more reduce our mutual human obligations than would the quite weird theory of a celestial dictatorship,whether Aztec or Muslim or (as you seem to insist) Christian. The sole difference is that we would be acting out of obligation toward others out of mutual interest and sympathy but without the impulse of terrifying punishment or selfish reward. Some of us can handle this thought and some, evidently, cannot. I have a slight suspicion as to which is more moral.

4. The Damned

Comment #37947 by Jessie on May 6, 2007 at 11:29 am

Nice. I've never been able to understand why Muslims and Christians think their belief systems give life meaning and are so uplifting. Any system that results in billions of people being tortured for eternity is the most extreme opposite of "uplifting."

I love bringing the whole concept of Hell up when I encounter rabid believers. None have been able to explain why eternal torture is necessary for unbelievers. That's because it's a sadistic and insane concept and they know it, deep down inside.

5. Sam's Flea!

Comment #36911 by Jessie on May 2, 2007 at 6:56 pm

The suggestion here appears to be that the posters on this site are at least functionally illiterate as a result of the lack of money spent by the [American] government to combat illiteracy. Not only are the posters similar to the medieval audience that Aquinas had, but apparently the government(s) spent more money combating illiteracy during the dark ages. Hmmmmmm. There are sharper ways to make the point that we are dumbasses.

I find it extremely ironic that he wrote that. Once some points were brought up here that he could not counter, he gave us a terrible metaphor involving soda and left. And I am supposed to be illiterate? Interesting!

Oh! He cannot really counter what Hitchens says either, so here he goes with the whole "atoms banging around" thing again:

Atoms bang around. Some of them bang around in my skull and generate feelings of love for Jesus Christ. Some others, doing exactly the same kind of thing, bounce around in Hitchens' skull and produce an opposing sentiment. Neither of us thinks the way we do because our claims are true, for pity's sake.

He's really having a hard time countering Hitchens. He really needs to study some very basic human anatomy, physiology, and neurology if he can't understand how the action of atoms gives humans their sensory abilities.

It's true that neuroscientists haven't solved the problem as to what produces our subjective experiences and thoughts. That does not mean there is no explanation.

Since Wilson seems to think there is some incorporeal mind separate from the body that God gave us, I wonder why brain damage, drugs and seizures produce changes to our behavior and sensory experiences? Wilson could not answer that one for me.

Edit: Oh my, there's more. His countering of what Hitchens has written are sad. See http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=3849

He really doesn't get why pedophilia is wrong if God does not prohibit it.

Also, him wanting there to be a God and a Hell so he can find some way to justify his moral beliefs does not suddenly make God and Hell real. It's frightening to think that there are people out there who, should they ever realize that Hell is just as mythical as the Greek Hades, would cease to understand why deeply traumatizing a child is a horrid thing to do.

Hitchens points out how sadistic it is of certain Christians to delight in the fact that there's a Hell where most of humanity suffers for all eternity. The whole doctrine of Hell is horrid to me; it's the main thing that started my whole breaking away from Christianity.

Anyway, I noted that Wilson just dodges the whole point. Hitchens doesn't think that most people are going to be tortured for eternity. Wilson does. He's the one who should have to explain why eternal torture is supposedly a just punishment for a person who chose the wrong religion.

I've figured for a while that preaching about Hell seems like an ideal way for authority figures to frighten and keep people in line. I do not think it's a coincidence that the two major religions with the most adherents - Christianity and Islam - have a Hell where non-believers go. Wilson seems to think this is the primary reason to be Christian: you'll go to Hell if you don't! It's also his primary justification for morality and meaning.

Also, if Wilson and other Christians cannot find meaning in a life without the thoroughly evil, malevolent, and utterly sadistic God of the Bible, that does not make this God real.

Why do I call this God those things? It's because he finds it necessary to torture - for eternity - anyone who is not Christian. Eternal torture is worse than death or complete annihilation. God wouldn't have to do this utterly reprehensible thing to anyone - he's GOD after all - but we are to believe he does.

Why the existence of such a being would give anyone's life meaning is beyond me. I do not need the threat of Hell to not commit violent acts, and I could not worship such a being. No one deserves any punishment for picking the wrong religious belief, let alone torture for eternity. I do suppose people could pretend they were worshipping such a being out of a fear of Hell, but deep down any sane person will come to the realization that the whole idea of a Hell for non-believers is utterly insane.

And, no one has any proof there is such a place.

6. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33480 by Jessie on April 20, 2007 at 10:08 am

2. For Darwinists who disagree with Provine and think that the life and death of a human being is more significant than the life and death of an animal, what is the basis for your disagreement? What are the grounds, consistent with Darwinism, for saying that the life and death of a human being is ultimately more significant than the life and death of a mosquito?

The life of a human is more significant. A mosquito barely has a mind, whereas a human being is self-conscious, intelligent, thoughtful, has goals for his/her life, and people who would deeply mourn his/her passing.

Yes, I know, you can ask me why all those things make us good and more worthy than a mosquito. Why don't they? Why should we need God, or some external power, to tell us that other humans deserve respect and to be treated humanely?

Does the God of the Bible even care for humanity? I don't think so. He murdered many innocent children when the Pharaoh wouldn't release slaves, and surely many innocent children died in the flood. Doesn't he condemn all people who disbelieve in him to eternal torture? Where's the love in that? That's horrible. If this character is to be our moral guide, then no thank you.

Obviously, he could get upset because he recognizes that I'm speaking obliquely about the killing of six million Jews by the Nazis during the Holocaust. But that's an emotional response, not a rational scientific response. What I would like to know is a basis for his reaction that is consistent with what he said about the necessary implications of Darwinism.

What's wrong with an emotional response? I'd worry about anyone who could discuss a horrid atrocity like the Holocaust without any emotion.

Why do we need God to worthy of humane treatment? It should be obvious that we are very different than mosquitos. And if "evolutionary theory" doesn't "like" that I feel that way, it can jump in the lake. No one should be using evolutionary theory as a moral guide. It's like using organic chemistry as a moral guide. That makes no sense.

7. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33477 by Jessie on April 20, 2007 at 9:50 am

But Wilson does have a heart. His fellow Christian reconstructionists want homosexuality to be a crime punishable by death, just like in the Bible. Doug says that's not necessary. It's OK to execute them, Wilson says, but we have the option of exiling them, too.

That's absolutely horrible. Executing homosexuals? And he thinks that slavery is okay under some conditions?

And he wants to preach about morality to the rest of us? See, this is why I don't think that morality should come from the Bible. Under it, we'd kill people, and enslave others.

It's interesting how Wilson condemns certain parts of slavery for being unbiblical. Who cares if beating your slaves is Biblical or not? It's a horrible thing to do, no matter what any old book says!

8. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33336 by Jessie on April 19, 2007 at 10:29 pm

And when I have made that point, you bet I'm done, because the argument's done. Put a fork in it. And if there is no God, it is not a metaphor. Shake up two bottles of soda and put them on a table where everyone can see them. Let them both fizz over like crazy. Which one is winning the debate? Dawkins or me?

You're not making any sense. That's a very interesting cop-out; I'll give you that. That's a totally new one. I should try that at my PhD defence. The professors ask me a question, and I'll just shake pop at them.

"Oh yeah! Well, look at that! I guess I'm right! See, nothing exists! It's all an illusion! I'm not here, you're not here, it's all fake! Hahahah! We all might as well be bottles of coke, since we're made of atoms!"

Wait; no, that would be incredibly goofy and everyone would question my sanity.

Dawkins' isn't saying anything here; I'm sure he has better things to do.

By the way, if, as you think, the brain does not do anything, why do brain injuries often alter a person's perceptions, and cognitive abilities? If I'm not made of molecules, just what am I made of?

Anyway, from your perspective - or anyone's -, we're not, um, bottles of pop, so why bow out of a debate? Or are you incapable of refuting anything I - or anyone else here - says?

9. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33316 by Jessie on April 19, 2007 at 9:14 pm

There's a reason nearly all human societies outlaw things like murder and theft within the group, because anarchy results if such things are allowed and societally unpunished. Society collapses and the benefits people derive from living in that society disappear. None of this has anything to do with any supernatural order.

Sure. I can think of plenty of evolutionary advantages for not murdering or not stealing in animals that must live in large social groups. Most animal societies have basic "laws" that the animals follow. Chimps in a troup, for instance, tend not to constantly attack each other. And, animals that break the laws are often punished by the other animals.

And so it goes with people. However, humans, having language, are probably the only animals that sit and reflect on the fact that we all frown upon assault, or rape, or murder. But there's no need to invoke the supernatural for our collective displeasure with these practises. They're the result of the fact that we're very social animals and must have rules in our societies. Otherwise, the society would not work, and we'd all be solitary and would miss out on the benefits of group living.

Now, obviously, humans do kill each other, especially in war, and negative things like racism are common in human societies. None of this is Satan's doing or anything like that. It's not odd for groups of primates - chimps especially - to go to "war" with a neighbouring group. Most primates are suspicious of outsiders, as a lot of humans are. If one reads about chimp society, it actually is quite stunning how similar our societies are.

Of course, we also seem very different. Again, humans have evolved language, so we can now think about whether killing is right or wrong. We also have a "theory of mind" - that is, we can infer the mental states of others and are capable of empathy. It's debateable as to whether or not animals have true empathy or whether they simply react to another animal's body language without worrying about what the other animal is thinking.

At any rate, humans can reflect on whether we "should" kill, and we, due to our relatively large brains, can worry about what others are thinking and we can feel empathy. It shouldn't be hard to see why the ability to imagine what another's mental state is like would be an advantage for a social animal.

Our mirror neurons actually probably have a lot to do with our ability to feel empathy as well. Most of us cringe and feel bad when we see another person in pain. Our mirror neurons fire in our "pain" areas of the brain when we see such a thing. So, we don't want to hurt someone. It hurts us to do so.

Of course, some people do hurt others when angry, or under the influence of mind-altering drugs. And some people - sociopaths - don't feel empathy at all. Humans are ultra-complex creatures. Answers to things like why we feel empathy, why people sometimes do bad things, and so on, will never have simple answers. But I don't think we need to invoke the supernatural to explain our thoughts and feelings on morality.

10. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33223 by Jessie on April 19, 2007 at 3:56 pm

I'm not that type of atheist, and I'm starting to see why we get labeled "fundamentalists" by religious apologists. I'm also sick of being called that. I think it's great that Mr. Robertson and Mr. Wilson have dropped by here, and I hope we can all invite them to talk. If we're right, then what are we afraid of?

Yeah, I'm not seeing what purpose name-calling serves. I'm certainly not afraid of anything.

I do want to point out, though, that if you go on most internet message boards, you're going to find a lot of very snarky people. It doesn't matter if the board is on pets, religion, politics, or whatever...

No one should judge a community or group of people (atheists, Christians, Republicans, Democrats, etc.) by what's posted by its members on message boards. Most people - including me - are way more combative on message boards than in real life, because on the internet, you cannot see the person you're arguing with.

11. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32928 by Jessie on April 18, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Lets take a breath here. Not once did I say I was a theist. In my first post to this article I made it clear that I resented the theist assumption that God was the only possible objective standard of morality.

Yeah, sorry, I noticed that and edited out some stuff in my posts, but you repsonded before I edited.

12. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32923 by Jessie on April 18, 2007 at 5:56 pm

This is not a case for objectivity. The fact that "almost all humans" agree on something does not make it objectively true. There is another level we need to get at, a deeper standard. Are you arguing that human consensus is evidence of some objective standard (i.e. there must be something objectively immoral about causing pain if so many people agree), or are you saying that causing pain is objectively immoral BECAUSE everyone agrees? The latter is a subjective moral theory.

Fine. Let's hear your ideas on ethics. Or do you figure that if a few people on a message board can't come up with something totally objective, we all may as well just allow all sorts of atrocities to occur? What's your point, exactly? Why isn't pain an objective thing? Define to me what you mean by objective.

13. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32898 by Jessie on April 18, 2007 at 4:21 pm

There is a deeper question here. The physical reality of pain does not necessarily have anything to do with the objective immorality of causing pain. The deeper question is what makes causing pain objectively immoral?

Pretty much any creature with a sufficiently advanced nervous system will behave in a way that helps it avoid pain. It's in most creature's interests to avoid it. Almost all humans agree that pain - physical or mental - is a negative state that should be avoided.

Now I know that most Christians like to think that it all goes back to God - God says rape or assault or murder is bad. But wait! Why would God think that causing unneeded pain is bad? Drat! Now what?

14. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32893 by Jessie on April 18, 2007 at 4:12 pm

I would like to say to his question of what to say to a rapist. Why not quite simply state that obvious that he is hurting women, and appeal to empathy.

Sure. If our rapist is a sociopath, and has no empathy, remind him that he'll be jailed for what he's going to do.

15. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32889 by Jessie on April 18, 2007 at 4:06 pm

And Jessie, on the rape issue, it was Sam Harris who thought that rape may have had an evolutionary advantage for our ancestors (LTACN, p. 91). He doesn't think that it would be all that beneficial anymore, but my point was not that we need God to tell us to abstain from this behavior. The issue is, as I would want to ask Harris, what made evolution change its mind about the benefits of rape?

Evolution did not change it's mind. Most humans did.

And with regard to your question, no, most people don't need God to tell them not to rape people. But that is not the point. My point is, rather, that, absent God, if someone decides to live that way, what can an atheist use to appeal to him? Especially, as I point out in my book, if the rapist is near the end of his life, and no regrets. Anything wrong with that?

The law. Rape someone - go to jail.

Why are there laws against rape? Well, it produces long lasting phyiscal & mental pain to a person. You think that's a subjective criterion? It's not - pain is a real phenomenon.

That's why almost anyone would say it's wrong, and it seems to work. A society where rape was allowed wouldn't, most people would agree, be a pleasant one at all. That's why we have laws against it.

Also, I could lie to the rapist who's near the end of his life - if this theoretical person even has the strength to do something like that - and tell him he'll go to Hell. But there's no such thing.

16. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32884 by Jessie on April 18, 2007 at 3:59 pm

"You are a hodge-podge of neuron-firings looking into an abyss which you only think you understand. You don't really understand it because you are not thinking at all, but rather doing what chemicals always do under those conditions and at that temperature" (p. 99).

Okay. I'm not really bothered by the fact that I'm made of molecules and that my various mental states are the result of the actions of neurons and neurotransmitters in my brain. Even if I didn't like it, that's the way things are. It's a very inescapable conclusion from studying neuroscience & behavior.

If you do not think that's the way things are, please explain why damage to the brain, or drugs that interfere with hormones or neurotransmitters, can alter a person's thoughts or behavior.

Now, whether or not humans have free will in a materialist world is a major philosophical problem. For an arguement that humans do have free will, from an atheist, read Daniel Dennet's Freedom Evolves. Why don't you write a reply to his recent book, Breaking the Spell? I noticed that most theists don't like to touch that one.

17. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32874 by Jessie on April 18, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Hey, everyone. Thanks for discussing my new book, Letter from a Christian Citizen, and thanks to the poster who pointed out that these things go better if you actually read what you are discussing. For those are are interested, I did a series of blog posts interacting with The God Delusion also, which can be found at http://www.dougwils.com in the Archives. It is listed under The Odd Delusion.
Also, Lord willing and the creek don't rise, I hope to do the same thing with Christopher Hitchen's book when it comes out.

I, for one, made it clear that I was responding to the radio program, which I actually listened to. I have not read Sam Harris' or your book.

But, whatever. Regarding what you said in the radio program, do you really think that we (most humans) need God to tell us not to rape and murder?

18. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32818 by Jessie on April 18, 2007 at 10:21 am

You have to give the guy credit though. He actually read Harris' book, while all you guys just gawk at his. He's actually responding to words written in LtaCN, while y'all are just pretending to interact with him. You aren't helping the atheist ethos. He's shown more goodwill at this point than any atheist could rationally or consistently muster.

What goodwill? In his interview, he compares atheists to Nazis and he seems to think that we are all evil, unfeeling, and muderous. His view on humanity also seems far bleaker than any atheistic view, given that he thinks we need an ancient book to tell us that murder, rape and genocide are wrong.

Also, generally speaking, comparing one's foes to a bunch of genocidal maniacs (the Nazis) is not a good way to foster any sort of dialogue.

Furthermore, atheism is not an ethos. It's also silly to judge all atheists based on a few people posting on a message board. We're only united by a lack of belief in God. That's all.

And how is he helping his viewpoint by suggesting that the only reason he doesn't rape and murder is that God supposedly says not to? Frankly, I don't want to listen to anyone who'd rape and murder if it weren't for the Bible. Luckily, I realize most Christians are not that warped.

Maybe religion needs to be around to restrain immoral people like Wilson. I actually get a little scared when I think what would happen in America without religion. Many of these people are violent nutjobs with their god looking down on them, what kind of harm would they do if that god disappeared?

Maybe it is needed as a form of crowd control (which is what George Carlin called it). It's kind of scary to think that some people need the Bible to tell them that rape is wrong. Then again, I guess that's why we have secular laws.

Does the Bible even teach that rape is bad, anyway? God himself sanctions both rape and murder in the Old Testament. "God" himself actually murders innocent children several times in there as well.

What I found more surprising were the ads. Seriously scary stuff. What more born again christians need, apparantly, is a 'biblical world view'

The ads are scary. If you want to hear more of this, pick up a shortwave radio and have a listen. Shortwave broadcasts aren't regulated by anyone, so you get to hear what extreme fundamentalists think, without any broadcasting company to keep them in line.

I like how they (in the ads) think they need to fight secular humanism, like it's some horrid thing. I find that funny, since humanism is based on protecting human rights and promoting humane ideals. Oh no!

Well, how exactly can you have objective morality without some objective standard?

Ethics is a major branch of philosophy and many ethicists have come up with systems that are not based on the Bible. There's no way I can describe them here - get thineself to a library and get reading.

19. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32768 by Jessie on April 18, 2007 at 8:05 am

Just curious (but don't wanna waste time on the interview): Did Gary DeMar "demolish the army of straw men raised by this predictable scat" then?

Nope. This is pretty bad, actually, even for Christian talk radio. They first note that atheists have no reason to be moral because we're all gonna be dead in 200 years. Why don't they realize that atheists can have empathy? Pain is a very real thing, so it's not illogical to attempt to minimize it in oneself and others. I wonder if these guys realize that there's a rather large body of literature devoted to ethics that does not mention God?

They also seem to think that because atheists figure that most critters are the ultimate result of evolution via natural selection, we're all a bunch of social darwinists. Ugh. I don't know of a single evolutionary biologist or atheist who's a social darwinist. Evolution is what happens in nature; it's not a moral philosophy or system of government. Using natural selection as a basis of law or government is like using gravity as one. It makes no sense.

Now, they're arguing that Sam Harris is all wrong because human thoughts are just complex chemical reactions. Well, what I'd like to know, if thoughts don't arise from the brain and from the action of neurons & neurotransmitters (which they seem to think a Christian worldview suggests), and if there's some sort of incorporeal mind separate from the brain, why do drugs, brain injuries, and seizures produce visible and notable affects on someone's thoughts and/or behavior? They don't go on and explain why thoughts & visual/auditory observations become invalid if they're the result of material processes.

Okay, now they're going on to morality. Oh, this is just painful to listen to. Now we atheists are evil & bad people for not believing in heaven. They're arguing that "morality" is an exclusively Christian domain. Only theists have morality, because morality comes from God - God tells us not to murder, so only Christians have a good reason not to do this. Ugh!

Now, how is that even moral? I'd say that the truly moral person is the one who is kind because he wants to be and because he's empathetic, not because he's afraid of punishment from God.

Now he says that he can't be sure that Nazis are wrong without the Bible. We also, apparently, cannot know that rape is wrong without checking with the Bible. Huh. I'd say it's wrong because it can deeply harm and traumatize another person, and if someone cannot understand that arguement, then they're the one with the problem, not I. God or not, humans & many animals are capable of physical and mental pain, and it's a perfectly logical thing to attempt to minimize those.

So, Harris has nothing to worry about! These are the same old arguements. Frankly, these guys are making themselves sound like unempathetic thugs with their insistence that one needs the Bible to be a good moral person. Personally, I have no desire to harm other people and I do not need the threat of Hell, or commands from a cruel God, to tell me not to. I've come up against similar arguements in real life, and frankly, I find it insulting when Christians suggest that I'm so mentally and morally weak that I need some ancient holy book to tell me that murder is wrong.

20. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32325 by Jessie on April 16, 2007 at 9:30 pm

What would a world without God look like? Well, for one, morality becomes, if not impossible, exceedingly difficult. "Thou shalt not kill" loses much of its force when reduced from commandment to a suggestion. How inspiring can it be to wake in the morning, look in the mirror, and see an accident of evolutionary history — the end product of the random collision of molecules?

I'm getting tired and annoyed with this whole arguement. Do these people really think that the only reason not to murder people is that "God" says we shouldn't? What kind of morality is that? Personally, I really have no desire to murder anyone, despite my non-belief in God. Plus, you can have secular laws intended to protect people from murderers without Holy books being involved.

I'm not really bothered by the fact that my species evolved from another, non-human species. That's quite okay with me. Even if it weren't, that's just the way things are.

21. Kadra attacked in public

Comment #32255 by Jessie on April 16, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Many things have been said in other threads already and I am not going to warm the arguments up (FGM is not a typically Islamic tradition; Islam is not naturally more prone to be violent; Cultural relativism is not a black and white question but gradual and therefore you can favour it but oppose FGM at the same time; etc.).

If the best people can come up with in response to such an article is 'civic exams for immigrants' I think this is sad. If I want to discuss immigration I can go somewhere else (btw I am convinced that most of my compatriots would fail such an exam). This site is according to my understanding about reasoned arguments on religion and faith and not an anti-immigration platform. In general posters in this thread seem simply to be picking on a common enemy and not really making arguments.

I see more and more a 'with us or against us' mentality which does not belong into a 'Clear thinking Oasis'. It is a pity because there were often very thoughtful, sophisticated and good comments on this site. I am sure those people are still around. Unfortunately not in this thread.

I for one realize that not all Muslims practise female genital mutilation, and that many non-Muslims - particularly in Africa - do.

But, I'm not really seeing why condemning FGM - which I do unequivocally - means one is anti-immigration. I'm not at all anti-immigration. However, there is not one single reason to tolerate FGM. Not one. And you know, the vast majority of immigrants don't partake in this practise.

A lot of girls die from infections brought on from FGM, it's horribly painful (I would call it a form of torture), it brings no health benefits, and it often leaves women unable to enjoy sex. Additionally, girls who've been subjected to it, even in cultures where it's very common, often wind up displaying very severe symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. In its extreme forms, where the vagina is actually sewn up, FGM can make sex excrutiatingly painful the first time. So, are those arguements sophisticated enough for you?

It basically amounts to child torture in the name of "Tradition". There's no reason to practise it. In the case described above, the attackers apparently felt that there was a religious justification for the practise. That's just too bad for them. I hope they wind up in prison for what they've done, which is beat an innocent person to defend the torture of young girls.

22. Kadra attacked in public

Comment #32111 by Jessie on April 15, 2007 at 7:40 pm

Vile and disgusting, and if I hear one more post modernist relativist mumble and shout about the equality of culture, I'll puke.
Genital mutilation is horrific, no matter what a group of barbaric primitives fearing the power of women and sexuality think.

About six years ago, I took a course called "Anthropology of Gender," and the topic of female genital mutilation came up. I was quite stunned to hear otherwise rational people actually defend this practise because we in the West apparently have no right to condemn other cultures. Frankly, if the other cultures think that torturing children is alright, then, yes, we have every right to speak out against it. Female circumcision is morally indefensible. It's a barbaric, vile, disgusting practise that does not have to exist.

23. The Fifth Flea!

Comment #29961 by Jessie on April 5, 2007 at 6:44 pm

I am simply asking what are morals? How do we know what right and wrong is? Whilst your answer explains where you get your morals from (to some degree) they are a wholly inadequate intellectual foundation for morality. Your views are shot through with logical and moral contradictions.

Is getting morals from the Bible somehow superior? It's a brutal, vile book full of genocide, rape, and murder, much of which was committed by or sanctioned by God. Why, for example, did he murder children just because the Pharaoh wouldn't release slaves?

As for my morality? Well, it comes from basic empathy. I realize that other people are capable of physical and mental suffering and I try to avoid inflicting that sort of thing on others. Simplistic, yes, but it beats the Bible.

What if one of those others has a different view of morality to you and considers that it is ok to have sex with children or to discriminate against people because of their colour? Do you (or 'society') have a right to impose your morality on them?

No. Forcing sex on children causes them physical and mental harm and discriminatation also causes suffering. No one has the right to cause harm to another, other that what's reasonable for self defense.

But science is the observation of what is there. It tells us how – but not why. I think it is perfectly logical to believe that God set things up. You may of course want to believe that because there is no God he could not have done it. There are two logical problems with that – firstly you start with the presupposition that there is no God and secondly you are left explaining away the fine tuning of the universe by inventing theories such as the multiverse which have no empirical evidence whatsoever.

You are assuming there is a why. If God fine-tuned the universe so things could exist, how did he exist in a universe where supposedly nothing could exist?

Let's for a moment assume that there is some sort of "force" or property of the universe that humans cannot detect or think about due to our sensory or mental limitations. Why does that suddenly mean that the Bible & Christianity are inspired?

The universe appears fined-tuned to allow life; therefore Jesus is Lord and the Bible is the word of God? A non-sequitur. Why not Allah or any other creator God?

The evidence points to a lack of a personal, anthropomorphic creator God. Either that, or said God is a sadist, what with the existence of things like rabies, ebola, malaria and what not. All those sure look like they evolved on their own, though.

And let's not forget that God (according to your belief system) created a lot of beings HE KNEW (if omniscient) would wind up suffering eternally. Why, he even created a place where they would be sent for eternal torture.

Don't forget, before you claim that atheists are the ones with inconsistent morals - you worship a "God" responsible for more suffering (if I'm to believe the Bible) than any human ever has ever inflicted on anyone.

Oh, and on evil:

It's a descriptive word we use to describe certain actions or people, usually ones that cause harm to others. There's no "force" of evil as there is a magnetic force. Most of us use the word evil to describe deeds that inflict suffering on others. For example, murder is evil; rape is evil.

Very nasty individuals can be described as evil, such as Stalin or Hitler. There's no "force" of evil that makes people harm others. Why people do such things is never a simple thing, but psychologists have their explanations.

24. U.N. Panel OKs Measure on Islam

Comment #28941 by Jessie on March 31, 2007 at 6:07 pm

Canada, Japan and South Korea joined European countries in opposition, primarily citing its excessive focus on Islam and incompatibility with fundamental rights such as the freedoms of speech and thought.

Yeah! This makes me glad to be Canadian.

This is incompatible with freedom of speech. If I think Islam, as a belief system, is wrong, oppressive, and brutally insulting to women or any thinking person, then I should be able to say so. And Muslims can think that I'm a Hell-bound heathen for thinking that. That's what freedom of speech is about!

It's ridiculous to exempt any idea from being critically examined just because we label it "religion."

25. Hell is real and eternal: Pope

Comment #28070 by Jessie on March 27, 2007 at 8:10 pm

When I was very young, catholic priests used to scare us with this lovely explanation of hell and eternity:

Imagine you are standing in a lake of fire. The pain is so bad as to be worse than the worst pain you can possibly think of.

Now imagine that there is a huge ball made of brass, as big as the sun. Every 1000 years a butterfly takes off and flies towards it. On reaching it, the butterfly's wing gently brushes the ball's surface.

By the time that ball has been worn away to nothing, your suffering will have only just BEGUN !

What just blows me away is that the same people who teach this horrid, vile stuff also insist that God LOVES us! Yeah, he LOVES us but if we don't believe hard enough, he sends us to the most horrid punishment imaginable! Oh, He's God, so we wouldn't really have to do that, but he chooses to. But he's just and kind!

26. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #27570 by Jessie on March 25, 2007 at 10:20 am

God is a God of justice and would never send anyone to Hell unjustly.

What are you basing that on? Why assume that God is just? "

Because of the evidence. And because if he were not just he would not be God.

What evidence? Besides the Bible? C'mon, you don't really think that eternal torture is a just punishment for picking the wrong religion on earth do you? No more vague statements; I want to know. Do atheists, in your view, deserve eternal torture in the end? Yes or no?

There's no logical reason why a God has to be good. This one you believe in seems positively vile. He'd send my good friends to Hell. Thank goodness I'm not the one who has to defend him!

But he went through it willingly. He went through it when he could have avoided it. And he went through it as the Son of God – suffering Hell in one moment of time.

But humans who screw up get to experience Hell for eternity. After two billion octillion years - the first nanosecond of eternity - they still suffer.

Some people almost do choose terrible punishments to stand up for what's right. I'm thinking of human rights activists in places like Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Iran or Libya. They stand up for humanity and freedom even though they know that they could be caught and sent to a horrific third world jail. Right now lots of such people are in jail. But! Unless Christian - they get to go to Hell in the end. Dang.

Firstly I don't think Christians are morally superior. However I do believe that human beings are moral – because we are made in the image of God. Secondly you may live in a sweet sanitized environment where you would not 'smack a dog', but if you lived in a place where dogs killed and men raped then you might have a different perspective.

Sanitized environment! Haha! You wouldn't say that if you knew me. Eariler, you went on about how depraved we are; now we're moral. Which is it?

Regarding your last sentence - defending oneself against an attacking animal or person isn't the same as advocating eternal torture for good people who aren't Christian. Let's face it though. I don't think anyone deserves eternal torture - especially anyone whose religious beliefs differ from mine. You, on the other hand, think that's just fine.

Face it - your religion has turned you into a person who is now defending the punishment of eternal torture for non-Christians. Somehow I doubt you'd do that if it weren't for some ancient book that told you to.

Think about that one for a moment.

27. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25841 by Jessie on March 15, 2007 at 12:02 pm

1) I have no doubt that after death there is either heaven or hell.

What are you basing that on?

You call atheists arrogant yet seem to think that you have the secret to life, the universe and everything. That seems just a bit inconsistent.

2) God is a God of justice and would never send anyone to Hell unjustly.

What are you basing that on? Why assume that God is just? He seems like a brutally violent character in the Old Testament. He actually murdered many children in that book. Just? Sadistic sounds more correct to me. Maybe I'm missing something here, but killing a bunch of children because the Pharaoh was a jerk seems a touch cruel.

4) Much of the language is metaphorical. That does not however take away from the horror of it because it is a metaphor of something.

Right, God creates a terrible place, & sends billions of people there for eternity. Nice guy...


7) Jesus came precisely to make a way whereby sinful imperfect human beings can go to heaven. He suffered hell for us.

Okay, what he went through was obviously horrible torture, but lots of other people were crucified at the same time.

Hell, however, is supposedly eternal torture. Why aren't sinners then forced to go through the pains and what not of crucifiction for punishment? Why does the suffering have to be eternal?

8) Those who choose to accept that choose to go to heaven. Those who choose to live their lives without God, or prefer to be judged on their own merits alone, get what they want and what they deserve.

Okay. So you think that people like me and a lot of my friends and family (who do not believe in God) deserve the most brutal form of punishment ever dreamed up by anyone (eternal torture). God would never join Amnesty International, I guess. You neither, I suppose, what with your belief that non-Christians deserve brutal torture.

Can someone, now, please explain to me why Christians think they are generally morally superior to atheists? Here we have a guy who thinks that eternal torture is an appropriate fate for non-Christians. I, the horrid, evil atheist, won't even smack a dog. This is very interesting.

And, now while I am not perfect, I've never assaulted, killed, or raped anybody. I'm not seeing why you think eternal torture is necessary for most people. Does occasional bitchiness really require eternal torture as a punishment?

9) You ask how I can reconcile the doctrine of Hell with the doctrine of God as love. Simple. God is both just and loving. "God demonstrates his own love for us in this; while we were still sinners his Son died for us".

This God character is a sadist worse than Hitler, Stalin and de Sade put together. No being who would sentence billions to eternal torture is just. If you cannot see that, then you must lack a conscience.

28. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25594 by Jessie on March 14, 2007 at 8:16 am

Jessie, Stewart et al,

Re Hell. Just a few points to help you –

1) People do not go to hell because of their lack of belief. The dead are judged according to what they have done.

Wait, but your website says, regarding salvation, "This is not earned by anything we have done, but is only on the basis of what Christ did for us in his perfect life and sacrificial death. "

Now I'm hearing that one is saved by what you do; before it was faith. Which is it?


2) Hell is the absence of God. Anyone who chooses to live without God gets what they choose – how is that unjust?

Atheists, at least not me, do not "choose" to live without God. I'm not a "bad" person who rejected the idea of God because I want to live a hedonistic lifestyle or anything like that. There's no evidence for the Christian God; therefore I cannot believe in him. Belief is rarely a choice with things like this. Think about why you don't believe in any of the Hindu gods - that's why I don't believe in the Christian God (or the Muslim one, etc.)

3) The teaching about hell is not to be taken too literally – it is variously described as a place of darkness and fire – the two are kind of incompatible.

Not if you're blind. Also, your website says, "The unforgiven will be sent to hell, a place of eternal punishment, forever deprived of all that is good."

Alright, so why eternal punishment? The reader of the site is referred to Matt. 25:46 where it's clear that unbelievers go to "everlasting punishment."

C'mon, tell me: is that just? How do you feel that (according to you) most of the people on earth today - nice, regular people - go to an unspeakably terrible punishment in the end?

4) As for the eternity of suffering there are several views. Many Christians think that the bible teaches conditional annihilationism – ie. That after a period of time the person is annihiliated.

Okay, it's eternal, and now it's not. Which is it?

By the way – why are you violating the basic principle of RD? We do not determine truth by how we feel about something. Should you not find out the truth first?

You are misunderstanding what I'm asking about here. I know that whether or not something's true does not depend on whether or not I like it. It depends on the evidence, and there's precious little of that with regards to whether or not the Christian God is real.

At any rate, I'm just curious about how someone who believes this stuff actually mentally reconciles the idea of a "loving" God with one who seems so very cruel. I find that forcing a person to really think about the idea of Hell makes them waffle on it a bit. "Oh, it's not meant to be taken literally," they say, or, "Well, it's not necessarily eternal suffering."

I suspect that this tends to happen because most Christians realize that eternal punishment for people who choose the wrong religion is a horrid thing. But, Jesus does say that the punishment for unbelievers is eternal, and surely all the metaphors about the fire & brimstone and weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth are meant to portray how awful Hell is. So, what's up with that?

29. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25467 by Jessie on March 13, 2007 at 12:47 pm

The main mistakes are a refusal to accept that the material is not de facto all that there is, the unwillingness to see the spiritual, the absurd hatred of all things religious, and the sheer arrogance of thinking that you have evolved to a 'higher consiousness' whilst the rest of us poor souls who believe in God only do so because we are deluded.

I don't really "hate" religion. Nor do I think that I have any different type of consiousness than a religious person. But I find this statement interesting. You, afterall, figure that anyone who is atheist or merely non-Christian deserves to be tortured for eternity.

Think about that one for a moment, please! Maybe I think that religious people are wrong, but in reality, it's not too big of a deal. I get along with nearly everybody, and that includes a lot of religious people. I accept that many people see the world in a different way than I do. I most certainly do not advocate or desire any nasty punishment for anyone who does not share my lack of belief in a higher power that intervenes in our daily lives.

You, on the other hand, seem to figure that most of humanity is destined for a horrifying fate. How is that mentally healthy? How can you stand the fact knowing that a lot of people you may see in your daily life at the grocery store, out walking, clothes shopping, etc. are going (according to you) to be tortured forever? And, this by a God that's supposedly loving?

Please, consider these questions again:

Why the punishment of ETERNAL suffering for a lack of belief?

Remember, eternal. Why? Why is that "good news?"

Another question: do you, personally, think that all non-Christians deserve to be tortured for eternity? That's billions of people suffering for billions of years. Wait, actually billions of years would merely be the first second of eternity.

Anyway, yes or no?

No fundamentalist Christian, I've noticed, ever answers these for me. I wonder why.

30. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24949 by Jessie on March 9, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Actually Jessie your earlier comments that we are not depraved and that the Bible's message is depressing is actually a demonstration that you did not drink deep of the well of Scripture. If you had done you would have realized that the Bible both recognizes the existence of evil but also gives us the Good News (Gospel) of it's remedy. I have no doubt that you had plenty religion. It's just a shame you did not hear the Good News.

Oh, I did. I heard this supposed "good news." We're all a bunch of evil, worthless, depraved humans who all deserve to go the Hell. But, a human sacrifice was supposedly made to "save us."

Casting aside the question as to why we are all so depraved (didn't God create us in his image? What does that make him then?) or why God just cannot forgive without any human sacrifice...you must remember, it's not all about me. Let's say I'm saved. But why should I be happy? What about many of my friends, my brother, my husband? None are Christian. Why should I rejoice at the fact that they may suffer?


As for Hell. As Richard keeps telling us –it's not how we feel about something – it's whether it's true or not. Sure for a makey-up God Hell is not the best selling point. But what if it's real? And what if God has sent someone to save us from it?


Indeed, how I feel about something has no bearing on its truth. But where is God, exactly? Where's the cold, hard evidence of this?

Believing in relgion in not always a choice. I cannot force myself to believe in something there is no evidence for. That's why I don't believe.

Also, why, exactly, is faith the #1 thing that God judges us on? Why not other virtues that one can have such as honesty, generosity, compassion or kindness?

So, here's the question that not a single Christian has ever been bold enough to answer me: Why the punishment of ETERNAL suffering for a lack of belief?

Remember, eternal. Why? Why is that "good news?"

Another question: do you, personally, think that all non-Christians deserve to be tortured for eternity? That's billions of people suffering for billions of years. Wait, actually billions of years would merely be the first second of eternity.

Anyway, yes or no?

31. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24412 by Jessie on March 6, 2007 at 1:27 pm

"For most people the notion that we have done anything so bad as to deserve death is repellent. But that is because we do not have an adequate understanding of evil and sin. And we have no real awareness of the depths of depravity in our own hearts."


I agree with what Jenny wrote with regards to this. That statement really stood out to me too.

Robertson seems to think that the atheistic worldview is very negative. I'm not seeing how his is any better. According to it, we are a bunch of depraved people who all deserve a horrid punishment. That is not uplifting at all!

I'm not a depraved person, nor do I think that I am evil and deserve death. Maybe just a smack upside the head or something. Anyway, why did God supposedly create us to be so depraved in the first place?

I find it interesting that he also states in the same essay that, " I would venture a guess that many of the 'atheist' converts from religion are those who have never really drunk deep from the well of Scripture. "

Wrong. As a teenager and young adult, I read the Bible and went to a seminary class each weekday morning for an hour for religious study. I ultimately realized that the Bible was a deeply disturbing book written by humans and that it wasn't the result of any supernatural intervention. And that's a good thing.

Why do I call it disturbing? Well, a lot of my family and friends are not Christian. What the so-called "loving" God would do to them in the end is just vile.

The Free Church website states this:

"The unforgiven will be sent to hell, a place of eternal punishment, forever deprived of all that is good."

Now, is choosing the wrong religion here on earth that bad of a sin to require eternal punishment? Why?

Think for a moment of how utterly horrid that whole concept is. Eternal punishment. Does making a wrong choice on earth really necessitate that? Remember, the time that we are here is a mere drop in the bucket of the ocean of eternity.

Am I really supposed to be happy about that?