Atheist Professor & Literary Expert, Holly Ordway, Becomes A Christian.

Screen Shot 2016-05-10 at 3.04.23 PM

Dr. Holly Ordway has published a book titled Not God’s Type, telling her personal story. She begins “I had never in my life said a prayer, never been to a church service. Christmas meant presents and Easter meant chocolate bunnies–nothing more.” But her views get hardened: “In college, I absorbed the idea that Christianity was historical curiosity, or a blemish on modern civilization, or perhaps both. My college science classes presented Christians as illiterate anti-intellectuals who, because they didn’t embrace Darwinism, threatened the advancement of knowledge. My history classes omitted or downplayed references to historical figures’ faith.” Still later, “At thirty-one years old, I was an atheist college professor–and I delighted in thinking of myself that way. I got a kick out of being an unbeliever; it was fun to consider myself superior to the unenlightened, superstitious masses, and to make snide comments about Christians.” (p. 15-16)

Ordway was a trained academic without a history in religion. But she was no disinterested intellectual: “There was something about the idea of faith that made it stick with me. I didn’t have faith, I didn’t want faith, but I felt compelled to have a good reason why not. I constructed an elaborate analogy for myself, one that I felt gave satisfying explanation of why ‘faith’ was impossible. . . I could not believe, no matter how much I might want to . . .I thought ‘faith’ was a meaningless word, that so-called believers were either hypocrites or self-deluded fools, and that it was a waste of time to consider any claim that Christians made about the truth. . . . I didn’t want to deal with that. Easier by far to read only books by atheists that told me what I wanted to hear: that I was smarter and more intellectually honest and morally superior than the poor, deluded Christians. I had built myself a fortress of atheism, secure against any attack by irrational faith.” (p. 17-18)

Ordway had carefully built up a defense, but not so careful as to protect her mind from the ideas of the great English poets. She speaks of being surprised by such writers as John Keats, John Donne, and Gerard Manley Hopkins, men who wrote of a beautiful concept: hope.

The rest of Ordway’s book tells of her meeting a fencing coach that she trusted, a person who she did not discover was a Christian until after she had begun working with him. He and his wife merely answered her questions, not pressing anything religious on her. Ordway was intellectually honest enough to investigate the sources, and when she asked for reasonable works on the resurrection of Jesus, she was given N. T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God, 740 pages of scholarly examination. She reads Lewis’ Surprised By Joy, and Does God Exist? by Kreeft and Moreland, among others.

Both Ordway and C. S. Lewis were credentialed professors of literature before becoming Christians. Both were committed atheists who had created intellectual defenses against belief in Jesus. However, there was far more to the story of Jesus, “I read through the Gospel narratives again, trying to take in what they said. I had to admit that — even apart from everything else I had learned — I recognized that they were fact, not story. I’d been steeped in folklore, fantasy, legend, and myth ever since I was a child, and I had studied these literary genres as an adult; I knew their cadences, their flavor, their rhythm. None of these stylistic fingerprints appeared in the New Testament books that I was reading.” (p. 117)

So here we have a trained, experienced, atheist professor of literature, who if anything knows a myth when she sees it, declaring that it is not such, but rather “The Gospels had the ineffable texture of history, with all the odd clarity of detail that comes when the author is recounting something so huge that even as he tells it, he doesn’t see all the implications.” (p. 117) Like Lewis, who was a professor of literature at Oxford and Cambridge, Ordway made the conclusion as an expert in literature, that the New Testament was a generally reliable historical account of the historical Jesus.

Ordway gives a very personal account of what it was like to be changed, speaking of how difficult and fearful it was for her to change her beliefs and become a Christian, “It is a hard thing to look at the truth when it runs contrary to what you’ve always believed. The experience is like pulling back the curtains in a dimly lit room and looking out the window to see what’s really inside. When your eyes are used to artificial light, the bright sunlight is almost blinding; your eyes may sting and even water at the brightness, and the temptation is to turn away to the more comfortable dimness.”

But in the end she knew her intellectual drive for truth could not let her turn away. She knew she was drawn to the truth, that the New Testament is true and Jesus is real.




    • Because you keep repeatedly spamming my site with nonsense, atheist propaganda that any read Christian, or religious person, can see it false.
      So I unapprove you comments, at least some of them unless they are relevant, and backed up with evidence.

      • Who is spamming? I responded to this testimony. You even suggested I read them!
        Furthermore you provided no damn evidence for a single claim you make. EVER!

        My observation was fair and likely accurate based on the amount of info you published.
        Why are you so scared of dealing with tough questions?
        Are you simply too much of a weak theist to defend your beliefs honestly or are you just ignorant of the facts and historical evidence surrounding your somewhat inflated claims, James?

        • Buy the book if your really seeking the truth. If your just looking for an argument join a debate club😂

          • It’s a well-researched document. I’d like to see one on the same topic proposing that Jesus is exactly what the New Testament. claims he is. Actually, I have seen them. Hundreds of them in fact. And they don’t approach this level of objectivity.

            • You only need to look at the Shroud of Turin which proves without a doubt that Jesus existed, died and resurrected just as the Bible claims.

              • Eccoodamo, except it doesn’t. At all. The shroud of Turin is with 95 % certainty from the 13th/14th century, and with 100 % certainty much too recent to be associated with Jesus of Nazareth.

        • “ lol…this is the best you can do for a “reputable site” do you know what a blog is?

        • Hey man, I think the article attached is well thought through in many ways. However ancient history has to rely a lot on “hearsay”. Check out ancient history dept. at University of Southampton, UK (A top 100 University in the world – They are secular Universities in UK) .
          Ancient History Dept. will not claim Jesus to be who Christians claim, but they will say there is an historical Jesus. As for article – Jesus Christ is not a name. Christ is simply a title, like King. It is something assigned from Jewish word Messiah. You will not find references to Jesus of Nazareth in many texts for a few reasons. The New Testament claims very few Christians at time of Jesus’ death and those that were Christians were not notable citizens to record. Bible records Jesus himself sending many of his disciples away from him because they were not prepared to give everything up. What Jesus left on earth were a few people (Maybe 500) of whom some were very committed. They were a Jewish sect, not distinguishable from Jews for some time.
          To claim as this site does that these 500 who grew to a very large number in the Roman empire within 100 years were believing in a non-historical figure is extraordinary. The title for this myth could be: A myth propagated by salesmen gathered pace and saw many die for this myth, so that the salesmen (unpaid and often dying) could claim they got more people to believe. You probably know someone like Josephus’ works were probably edited by “Christians” later in time, but Josephus highlights others like John the Baptist, whom the New Testament mentions, which historians believe is not edited. Most also believe that Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke) cite an early written account which we have long since lost – Often called Q. Athough your cited article says this has little evidence, you just need to read the synoptics to see their similarities – Either they copied each other, or they copied another earlier source, as historians believe, which they have named Q.
          . This would date much nearer the time. – At this point in history/time oral history was much more common. Business transactions were more likely written/recorded than historical events. However there are significant ammounts of written material from New Testament over the next few hundred years, particularly copies of letters that indicate that what we have today is pretty similar to the earliest manuscripts. Those changes that have occurred can be seen and recorded

      • One obvious support in this article is that an expert in literature and mythology discerns that the accounts compiled into a collection are historical works, not fiction. Another is the reference to N.T. Wright’s 740 pages of “scholarly examination” to present a basis of evidence showing the resurrection of Jesus to be a historical fact.
        *Part of the intellectual, logical, and scientific processes is an attempt to prove theories contrary to your own theory. If you want to be scientific, you must set aside ALL doubts and make an effort to prove the truth of Jesus. Only after you have honestly done this can you present yourself as being scientific on the issue. You should know that many great minds, once they begin to seek the truth, quickly realize that Jesus is who he says he is: The Son of the Living God, and the only way to eternal life.
        May Jesus himself guide your heart and mind to see and discover the truth, and after you find Him, may he grant you great success in all your endeavors. Peace.

        • Um, coming back to life after being dead for 3 days? Nope, science and biology say no, it didnt and doesnt happen. I tend to agree. What a bunch of diluted men that are scared of their own mortality has to say about it has been debunked time and time again.

          • “Scared of their own Mortality” Are you aware John that all but 2 Disciples died as martyrs….Peter actually being crucified upside down because he did not count himself worthy to be crucified as Christ was…others died horrendous deaths never recanting their faith….these are not the acts of men and women afraid of their own mortality…..And these acts of martyrdom have been repeated over thousands of years (Fox’s Book of Martyrs). The historicity of Christ Life, miracles and death is more documented in actual time by non-believing historians (like Josephus) than the life of Julius Caesar (the most recent historical text being 500 yrs after his death). I encourage you to at least give Jesus an honest historical rendering….

          • John, you make a few too many assumptions here that I find all too common in atheist arguments and they detract badly while you hold them.
            1) theists are afraid of the fact they are mortal and belief is a shield against this- well where’s the research that shows this? I’ve been a doctor since I was 22 (now 46) and have been well aware ofy own mortality for decades. It has sweet FA to do with my Christianity which as I am a wealthy person in world terms, increases the issues and problems I have to think of rather than making life simpler or easier for me initially.
            2) people have known very well since ages before Jesus was born that the dead do not normally come back to life in any way shape or form. By saying science has proved it can’t happen you show that you don’t understand what is being claimed, or else you are (as many modern atheists) first assuming that a philosophy of reductionist materialism is true and then telling us that there is no room within this for any departure from the norm. Well we all know that already. But can’t you see that you have begged the question by saying this?

      • James, people who attack so vehemently fail to realize that they are even more evangelical and fundamentalist in their attitudes and beliefs as the believers they denegrate.

        But they’ll won’t admit it to themselves.

    • “Here is an excellent site regarding the question of contemporary evidence.

      Yeah, no.

      That ‘excellent’ site cites the Gospels as the earliest historical mention of Jesus, but that would actually be 1 Corinthians, which dates back to 50-51 AD, fewer than 20 years after the death of Christ:

      There are more documents from antiquity that refer to Jesus Christ as someone who walked the Earth than there are that mention Plato and many other historical figures whose existence we take for granted.

      • @Matt

        That ‘excellent’ site cites the Gospels as the earliest historical mention of Jesus,


        Perhaps you ought to learn to frakking read?

        : Paul’s biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself.

      • Except that not a single reference is contemporary now is it.

        Christian apologists are the most appalling ignorant and biased ”scholars” on the planet, and yes men groupies like you are even worse.
        Go and do some proper historical research for your god’s sake.

    • You haven’t proved anything. The best you did was show how ill-informed you are on this topic. Allow me to ask you a question: without God, where do you get logic?

      • And you are behaving like a a jumped-up, ignorant little child
        Proofs are are generally for mathematicians.
        With this topic the grown-ups talk about evidence. And that is all you should be interested in as well.
        And for this topic – there is none worth diddly squat.

        As far as your ‘god’ question is concerned: which god are you talking about , please?

        • Now you’re resorting to abusive ad hominems? You’re also showing a lack of understanding in the philosophical study of logical argumentation. Proofs are a philosophical term, not just mathematics. You’re arguing semantics, and doing horribly. Evidence is a legal term, as it is used for forensic studies! Who do you give evidence to in a court? The judge. For me to give you evidence, I’m therefore elevating you to the position of judge and putting God on trial. Sorry, but you’re not worthy or deserving of said authority! Your stance that there is no God, is a universal negative. You claim to want evidence, yet evidence presupposes a standard of logic and a standard of right vs wrong (truth vs falsehood). However, since you don’t believe in God, you have no ultimate authority or standard that breaks the paradox of an infinite regress, and therefore you’re forced into a world of absurd relativity! So, in order to talk about evidence, I must first understand your foundations! So far your foundation is absurdity and you’re resorting to abusive ad hominems as your conclusion! I’ll ask you again, where do you get logic without God? (The only existing God, the biblical Christian one. Without the Christian God you cannot prove/disprove anything, you cannot conduct science, you cannot know anything…etc). Now please, answer the question if you wish to be seen as someone capable of a logical discussion. If you cannot answer the question without resorting in more ad hominems, then I’ll be forced to label you as illogical and incapable of logical argumentation, and claim victory in this debate.

          • I find your claim that a ‘standard of logic’ and ‘standard of truth’ cannot exist without God a very tenuous one. You clearly have a philosophical background so it is disingenuous for you to claim this given that the discourse, even going back thousands of years does not simply settle for ‘god made it’ to explain the existence of logic & truth. The correspondence theory of truth is a widely adopted philosophical theory to explain how we decide truth from falsehood and God – especially the God od the Bible – is not needed to explain why we live in a logical world.

            You also run the risk of using God as a ‘way out’, a device to fill the gaps in your knowledge. I suppose that’s easy to do if you believe in a creator god who can do anything and everything but it’s led to theists having to reign in their beliefs as we understand the world more. Christians are quick to use God to ‘explain’ the gaps in our scientific understanding of the world without due scientific process.

            It’s lazy and arrogant. There’s nothing wrong with saying you don’t know.

            • No one, you say “God …is not needed to explain why we live in a logical world.” How do you explain where logic originated from before time sequence?

      • @presuppositionalist

        You’re also showing a lack of understanding in the philosophical study of logical argumentation.

        Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.
        So far you have not provided me with evidence of even the basest kind.
        If you are not able to present your case honestly without resorting to a presuppositional world view then your opinion is, quite frankly, worthless, other than to an already converted and indoctrinated believer.
        You seem to be trying to justify your stand point for your own benefit, rather than mine, as if this is some sort of pissing contest.
        Let me rather quote you biblical scholar Barry D. Smith from his thesis on the Historical-Critical Method.

        ”The Christian cannot do Jesus research on historical – critical principles. Regardless of the pressures of the academic world to conform to prevailing methodological standards, a Christian Jesus researcher ought to take the path of faith, even if this means loss of academic reputation or position.”

        • Since you have no ultimate authority for a proper foundation in logic, I therefore cannot give you evidence or proof because that would be absurd. It would be meaningless! Your stance is a universal negative, and the burden of proof lies upon you. That’s how logical argumentation works! Now, you’re presenting numerous logical fallacies, including begging the question. You demand evidence, yet evidence presupposes a standard of logic which requires a standard of truth! You HAVE NO logical standard for truth, which is required for logic and therefore you do not deserve evidence! You can continue to persecute, ridicule, and insult us all you want, but by doing so you’re proving our worldview more and more! So, answer my question(s): 1. where do YOU get logic from without God?
          2. Prove to me God doesn’t exist! (The God that both you and I know exists.) If you can’t answer these questions, then I’m forced to call victory in this debate.

            • Thank you for your time. I’ve concluded by your responses that you’re:
              1. Illogical and irrational.
              2. Rude and insulting.
              3. Incapable of answering basic questions and having an intellectual conversation.
              4. Incapable of defending your atheism.
              I pray that you’ll put your faith in Christ and trust in him as Lord and saviour. The only reason why I decided to begin this conversation is because I deeply care about where you spend eternity. I understand that you claim to be an atheist, but atheists do not exist. Romans 1:20 says that everyone on earth knows that God exists (By the way, God’s name is “I Am”). You know He exists, and you live like it everyday of your life. You’ll continue to live like you know Him until you die. However, you decide to suppress the truth! I I truly hope and pray that you’ll one day realise that you’re unique, made in the image of God, have a purpose, have meaning…that you’re not just re-arranged pond scum without purpose. I hope and pray that you’ll realise the true happiness that comes with a relationship with the LORD. I was raised in a multi-religious family, and was an ardent atheist for many many years. I can’t tell you how great life is now knowing that I have a purpose and that I’ll be in heaven with the one and only God. The thing is, if you’re truly an atheist…then why are you even on here? Why try to argue against someone who you don’t think exists? What is your reasoning? (Better yet, how can you know your reasoning is valid without God being your foundation?)

              I pray that you’ll repent and trust in Christ! Salvation is s FREE gift, not a single religion in the world is like Christianity. Salvation is a free gift that YOU get to choose. How is one saved? John 3:16.

              Goodbye! Take care! God bless. I’ll only respond back to you under one of two conditions:
              1. You seriously want to learn how to repent and begin a walk with Christ. Or,
              2. You have a logical response to my previous questions that I’ve proposed to you numerous times and have yet answered. If you decide to respond differently, don’t expect a reply.

              • I truly don’t give a monkey’s uncle about what you have considered.
                From your replies, you come across as a ignorant pompous, narcissistic hypocritical indoctrinated arse.
                I shall pray to Hanuman you will also repent of your ignorance and basic stupidity and seek professional help.
                If you are unwilling to do this, I implore you, at least do the right thing by not entering the gene pool – even at the shallow end.
                The human race will be so much better without your sperm/eggs.

                I will only respond in future if
                a: you tell me the name of the god you worship.
                b: you tell me the reason you believed you needed this god
                c: the reason you believed you were unable to solve whatever emotional problem ( addiction etc) you had without the need of a make-believe deity.

                And finally, once more, which god are you talking about please?

      • Allow me to ask you a question: without God, where do you get logic?

        In order to answer your question, I would first have to ask you a similar question: without invisible pink unicorns, where do you get logic?

        • “without invisible pink unicorns, where do you get logic?”

          At this point you are no longer arguing the existence of God, but rather His nature. Is God an invisible pink unicorn? You are making a claim about His nature that He is an invisible pink unicorn. Where is your evidence of that?

          • I did not say God is an invisible pink unicorn. The reason I used such a ridiculous idea as invisible pink unicorns was to try and emphasize my point. The point of my question was to show that the original question “without God, where do you get logic?” is a loaded question. IOW the existence of God is presupposed. Which I guess explains the commentator’s username.

    • She believes there was a Jesus. So do I. I am sure he was a wise man for his time. To heal the sick…too part the waters, just a few. Along with other fascinating things Jesus accomplished, he was ahead of his time and THAT is why he was hung on the cross. Too many people would follow his beliefs and not theirs. Of course, you can argue all you want, but neither you nor I was alive in that time frame, so you doubting me is senseless. You can only read the bible and let the scriptures tell you.

    • Ark, I’ve received complaints from others about your behaviour on this thread, and now i had to waste my time reading though your debates in order to delete foul comments. Tone down, talk with respect when on my site, or I will ban you. I’ve told you this before, so consider this your final warning.

    • Ms Ordway claims to have ignored and sidelined God, for the first part of her life, But only a Christian God and only Christianity. That does not make her an atheist. It makes her a non-practicing Christian. She was born, raised and lives in a Christian society. If not being a Christian makes you an atheist, then all people of other faiths (by her definition) are also atheists.
      Atheists reject belief in ALL gods and supernatural beliefs, not just the religious belief they were born into.
      She never discusses the idea (as would a true atheist) that there is no God or gods and that Christianity is merely one of thousands of religions that believe in magical and supernatural gods. So to find a ‘Christian’ God, whilst living in a Christian society, surrounded by Christian religious festivals, without looking at alternative religions or routes to God, is hardly an astounding transformation. She has simply gone from not following her native faith, to denying all other faith, while accepting the traditional version of God, in the area she lives.
      She was never an atheist and by proclaiming Christianity as the one true faith, she displays a continued lack of honesty and vigorous investigation into the alternative avenues for belief in supernatural powers. If she had gone from being an ‘atheist’ and I use that term very loosely, to a Jew, or a Muslim or a Siekh, then I would suspect that she has undergone a transformation of a type. But to simply adopt her the dominant religion of her nation, while still rejecting all other religions , shows a complete lack of understanding of atheism and religious beliefs systems.

    • man, I just wanted to read the comments out of curiosity. We are all a bunch of jerks. Why can’t everyone just chill and get along. I am not excluding myself in that statement but my goodness. Chill! I mean if you are an atheist then be at peace and if you are a christian be at peace. I understand being fired up about things but I don’t think we would talk to people face to face like that.

  1. from everything I read or heard from people who have had near death experiences, they become stronger in their faith, and atheists become Christians. Sometimes it happens with outer body experiences. I have always loved my Lord. When I was going thru a tough divorce, He carried me many times. Amen, and Amen.

    • A near death experience leads to a misfiring of rational thinking. The result of a brain nearly starved of oxygen. Pilots that get a blackout also get tunnel vision with a bright centre and blacked out peripheral vision. Jumping to conclusions of what is a physiological response to oxygen starvation and misfiring of the reason parts and parts of the brain involved with dreaming leads to the delusion of a religious experience.. It juast human some people are more prone/ susceptible to misfiring and irrational thought, hence more religiously susceptible. Some people see religious visions after they get a brain tumour. sometimes resulting in atheist suddenly becoming religious. Not because of divine inspiration but because their balanced brain chemistry is suddenly whacked of and their highly tuned rational thinking brain is hijacked by over-stimulation of the irrational feeling/ dreaming/ creativity parts of the brain makes them experience thing that are not there and interpret them in a fantasy/religious matter instead of evaluating them rationally.. Rejoicing people that become religious due to lost rationality is not something to be celebrated but to be worried about. People should be seen with the same eyes as people falling victim to alzheimers, schizophrenia, bipolarity, phobia’s or other mental disorders

    • I find this difficult to deal with (not you personally), when Christians/Jews try to talk me out of my atheism. My best and dearest friend is a very devout Christian. We had *one* discussion about religion and that was it. She does not try to talk me out of my beliefs, or pepper all conversations with Scripture. Nor do I try to explain that I could as much believe in “God” (I guess JudeoChristian God if we must be specific) as I could Scientology or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am respectful of her beliefs, she is respectful of mine. A fellow nurse however, when she found out I am atheist, said straight out that “it is her mission from God that she bring me to Jesus” (Good luck with that). I truly believe that our world would be a much better, safer, happier place if we foster a mutual respect for one another and our beliefs without trying to change one another. // I wish you all a great week.

  2. Interesting statement from Arkenaten.

    ……Are you simply too much of a weak theist to defend your beliefs honestly…….

    What is Honesty? How can you even accept a worldview that incorporates such a word, when your stance is plainly atheistic?

    Survival of the fittest, does not include or would never evolve with such a moral concept as Honesty. So I ask, how does morality evolve if it runs counter to the very essence of your atheistic ‘belief’?

    Admit it. You don’t know where your sense of ‘right or wrong’ comes from as it contradicts your religious atheism.

    Question is, will you allow that reason to reach your brain and consider it’s merits, or will you put up your defense mechanism instantly because you DO NOT WANT to believe that in your arrogance, you could actually be wrong about something? After all. It wouldn’t be the first time, would it?

    I am ‘honest’ enough to admit I am wrong on occasion. I have been in your shoes, and fortunately, was able to see the hypocritical, bias and unscientific argument of atheism before it was too late.

    I hope it’s not too late for you my friend.

    • PS. my wife will tell you I am wrong nearly all of the time. But that’s just subjective. Like your own views. Absolute, objectivism, is not subject to mans erring knowledge. That’s why atheistic thinking can never be trusted. Absolute truth has to come from an unerring, inerrant source. Man can never be trusted to produce truth statements of himself. They have to come from the source of all truth.
      John 14:6 – there you go. Now you know.

    • If we are going to address the issues of morality, logic etc it is crucial to identify the god you genuflect to so I am able to formulate a proper response.

      Thus, I reiterate, which god are you talking about, please.

        • From the text of Genesis 1 God directly created in three occasions new areas of reality from previous non existence, then on three occasions God empowered the already created to produce “let the water bring forth”, “let the land bring forth”, “let the air produce”. These things emerged by the design of God from the natural chemistry that God had already placed into existence.

  3. In my first post I interpose the question of your use of the term ‘honesty,’ in the context of a ‘moral worldview’ which you seem happy to use.
    I then continue to show how error prone your world view is if indeed you are a true atheist, guided by your evolutionary mindset.

    I ask the question, which you have obviously read but do not address in your response. So please enlighten me as to where your concept of morality comes from as it is incompatible with your understanding and worldview.

    I’m sure you must be aware of your position and I am simply trying to expunge your insight of the evolution of morality and its acceptance into your understanding – otherwise why would you use or qualify the term by using morality as part of your argument? That is a wholly irrational presupposition!

    I’m sure, as an intelligent person who is open to discussing the philosophical – you will clearly affirm this. Even if you do not agree with what I am saying, you would have to agree that you are using a nonsensical argument by applying any form of ‘morality,’ at any time and into any context.

    You can’t cherry pick the concept of ‘morality’ on one hand and then shoot down any theistic argument by applying ‘morality’ when your ‘worldview’ wants to use it. True atheism doesn’t really like to have to tackle ‘morality.’ It’s an awkward concept for it to be explained away. How does a living person gain a conscience?

    The atheistic arguments for the existence of morality are again, ‘nonsensical.’ Atheists today try to explain how morality evolved, because they know it is an impressive argument against their ‘belief system’.

    But the reality is, ‘survival of the fittest’ in its purest sense, can never have sentiment or be driven by it. If you are saying that morality drives evolution or even partners it – then you are on sinking sand and are already making concessions for atheism. You are indeed, accommodating a perceived anomaly to make your worldview work.

    Sadly, if you were to take Darwin at his word (which the world of secular academia largely has) then there is no room for ‘morality.’

    So my question regarding morality to you is this. Do you ‘honestly’ believe it has ‘evolved’ when it goes against the very nature of the fundamental ‘warp and woof’ of atheism?

    • Apologies, Andy: posted this in the wrong place.
      If we are going to address the issues of morality, logic etc it is crucial to identify the god you genuflect to so I am able to formulate a proper response.

      Thus, I reiterate, which god are you talking about, please.

      • Arkenaten, thanks for your apology and for not throwing all of your ‘toys out of the pram’ as I attempt to extract your view / meaning, with regards to the subject matter. :o)

        I would however simply come back to the reason I felt the need to write in the first place, as I did not mention God to begin with and I’m not seeking clarification on whether you believe in a deity or not. What I am trying to define is your ‘worldview’ and how ‘morality’ fits into it.

        You made use of the word ‘honesty’ in an earlier argument and I am seeking to discover how you can ‘use it’ if, as I have deduced, you are atheistic and by implication, an evolutionist.

        If I am incorrect regarding my deductions then apologies for my quickness to draw these conclusions.


        • Yes, I am an atheist. Is there really a need to expand on this?
          Re: morality? Surely you know how atheists think in this regard?

          No, you did not mention a god, but I am assuming you are Christian thus I wish to clarify the name of the god you believe in.
          May I presume your god is Yahweh, and you believe you morality and thus world view is based on this deity?
          If you worship another god, simply clarify.

      • Arkenaten, again I thank you for the information. However, I asked the question first and would very much like to get an answer with regards to your use of ‘honesty’ being a moral attribute employed by you in an earlier argument.

        I would like to ‘draw out’ what your actual position is, with regards to this as an atheist, and with the understanding that there are many shades of variance in atheism that seeks to comprehend ‘morality.’

        Why would you use morality in your worldview if there was no ‘absolute’ definition of what morality actually was. If you are existentialist in your understanding on this point then your appeal to ‘honesty’ in an earlier argument is flawed.

        Would you admit that? Or will you just come back with the same question as previous?

        • You are mistaken. There is really only one atheist view: a non-belief in gods. All gods.
          That really is it, Andy, I’m afraid, and you are trying to fathom some deeper meaning where there is none.

          All other attributes, morality, honesty etc are based on a belief in reciprocity.
          Namely; if I offer you my hand in friendship it will (eventually ) be accepted – or at least someone will, simply because being good and nice to one another promotes the same. If killing and hurting were the objective standard humans would likely eventually die out.
          That is the simple, straightforward commonsense answer.
          One I believe has been explored by scientists, though please don’t ask for a citation. I am too bushed to trawl for one.

          I have no need for a complicated, anthropological one.

          So, Andy, Yahweh?

      • Hi and many thanks for the response.

        Yes, I know what the atheist view is in these matters and wanted to see where you stood on your morality.

        However, your argument of ‘reciprocal altruism’ for defining the origins of ‘morality’ are again nonsensical. As you are only too well aware, ‘survival of the fittest’ is not a conditioning process that could ever lead to an altruistic behaviour.

        To be selfless to the point of risking one’s life for another human being or creature, is simply at odds of great variance within evolutionary theory. Altruism is not possible where morality does not already exist. And to defend the evolutionary argument by stating that it occurred in small bands of intimate beings such that it became innate in a species, is about as far fetched as saying, the entire population of Wales, all look like Tom Jones and can sing like him as well. (That’s not true, by the way)

        So it seems that atheism has just ‘worked around’ the anomaly and provided a rather ‘far fetched, fairytale’ to try and answer the question of morality. I would argue it takes more faith to believe in your philosophy than mine – but at the same time, mine was given to me and is a saving faith while yours isn’t.

        Of course, you will find out for sure one day and you’ll scoff at the idea of God’s existence for the time being. But what if the Christians are right? Are you honestly willing to gamble with your eternal soul? Have you ever been wrong about anything?
        What if you are wrong about your current belief system (and it is a belief system).

        Please don’t insult me by replying childishly with, “and what if you are wrong?”

        I am asking some searching questions to you because I really do care for your soul and do not want to see you make a most devastating mistake by rejecting ‘God.’

        Psalm 14:1 – “the fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God'”

        I really hope that deep down in your heart, you haven’t fully crossed that line and into the wilderness and oblivion of utter destructive unbelief.

        There was a time when I didn’t believe either. And it took a merciful God to reveal Himself to me in an incredible way. These things don’t make sense to you right now because you don’t want them to. There is a shield over your heart and you are not willing to allow it to be penetrated by the truth of the God of the Bible. You are struggling for any deep down peace because you are in a huge spiritual battle. Maybe you don’t even see the ‘immortal’ danger you are facing.

        If you do not fear the truth – then you have nothing to fear by ‘honestly’ searching with an open mind in a scientific manner.
        Jesus Christ made the most ‘absolute’ statement regarding truth, without equal. (John 14:6)

        If you are coming at this scientifically, you have nothing to lose by ‘honestly’ investigating the claims of Christ. Don’t respond, “yea, I’ve looked into Christianity before.” Have you ‘truthfully and honestly’ done so with an ‘open mind?’ Or was your mind made up before you even began to investigate it, if you indeed, have.

        I hope you find ‘the truth’ and I hope ‘that truth’ sets you free.
        May the LORD look favourably upon you and mercifully show you.

        All the best.

      • I was debating with you, but you have now seen fit to retaliate with obscene and frankly upsetting language. Obviously, not a problem from your worldview, but shows a complete disregard for honest discussion, and a lack of respect by lashing out verbally instead of critically analysing and trying to understand my worldview.

        Perhaps, a lot of what I said touched a raw nerve with you because you know that it is truth.

        Anyhow, don’t bother responding if you are going to employ vulgarity. It just shows you cannot defend your argument for the origins of morality. You appeal to morality initially, and in your atheistic worldview claims an evolving altruism. So explain please (without vulgarities) what happens when an atheist chooses not to behave altruistically?

        And why do humans resort to violence, greed, avarice, etc.

        Sin dear chap. And how does your evolutionary brain decide whether to behave in an altruistic way or not? How do you personally reconcile that with your belief, which is beyond belief?

        Don’t respond if you can’t do that genuinely and reasonably.

        • You launched into a religious diatribe. That is not discussion.
          You failed to answer my question regarding which god you genuflect to and simply trashed my statement concerning reciprocity.
          As I stated in the beginning, I am unable to offer a reasoned response unless I know which god you worship.

          So, if you wish to pursue this any further. please tell me, in your own words, which god do you worship, please.

          • I have trashed your ‘view’ on the origins of morality and explained why this cannot happen. You have not sought in any way to support this view other than throw in a definition. Thats alright then, it must be true.
            Sir you have failed to offer reasoned explanations for my original question beyond mere descriptive, simplistic, statements. You have not in the slightest convinced anyone of your argument as it is poor. Defend it if you can, but please, go beyond, unverified, unsubstantiated, theories, which would fail to convince the densest of worms.

            Now, don’t go offering childish retorts about my own worldview either. Defend yours, that is why I engaged in this.

              • Arkenatan you are hilarious and all of this apologetics stuff is way out of my league!

            • Hey andy, with respect, when you make a claim like saying you trashed his claim about morality, it isn’t real. Forgive me, but those things must be said by others about you. When you say, for example, I am in charge…you’re not. If you have to say it about yourself it means it isn’t real. You make good arguments and have clearly given good thought to your position. So let your argument make that claim for you. That’s my humble suggestion to you. I apologize if I am being too forward.

      • Perhaps the truth is, you haven’t a reasoned argument that would stand the rigors of rational debate (outside of atheist circles). Oh well, at least everybody `reading this blog has now discovered how untenable your position must be as you selectively opt for the easy defence and deflection of, “I asked you a question, why haven’t you answered it?”

        Never mind, I seem to have wasted my time in seeking an answer from you as you have no intention of answering me. I guess you are likely to riposte in your usual manner, so I bid you farewell, I have spent enough time trying to expunge an answer. All the best for the future nonetheless.


        • I am quite prepared to offer an answer, but I reiterate I am unable to do so unless I know which god you genuflect to.
          I cannot understand why this is so difficult for you, Andy?
          Are you ashamed of telling me, or are you not sure?

      • This is my last response as I have work to do.
        I do not find it reasonable to answer your question when you have blatantly dodged mine.

        The answer to your question plays no part whatsoever in your evolutionary position on morality. Anyhow, I see you are not willing to enlighten us on this blog – so I depart.

        Let me know when you truly want a rational debate and are willing to defend your position. I won’t hold my breath though, if past responses are anything to go by.

        Admit it. you’re clutching at straws. As demonstrated by your unreasonableness in failing to answer.


        • This is my last response, as I am already working. I find it completely unreasonable to answer your question(s) as you are blatantly avoiding mine.
          The answer to my question play s every part in my position.
          Anyway it seems you are going to continue to profess stupidity, so I will bid you adieu.
          Let me know when you are mature enough to enter a proper discussion. But please remember that first, I will have to know the name of the god you genuflect to, Andy
          Allah was it?

      • My last comment.

        Your foolishness has been demonstrated quite resolutely these last couple of days.

        I asked the first question and you have NOT answered it. Your subterfuge of pretending to need extra information in order to answer my question is utterly contemptuous.

        The belief I have in my God, has no bearing whatsoever upon your own answer to my initial question of morality.

        In your worldview, the evolution of ‘human reciprocal altruism’, is not constrained, or altered by any external factor of a person’s religious belief system.

        Sorry, you have been found wanting in your argumentation. Your rationale is feeble and you have shown everyone here how poor and flimsy your skills are.

        I expect you to reposte robustly, pleading the same old line. But there you go. I won’t be reading your response as your respect for my question is obviously non-existent. Hopefully someone else may be able to get an answer.

        And by the way – if you cannot recognise from my earlier comments, who my God is – then you are less educated than I had given you credit for. And if you already knew, then you have stalled and stifled this debate because you haven’t got an adequate answer that will stand up.

        Sad really!

        • I can try to answer, unless I missed the question. But if morality is being scrutinized I can think of endless stories in literature that provide solid basis for morality. Morality is pursuing a life of fulfillment without causing undo harm or suffering to other living beings. If the story of Christianity resonates with you this way, that’s great. Lord of the rings and star wars work for others. Morality is a landscape that can exist outside of believing in god. Truly. It’s all about what stories strike a chord within you. The teachings of Jesus are an excellent source of morality and humanity. Did I come close to an answer? I apologize if I’m missing your original point.

    • Survival of the fittest is not about behavior. It’s about genetics and biological function. Society or civilization is not based on survival of the fittest. Biological traits are. We do not conduct ourselves in a darwinian fashion, we inherit sequences of coding in our physiological and biological existence. That’s a big difference.

  4. She believes the New Testament, but how about the Old? I do. And I also see from science that Jesus in both Mark 10 and in Luke 11 stating man being here since the beginning of the world is true.

      • Science is not the end all, be all of truth. Science says that the earth is millions of years old, yet they also say that the layers of rock holding in all the oil under the earth’s crust can only hold that amount of pressure for about 10 thousand years. Why, then, is the oil still there??? Science says that the universe was created when nothing collided with more nothing and it created something. Have you, or they, ever seen something materialize from nothing? Carbon dating, a scientific method, has been proven to be very unreliable, but so has every other scientific method CREATED BY MAN. The remains of a mammoth were carbon dated, and the results were two different time periods, thousands of years apart for the front and back of the same animal. Science is a group of people who have an IDEA, like say evolution. They get together, they make notes, they look at pictures, or they make up pictures to look at (like that one guy did with the embryos), and then they make a decision based on their INTERPRETATION of their findings. Science says that man evolved from primates. Yet there are still primates on the earth. You guess they know what they are talking about when they tell you that nothing bumped into nothing and something was created, or that you evolved from a monkey. I thought evolution was about being better, about survival. Well, then why are there still primates?? Why would there be a need for them if ‘we’ are their evolutionary change?? It takes more faith to believe a lie (or falsehood if that’s too harsh) than it does to believe the truth.

      • Science does not say anything. Science, per definition, is an on going human endeavor, not a bearded guru sitting up a hill. As Einstein famously said, we’re curious. Amazing where that can lead us, if only we don’t become fundamentalist in our findings. As for faith – it’s a relationship of knowing and trusting that gives so much depth to this curiosity. If one doesn’t know how much worth there is in what I’ve just said, suspecting it’s merely a mirror within a mirror of oneself – better be curious in this regard also, as Holly did.

    • Perhaps. Or, maybe it’s talking yourself into thinking that the more you believe, the better the chances are that your beliefs are real. Maybe the relationship is all with yourself, and the rest is imagined. Hard to say, not knowing.

  5. Reblogged this on just A voice and commented:
    “Ordway gives a very personal account of what it was like to be changed, speaking of how difficult and fearful it was for her to change her beliefs and become a Christian: “It is a hard thing to look at the truth when it runs contrary to what you’ve always believed. The experience is like pulling back the curtains in a dimly lit room and looking out the window to see what’s really inside. When your eyes are used to artificial light, the bright sunlight is almost blinding; your eyes may sting and even water at the brightness, and the temptation is to turn away to the more comfortable dimness.”

  6. Very interesting article. Years ago a professor of sculpture stopped by my parents home many years ago, even though I recall he was agnostic, for tea and a time of socializing. I think he felt comfortable in our Christian home, along with his former pentecostal friend. It is hard for these people to humble themselves and to believe.

  7. To the athiest Arkenaten
    You are doing a really great job of stirring up the Christians. Is it an attempt to create doubt and disqualify God from their beliefs in Him? That’s what Satan does, creates doubt. I do truly believe that Satan has a hold of you and that you are blatantly ignorant of the fact no matter how many big words you put out there about our beliefs in the One, True, Living God known as Jesus Christ. You keep asking those believers “what is the name of the god (small text) that you worship? Well I can truly say that God the Father has many names. In fact He has over 200 names in the Bible. The most prominent name that my God has is I AM. But none of that matters because you are not a believer in the Great Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I leave you with this. Jesus Christ is the God of the Bible. There is only ONE God and His name is Jesus Christ. Jesus is God in the flesh who came from heaven to live among men and women. He was born, lived among us as a man, was crucified and died on the Cross, He was buried and then three days later rose from the dead, defeating death and proving there is eternal life after this mortal life. Yahweh as you put it, in Hebrew means “to save” or “our help”. He is known by many other names…Jehovah in the Old Testament and He is Jesus Christ in the New Testament. He has existed since the beginning of creation, as is stated in Revelation 22:13, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end”. Also, He is the KING OF KINGS and the LORD of LORDS (Revelation 19:16). He is the Word of Life (1 John 1:1). But since you don’t believe the Word of God, nor believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then there is no hope for you. We Christians are aware of our God. We have a close personal relationship with Him through prayer and worship and fellowship with others like minded as we are. You could never understand this as much as anyone will pray for you or try to get you to believe that there is a Living God who created us all. Know this and yes I am quoting scripture to you. That God knows who you are, even the unbeliever, you are cursed because of your unbelief. God has given you up to a reprobate (depraved) mind (Romans 1:28). Since you choose not to believe then you will face hardship and limited blessings if you can count how you live your life as a blessing, but God allowed you to be born for a reason so I guess that is why you are still breathing and alive (for now). I pity the fact that you don’t know for sure if you are going to heaven. I don’t think the Lord wants me to pray for you but I will. Here is another quote from scripture for you since you are so “intellectual”. King David wrote the psalms in the Old Testament, so this disqualifies your analogy of how the New Testament was formulated by those great prophets and apostles of Jesus 50-60 years after His death. King David wrote, “The fool hath said in his heart, THERE IS NO GOD. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is NONE that doeth good. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Have all the workers of iniquity (self-will) no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD. There were they in great fear; for God IS in the generation of the righteous. Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge. (Psalm 14:1-6). Since you deny Christ He will deny you on judgment day. All of us will stand before the LORD one day and have to answer for our deeds, even you with your unbelief. Then the Lord Jesus will say to you, “Depart from me, for I never knew you” (Matthew 7:23). So in answer to your question, “What God do I worship and what is His name?, I worship Jesus Christ, the One True Living God! I do not deny this, nor am I ashamed of Him. I feel sorry for you. You are blind, deaf, and dumb. You have no faith, you have no respect for yourself nor for God. All I can say is “Satan get behind me” for you are a fool and truly lost. I pray Jesus change your mind about Him someday and you come into repentance. If not then you are truly going to hell and hell is real my friend. To those Christians who are out there remember, Jesus is coming soon, He is alive, He lives, and He is the hearer and answerer of prayer. We all need to pray for this lost person. AMEN

    • Cindy, I have to disagree with your statements about Ark – God loves him just as much as He loves you, and I think God does want you (us) to pray for him. God asks us in Matthew 5:44 to pray for our enemies, those that persecute us, not to just give up on them. I also encourage you to remember that Paul was once Saul… there is always hope, even for the hardest of hearts.

  8. Let me state at the outset, that I am a born again Christian. I refuse to be caught up in theological arguments with anyone; especially with those who are openly availing themselves as atheist. I personally believe that there isn’t anyone who could say that they have not been given light concerning the evidence of God’s existence. I think that those who have been given light, as to the existence of God, turn to atheism to try and justify their actions and soothe their conscience. I ask those of you who do not believe one question, after which you will not hear from me anymore (simply because arguing accomplishes nothing). Here is my question: “I believe with my whole heart in God above, who willing sent His son Jesus to come and die for the sins of all who believe and accept Him as their personal savior. I believe that apart from accepting Christ Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior that you will die in your sins and spend eternity in hell”. An atheist says, ” There is no God, live freely and do as you please. When you die, it will all be over and you will simply decay over time and return to the earth”. THE BIG QUESTION THAT I WISH YOU TO CONSIDER IS THIS: “If you’re right and I am wrong, then I have lost nothing when I die. However, what if I’m right and you are wrong, you have lost everything.” Are you willing to take that chance? Do you really want to place that bet and leave your eternity up to a roll of the dice? I’m not asking for an argument, for you can only argue a case where there is doubt and for me, there is no doubt. God has radically changed my heart and life and there is no question concerning His existence to me. He has totally convinced me. My heart, mind, body and soul is forever fixed in its belief. I’m simply asking you to seriously give some thought to my question. Chances are you are already excersizing faith and you do not even realize it. Every time you get in your car, you are excersizing faith that it will carry you to your destination without even second guessing it. Every time you save for your future, you are excersizing faith that you will live to see the future and enjoy that which you have set aside. While these are a type of faith, its not saving faith. Even though, its not that much different. Saving faith just simply asks you to believe in one you have not seen and the work that He has accomplished for your salvation. Who has the most to lose if they are wrong…not me, only you.

    • Forgive me for engaging, but by your own account, if God is any other religion, including those that predate Christianity by thousands of years, you’re totally screwed. So, does that change your position? First god must exist, secondly he must be the god you believe you know. When you calculate those odds, consider for you to get to heaven, it too must exist as you believe. Whether you belive with all your heart, or half your heart, or every other sunday, I hope you understand that your degree of belief does not hold bearing to god, as you guess god is, being a reality. Does that change your position? Then I think you can answer your own question. Believing is not knowing. It is pretending to know. You cannot make truth. But you certainly make believe. With love and respect to your beliefs. I do not share them, but I understand and respect your choice. I do not fear what comes after life is over, and am glad you don’t either.

    • Interesting question. What do you think the people that lived 50,000 years ago would have answered?

  9. Hmmmm…I keep reading about atheistic propaganda. Interesting, it’s as if christians think using those words gives them leverage in their case. Religion is about belief. Belief is pretending to know. Guessing. With religion the varying beliefs share this common trait of claiming to have knowledge. Science is a method of gaining knowledge. Do we know everything? Certainly not. Have we gained thousands of pieces of evidence that provide detailed specific support to the knowledge uncovered? Yes, we understand more all the time. Has Christianity gained evidence as well? The consensus is no. They claim god is self evident. You don’t see it because you are either in denial, or are not special enough to see it. I know both sides can be arrogant, but I think basically Christianity in its entirety is nothing but propaganda, and belief. Atheists don’t want to guess. I don’t know what propaganda you guys keep referring to, but I find it contradictory that christians consider atheistic arguments propaganda. There is no doctrine that sums up atheism. There is only the understanding that stories are stories, and beliefs are not knowledge. Merely that. Seems to be alot more heated anger and tone from you christians in these comments.

    • I have witnessed that the god atheists believe Christians believe is is not the God of reality but an imagination of the mind. The God of reality is Spirit revealed by character, action and wisdom. God is not part of a physical creation therefore not observable by science. If science can define character, action, and wisdom then it is understanding a revelation of God in the physical. Jesus Christ in those aspects is a revelation of God in the physical.

        • Craig if you understand science you would know the protein of your physical reality is really just borrowed from creation for just a short while; as the real you is your character, actions, and wisdom or the lack of. Science is more involved with the protein and not the spiritual impact you will have in society and the world. Christianity discovers and is applied to the .spiritual realities of character, action and wisdom.
          While you view God as some sort of physical reality you will deny God exists, because God is not physical.

          • How is a person’s character, actions and wisdom not physically real? As far as I know, my actions were real past events. I can also confirm my past actions with other people that witnessed them. And my character and wisdom are physically stored in my brain. If a surgeon removed certain parts of my brain, my character and wisdom would be greatly affected. So tell me again how the real me is not a physical reality.

            According to Christianity, Jesus was a physical reality. But you say: ”While you view God as some sort of physical reality you will deny God exists, because God is not physical.” Are you aware that the Apostle Thomas demanded physical proof that Jesus had resurrected? And he even got to see Jesus perform miracles beforehand!

            • Character, actions and wisdom are performed by the body, but for instance your history is not physical, it makes an eternal contribution to the spiritual reality. No protein of your body is eternally your every cell is replaced by consumption of former living beings.; and every cell of your body is replaced every 21 years. Jesus revealed God in the physical, and he rose physically but he is now Spirit as God is Spirit. Our eternal presence is spiritual from the eternal [2 Corinthians 5: 1 – 10] God is not physical nor transient as we are.

              • That’s an unusual comment to make on a site which attempts to defend the historicity of Jesus. If history is not physical then why do we have so many different history studies in universities, such as archaeology, art, music and linguistics etc?

                I’m a little confused why you keep trying to educate me about primary school level biology. I’m well aware that my body acquires and loses matter. There is no need for you to try and explain proteins and cells again ok? It is irrelevant anyway.

                How do you know there is such a thing as a spirit? Can you explain what a spirit is? If a spirit is non-physical (as you suggest) then isn’t that just another way of saying a spirit is nothing?

                How does something non-physical interact with something physical? For example, if God is spiritual/non-physical, then how did God physically part the red sea? Isn’t the force that he applied to the water something physical? Furthermore, how does something non-physical create something physical? IOW how did nothing create something? Or to paraphrase, how did something come from nothing?

              • Jesus is a historical person, but his character, actions and wisdom expressed the nature of God in man. We do not make a monument to a man. Those things only exist today as spiritual qualities and reproduced today in those who follow his character, actions and wisdom. That is where God is revealed.

              • I still don’t agree with you that ‘character, actions and wisdom’ are spiritual properties.

                There is no evidence that a spirit is even a real thing, but science has provided loads of evidence that ‘character, actions and wisdom’ are determined by our physical brains.

                Brain injuries, brain tumors, and drugs that effect the brain, have shown that ‘character, actions and wisdom’ are determined by the brain. Occam’s razor suggests to me that the idea of a spirit is completely superfluous. But not only is it superfluous, it hasn’t even been demonstrated that there is such a thing as a spirit.

  10. I find it quite interesting at how angry the atheist becomes over something they “dnt believe in”. I also find it fascinating that they refuse to consider this fact…there is more historical evidence for the New Testament than for any other work of antiquity…works that the atheist has no problem counting as legitimate and “believing”….much, much, more evidence. This is a fact that is easily verified.

    There are many more pages I could link as well, but these are a great place to start seeking the truth about the legitimacy of the scriptures.

    God bless

    <—Ex agnostic of 33 years.

    • There is a 5 part YT video called “THE ANGRIEST EX-CHRISTIAN ON THE PLANET!” by partypooper341.

      If you want to know why some people are angry, he explains it pretty well I think. Fair warning though there is a lot of explicit language.

  11. Keep asking questions Ark .. my heavenly Father is not threatened by yours or my questions. I think it is healthy to think for ourselves & figure out what works for us. I have been very hurt by people who went to church & were so convinced they were right yet did not show the Love to me that i was looking for. I got very angry @ God too but He has gently drawn me back to Himself in the most surprising ways.

    ” I honour you by trusting you enough to tell me how I feel
    – what my convictions are
    – what i really think

    Please do not judge me, solve my problems or change me.

    I do not imply you should feel and think like me or agree with me.

    I hope you will listen to me and accept me. “

  12. At last we have atheists believing there is mathematical design, order and logic in the universe which the mind can understand; the human mind created in the image of the universe’s designer. Genesis 1: 27.

      • Craig, man is an independent creative mind similar to creator God. Therefore evil is created by man in opposition to the mind of God.

          • Craig, I suppose you feel mind is controlled by a greater power? We are not robots we are individual beings with choice, much of it from bad input.

            • I am not saying we are robots (I don’t believe in God remember?) I am saying the concept of freewill does not answer the problem of evil.

              How can I accept the argument that freewill necessitates a choice between good and evil, and simultaneously acknowledge an omni-benevolent God? It would mean evil was created in order to facilitate freewill by a God that can do no evil. What the…? It is like saying an omni-benevolent God can lie.

              How could God even create morality without creating sin as well? Some apologists try to weasel out of this by suggesting that God only created the potential for sin. But that is like a coin maker saying “I only created the potential for heads or tails, I didn’t actually create heads and tails.” But not only did he created the whole coin, he also decided how it would operate.

              • I am just reading this article today. Breezing through these posts, I think this is the most honest thread I have seen so far! I wanted to shed a very tiny ray of light on the question of good vs. evil. It is a tough one to understand; I do not believe anyone has such a firm grasp on the concept to be able to adequately convey it to anyone who is not wanting to trust in the historicity of the Bible.

                So WHY is there evil in the world today if God did not create it, and if God is supposedly good? I would like to try to answer this by going through the back door, so to speak, so please, bear with me.

                Take the presupposition for the moment that what the Bible says is true, and that “God created man in His image.” What does that mean?
                For starters, man is only a fraction of what God is. To explain this, let me first relate it to someone looking at themselves in the mirror. They look alike, but the two are vastly different. Man is 3 dimensional in space,and the mirror image is only two. The mirror image cannot move about on its own, cannot think on its own, cannot order the person to do anything. It is, however, a “reverse” image of the individual standing in front of the mirror. It can only perfectly copy what the man standing in front is doing; brushing his teeth, combing his hair… you get the idea.
                God, while the Bible says, he is a spirit, chose to make man in bodily form, so that is not what is meant by “in His image.” God has a will, and able to show a variety of emotions, God is able to reason. He is said to be eternally alive, with no beginning or end… an impossible concept for this finite mind to comprehend! Man, in the same way, was created with his own will. He is free to believe or not believe, to carry out justice or injustice, to obey or disobey.

                Today, many make the assumption that evil is the opposite of good, but that is incorrect. It is just like darkness is not the true opposite of light. In reality, darkness is the absence of all light. In the same way, cold is not the opposite of hot or warm; cold is the absence of heat. Evil is merely the absence of what is good. When man chose to reject God, and go his own way, man veered away from the source of good in creation, and chose to do less than what was right and just. ANYTHING less than God’s way, the Bible defines as sin (evil, if you will).
                The intent behind God creating man in his image, even with a free will that naturally wants to do his own thing, is because this God of the Bible wants to have a relationship with man. One cannot have a real relationship with a robot, or a marionette, where God is the one pulling all the strings. We would be to him, just like our image in the mirror is to us.

                I hope this helps.

              • Chris – May 28, 2015 at 7:41 pm

                ”Today, many make the assumption that evil is the opposite of good, but that is incorrect. It is just like darkness is not the true opposite of light. In reality, darkness is the absence of all light. In the same way, cold is not the opposite of hot or warm; cold is the absence of heat. Evil is merely the absence of what is good.”

                So basically your argument is that evil does not exist – IOW evil is merely the absence of what is good?

                Ok, so what if I were to rephrase the “problem of evil” as “the problem of the absence of good?” I am still left with the same problem regarding an omnibenevolent of God.

                Your idea of evil being “merely the absence of good” creates some pretty big questions for me.
                1) is a murder merely the absence of someone not being murdered?
                2) is a rape merely the absence of someone not being raped?
                3) etc …

                ”One cannot have a real relationship with a robot, or a marionette, where God is the one pulling all the strings. We would be to him, just like our image in the mirror is to us.”

                If God gave us freewill so that we would not be robots, why does he then threaten us with hell?

                Perhaps your next reply could address God’s punishment of hell. Is going to hell merely the absence of going to heaven?

              • Craig said,
                1) is a murder merely the absence of someone not being murdered?
                2) is a rape merely the absence of someone not being raped?

              • John May 31, 2015 at 6:50 am

                I was simply providing the canned response to canned argument from Chris.

                I agree my questions sounded bizarre – but that is the point. If you are curious, read the linked page below, then reread the post from Chris and my response to his post.

                Evil is the Absence of God

            • Craig You are a spiritual being revealed in a physical body. Your spirit departs the body at death. It is not just organic life, which is common to all living things. It is the real person that identifies who have been and are, your attitudes, ideas, motives, creativity or negativity they are your spiritual person. .You seem to believe we are controlled by the physical, which is not demonstrated by the attitudes of the human spirit to rise above our circumstances.

              • John I can tell that you sincerely believe what you are saying, but I simply do not believe your claim that there is such a thing as a spirit. I have tried to explain why as best I can. There is no evidence for your claim of a Spirit. But science has provided tons of evidence that our physical brains are responsible for everything that you claim are attributes of a spirit.

                There is a short essay online (easily found using google) called a “Ghost in the Machine” by Adam Lee. Which explains it much better than I can. If you still want to believe we have spirits after reading that, then so be it, there is nothing more I can say on the topic.

              • This is more for Craig, only because I am so computer challenged as to not be able to reply directly to your response to my last post. Sorry it has been a while since I was on this site.
                First, your comparison to concepts that have no physical form to something that does,not work. They cannot be compared; however, one follows the other.The absence of heat results in low temperatures, resulting in formation of ice, or the solid state of water. Ice is a physical consequence of the lack of enough heat to bring the temperature above freezing.
                Likewise, when man chooses not to be obedient to God’s universal laws (an it is possible to be obedient to some, and not be Jewish or Christian – like murder and rape is wrong and many people who reject God do not murder and rape others) the result is sin. While one may be moral enough to refrain from murder or rape, there are, what man would call, much less offensive “sins” that are committed. Lying and cheating in even a small way is still wrong in God’s eyes.
                I know this is very abbreviated, but I wanted to respond to your statement about God “threatening” us with hell if we did not believe in him,
                That too, is not the right way to look at it. M
                Many people want nothing to do with God. While that saddens him, he lets them alone after a while, and does not bother them any more. If they want nothing to do with him in this life, what makes you think they would want anything to do with him in the next? Our basic character traits will pass with us into the next life. What would be really vengeful is if, after a lifetime of saying no to God, God forces you to be in his presence for all eternity. Now THAT is hateful!

              • Chris, here is a short 9 min You-Tube video which discusses the problem with the absence theodicy
                Evil is the Absence of Good

                Here is an apologetics site which also disagrees with the absence theodicy
                Is evil the absence of love or good?

                As I said previously, even if you could prove that evil is the absence of good, it doesn’t resolve the problem. Now I am faced with the ‘problem of the absence of good’. If God is omnimax, then how can there be so much absence of good in the world?

                I know this is very abbreviated, but I wanted to respond to your statement about God “threatening” us with hell if we did not believe in him,
                That too, is not the right way to look at it. M
                Many people want nothing to do with God. While that saddens him, he lets them alone after a while, and does not bother them any more. If they want nothing to do with him in this life, what makes you think they would want anything to do with him in the next? Our basic character traits will pass with us into the next life. What would be really vengeful is if, after a lifetime of saying no to God, God forces you to be in his presence for all eternity. Now THAT is hateful!

                If God wants real relationships, then hell should not be a factor in one’s decision to worship God. A real relationship can only exist without duress.

  13. I don’t wish to fight with anyone. I offer a book I found beneficial in my quest for historical evidence. Embrace it, hate it, love it, shun it….its your call. The title is “The NEW EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT” by Josh McDowell

  14. Atheism is intellectual madness.
    An atheist can see all this in the link and still not believe in a Creator:
    (I mean flowers that look like animals?? And other things?? This came about via macroevolution??)

    The writer of Genesis must have had divine inspiration, because HE claims that light came before the sun! Who knew that that was possible?? This is a modern scientific find. The writer might have felt like a fool writing this probably thinking that only the sun is a light source! But, he knew God knows better.
    So what God actually said (scientifically put) is “let there be… photons!” This alone would make the rest in the account very much possible. If the writer was told this amazing truth, why would the rest of the account be wrong?
    Objection: The order of the “creation” events are wrong, so it doesn’t really matter that he had light coming before the sun.
    Answer: Wrong. A) The order of events are right, it is evolution pseudo-science that has it wrong.
    B) Even if we accept for the discussion that the order is wrong, NO ONE in his right mind would place light before the sun!! This should make us think that there’s something to it.

    God made man from His breath&ground dirt. Elements of the earth’s crust/ground is also found in man. Job adds detail speaking of clay, therefore water was involved as well!! Job didn’t know that either!
    This would have seemed silly to many long time ago, but not today.

    Gen.7:11, 8:1-2 (Job 38:16, Pro.8:27-28) ocean floor springs and fountains! Just recently (1970) they were discovered by special submarines!

    Gen.6:15 The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel. Ship builders today are all aware that the ideal dimensions for a ships stability is a length 6 times that of the width. This, God told Noah 4.500 years ago!

    Gen.15:5 asserts the stars are innumberable for mere man. God’s point to Abraham was that he couldn’t count the stars nor his descendants. Before Galileo, some scholars claimed they were about 1000!…

    Gen10:25 (compare also with Gen 11:1) says the Earth was divided, pointing to a previous Pangea.

    Genesis says that all humans came from one male & female. There is considerable debate in the scientific community on this, they even call it the “Eve hypothesis”.
    You can also read these on the issue:

    Click to access The-¬Eve-Mitochondrial-Consensus-Se¬quence.pdf

    Gen.17:12 God tell Abraham to circumcise newborn males on the eighth day. Why? The only day in the entire life of the newborn that the blood-clotting element prothrombin is above 100% is day eight. Therefore, the best day for circumcision is the eighth day!

    Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
    Another interesting tidbit that illuminates the Divine origin of Scripture is the recent discovery of a huge hole in space… in the direction of the northern hemisphere.
    The universe has a huge hole in it that dwarfs anything else of its kind. The discovery caught astronomers by surprise. The hole is nearly a billion light-years across. It is not a black hole, which is a small sphere of densely packed matter. Rather, this one is mostly devoid of stars, gas and other normal matter, and it’s also strangely empty of the mysterious “dark matter” that permeates the cosmos. Other space voids have been found before, but nothing on this scale.
    This “gap” is in the Northern Hemisphere, lying in the general direction of the constellation Bootes. This “hole in space” is a 300 million light year gap in the distribution of galaxies, has taken cosmologists by surprise, not because it exists, but because it is so big. Indeed, He stretches out the north over the empty place.
    ( but also [read carefully])

    The second part of the verse, contrary to what ancient peoples believed, tells us in an indirect poetic manner that the earth touches nothing visible in space (“upon nothing”)

    Job 28:25 To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure.
    (300 years ago it was discovered that the wind has weight.)

    38:16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
    (Hydrothermal vents are found in areas of the ocean floor that are spreading, such as at mid-ocean ridges, where tectonic plates are being pulled apart. Molten magma then rises from deep inside the Earth, superheating the cold ocean water around it. The average temperature of deep-ocean water is only 2°C (36°F). The water coming directly from a hydrothermal vent can reach up to 350°C (662°F) and is rich in dissolved chemicals. The hot spring water forms a plume above the vent, somewhat like smoke rising from a chimney into the air.
    The first underwater hot spring to be discovered was probably in 1977, when scientists discovered hot springs at a depth of 2.5 km, on the Galapagos Rift (spreading ridge) off the coast of Ecuador. Since then other hot springs have been found at a number of sites along the mid-oceanic ridges, many on the East Pacific Rise. Giant tube worms, huge clams, and mussels all thrive around the hot springs.)

    Water cycle (found by Galileo 1600)
    The Mississippi River, which is just one of thousands of rivers all over this planet, dumps over six million gallons of water per second into the Gulf of Mexico. The answer to where all that water goes lies in the hydrologic cycle, or circulation of the earth’s water… something that was not fully accepted until the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although the earliest literature indicating an understanding of this cycle was apparently around the third or fourth century BC.. Aristotle demonstrated only a vague understanding of this process… though he recognized that rain came from clouds, he incorrectly postulated that air turned into water and vice versa.
    Either way the Bible accurately portrays of this cycle 2500 years before it was widely accepted. Note the following passages:
    For He draws up the drops of water, they distill rain from the mist, which the clouds pour down, they drip upon man abundantly. [Job 36:27,28]

    The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name. [Amos 9:6]

    It has only recently been learned that most clouds are formed by ocean evaporation, but again the Bible had it right centuries ago:
    “All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; to the place from which the rivers come, there they return again [Ecclesiastes 1:7]”.

    The complex nature of how water is supported in clouds despite being heavier than air is clearly implied when God declared to Job [Emphasis Added]

    “Do you know how the clouds are balanced, those wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge (Job 37:16).
    Measuring The Waters:
    Modern science has proved that the quantity of water on Earth is just enough for our needs. If the sea became three meters deeper, the water would absorb all the carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and no creature could live any longer.
    Isaiah 40:12 (written 2800 years ago) “Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand…”
    We are told that God has measured the waters and set a proper amount of water on the Earth.

    There’s about 70 more of these in the Bible.
    Not to mention the miracles I’ve lived (healing, guidance, answers to prayers and more) and the divine interventions that so many brother I know had and have, not to mentions the millions that claim the same! –But oh no, atheists are right 😀 So lets become intellectually mad as well!!

  15. ark,

    I’m not a theologian or a scholar. You probably have way more of an education than I do. You ask us to prove God. I don’t believe God can be proven. Christianity comes down to faith. Faith is believing without seeing. God is who he is because he is beyond human kinds ability to prove or “figure out”. If we were able to prove Him then he wouldn’t be God.

    • Jenn, the kind of faith of Christianity is not without seeing. The Bible, as it says, was given to man throughout the centuries so that man might KNOW “I AM” (the name that God calls himself). The book is historical. Through the past couple centuries, more and more passages thought of as legend, myth, or just plain incorrect, have been confirmed true. While there are books that contain poetry and allegorical writings, much of the Bible is history that can be trusted. The Old Testament is the story primarily of God setting up the Israelites as his chosen people, and that he would provide a saviour, Jesus, to pay the penalty of our sins. Prophesies were made (revealed by God to various prophets) about the circumstances of the world at the time of the birth of Christ, about his birth, life, ministry, death and resurrection. Other prophesies are also given about the nation of Israel. Some came true during the Old Testament times, others came about in the New Testament times. Some, came even later, like the destruction of the temple in 70AD. The New Testament gives the history of the life of Jesus and the early church as it grew in about the next 50-80 years. Other historians also wrote about Jesus and his life, but their works are not a part of the Bible. The last book of the Bible describes what the end of the Earth as we know it will be like, and what will happen. Other books in the New Testament is teaching on how Christians are to relate to God, to fellow Christians, and to non believers in general.
      All of this is to say that if the history can be believed, then that which is impossible to see can also be believed because God is always true to his word. History shows his faithfulness when man is not, and He will be faithful to the end of time.
      Check out the history of the Old and New Testaments. Find confirmation within other historical documents (they are out there). Then look at the prophesies of the Bible and find out what has come true, and what is yet to come true.

  16. I can accept that atheists have no point of reference for the phenomenal. I can understand their inability to identify with the experience of humans who had no power over their exposure to the existence of something more than a nominal world. I can’t understand why atheists respond to these accounts as a personal attack on their unbelief.
    In a sophisticated culture, “knowing everything” isn’t an excuse to ridicule someone perceived to be less “knowledgeable” on either side of the debate.

  17. No mention that she ultimately became Catholic and that J.R.R. Tolkien (a Catholic whom C.S. Lewis himself credited for his turn from atheism) was a major influence as well. She appeared yesterday on EWTN’s The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi.

  18. How is it possible that two groups of educated, modern people can look at the evidence for the Resurrection claim of Jesus of Nazareth and come to such very different conclusions? How can educated Christians see the evidence for the Resurrection as so overwhelming that it is not worth their time to seriously question it, while educated Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others, find the evidence for this supernatural claim so pathetically poor and down right ridiculous?

    It really is baffling to me.

    Christians have frequently accused me of not believing because I don’t want to believe; that there is some ulterior motive for my deconversion from the Christian religion; that I have rejected the supernatural without sufficient evidence to do so. However, what then is the reason for the non-belief of Jews and Muslims in this supernatural claim? These groups certainly believe in supernatural acts of God. Why do these groups see the evidence for the Resurrection claim as so unconvincing? It can’t be because they don’t believe in the supernatural. Do Christians seriously believe that Jews and Muslims actually do see how strong the evidence is for the Resurrection claim, but, they have conspired to deny it, as they too have an ulterior motive for rejecting it??

    This is my challenge for Christians: Demand the same level of evidence for the Resurrection claim as you would apply to the supernatural claims of any other religion.

    For instance, would you believe a new religion’s claim that their recently deceased prophet flew through the air like a jet airplane just because:

    1. Their holy book points to passages in the Hebrew Bible that appear to “prophesy” about the coming of this flying prophet.

    2. The people who are converting to this new religion are people who do not believe in flying prophets, so for them to believe it, something really spectacular must have occurred to convince them that this prophet did fly.

    3. The founders of this new religion are willing to endure persecution and even death in defense of their claim of a flying prophet.

    4. The new religion spreads rapidly even under intense persecution.

    5. The new religion has the written statement of one deceased man who says he saw the flying prophet himself on a deserted desert highway, and, that someone told him that 500 people, at the same time, in the same place, also saw the flying prophet.

    6. And there is much more similar “evidence” for this religion’s claim of a flying prophet.

    Would all of this “evidence” convince you that this new religion really did have a flying prophet? Seriously dear Christian, what evidence would you require to believe that a modern day man can fly through the air, without any mechanical assistance, at the speed and altitude of a jet airplane?

    THAT is how we non-believers view your claim that a dead and decomposing first century man in Palestine was reanimated by an ancient middle-eastern god to walk out of his grave, hang out with his friends for forty days, and then levitate into outer space.

    • Great comment, but the historicity of Jesus isn’t even worth consideration in my opinion, at least not until we know that a God actually exists. At the moment, Jesus is just a side topic, I think we should focus on whether God (his father) actually exists.

      For me, the OT part of the Bible provided enough contradictions. I didn’t have to read the NT (although I did) to confirm that the Bible is nonsense.

      I’m concerned for you though. Your comment sounded/read as though you are quite stressed. I suggest you check out this blog which is authored by an atheist professor in the philosophy of religion

      Perhaps the comments section there will be more suitable.

  19. No where does the New Testament claim Jesus flew, as you claim. Your attitude indicates your level of research. Jesus was certainly alive after his crucifixion and he was last seen in spirit returning to the Father who gave it. Muslims also claim Jesus ascended to God. Jews believe the spirit returns to God at death. There were many devout Jews who were there at the time also believed; including a devout persecutor of the first Christians Saul / Paul. To claim Jews do not believe is a spurious claim, as today there are many Messianic Jews, believing Jesus is the Messiah.

    When you understand holy character, blessed actions and divine wisdom you might have a different view of reality.

  20. What always amazes me is the furor with which the atheist attack believers. I seriously could not care any less that they do not believe. Why are they so intent on attacking my belief in Jesus Christ…maybe, just maybe there is someone else at work…

  21. I am delighted that she chronicled her journey. So many people will be able to identify with this. I went to a liberal college as a believer and after a very difficult experience turned my back on my faith for 3 decades. Thankfully God never turned His back on me. A series of “coincidental” ( miraculous) events brought me back. Praise God

  22. I was an atheist through college but had several encounters with Jesus at age 25. There is no way to deny He is real when you meet Him. Ha ha! I’ve been a Christian now for 10 years.

  23. Reblogged this on Sandwrit and commented:
    “The Gospels had the ineffable texture of history, with all the odd clarity of detail that comes when the author is recounting something so huge that even as he tells it, he doesn’t see all the implications.” (p.117) Like Lewis, who was a professor of literature at Oxford and Cambridge, Ordway made the conclusion of an expert in literature, that the New Testament has all the signs of an eyewitness account.”

  24. I was brought up as a Christian; a Pentecostal, fairly fundamentalist Christian. From my teens onward I had my doubts but buried them and married a full-time evangelist. When he started to re-examine his own beliefs I started on my own path of discovery. I spent 3 to 4 years with the Quakers who had a totally different way of worshipping than I was used to. (My mother thought I had joined a cult). I also read quite widely. I am now an agnostic trying to keep an open mind but verging on becoming an out and out atheist. I, along most atheists, do not deny the existence of the historical Jesus or even the value of his teachings. I still believe that ” thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” for example. It the existence of God and the Creation theory that I find problematic. The cruel, vengeful God portrayed in the Old Testament I find particularly unappealing. I find the logic of Epicurus compelling:
    “Is God willing to prevent evil, but is unable? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able or willing? Then why call him God?”
    In some ways I envy the certainty of Christian believers but cannot share it. It would be good to believe that there is a life after death and that we would again meet up with family and friends that have gone before ….. but I don’t. I have many family members and friends who are Christians and who I respect (and a few that I don’t). I would not try to convert them to my way of thinking but am willing to debate the “God Question” if they are so inclined.

    • You should read Alvin Plantinga on the subject of God, omnipotence and evil. He is widely regarded as having treated the matter thoroughly. Be warned it is not a short read

  25. Faith is outside the grasp of those who demand prof, I do not need to prove Jesus is real , HE will do that Himself , all you need to do is ask Him, you are asking all the right questions to all the wrong people, go to the source, Jesus

  26. I tried to write a post and it was swallowed up in the Internet black hole, I guess.
    ___ Although there is plenty of room for science in Christian Faith, there is no room for Christianity in current American Science. This vein of study requires something that can be touched, held, weighed, and measured. You cannot evaluate Spiritual things with the current tools of science. Science cannot prove or disprove that a person has a spirit. I am thankful that this professor has moved beyond materialistic science and opened up her spirit to the Spirit of God.
    ___ There are proofs, such as the forensic experts who have analyzed the literature of the Holy Bible and stated that this is not fiction, but has all the evidence of being personal testimony. Even then, atheistic science must deny this, because it violates one of their hypotheses. No amount of expert testimony will make atheistic scientists change their mind about this. If you begin with the hypothesis that there is no God and can never be a God, then any further discussion between the Christian (or other persons of Faith) and the atheistic scientist is a total waste of breath or typing. If you are a Christian who believes that God is active in the world today, then pray to God that He will reveal Himself to the unbeliever in that perfect personal way tailored personally to the unbeliever. And know this, God is not interested in punishing anyone, He is interested in forgiving and loving everyone. However, He will never force you to believe in Him against your will, but He will allow you to choose your won final destiny after death. According to the Holy Bible, the destiny of the Rebellious is horrible, while the destiny of the Obedient is complete peace and satisfaction.

    • 1) Science is NOT atheistic. But science DOES assume that there is a natural cause for everything (no demons causing disease and misfortune, no gremlins creating mischief, no hand of God moving the planets, etc). That doesn’t preclude the possibility of a Personal Christian God.
      2) As for the rest of your post, it’s noteworthy that much of your criticism applies in equal measure to theists. The Christian, for example begins with the unproven assumption that God exists, that Jesus was his son, that the Bible is the Word of God, etc. And a great many Christians take that a step further, with the assumption of Biblical Inerrancy, which they hold in spite of overwhelming objective evidence to the contrary. You complain that no amount of expert testimony will change the scientist’s mind, but what sort of “expert testimony” is there? The ONLY form of evidence for god (any god) is purely subjective, and every religion has their own set of it. Would expert testimony from every one of the thousands of world religions change your mind one iota?
      3) Then you get into your own description of your God. You claim, for example, that “God is not interested in punishing anyone”. It strikes me that this statement is far out of line with any mainstream Christian theology (and the Bible itself, which has numerous descriptions of punishment that has already been meted out, and the eternal punishment that nonbelievers, goats, etc. should expect). And even your final statement (“the destiny of the Rebellious is horrible”) contradicts any notion that God is not interested in punishing anyone. And you obviously don’t see it, but that theology describes a god who is both narcissistic (he created us with the overarching expectation that we worship him), and vindictive (sentencing us to an eternity of unspeakable torment) if we don’t. I must say that IF such a god exists, he is unworthy of worship.

      • True Worship is defined as admiration of Character that we should demonstrate in our lives. Christians should admire and emulate the character Of Christ.
        As an atheist you believe exactly the same empty future as you claim of those that believe in the darkness of hades.

        • Actually I do admire much of Jesus’ teachings (as I admire much about a variety of other religions and non-religious philosophies). But there are other parts of the Bible that are far from admirable.

          One doesn’t need to believe in god to admire and emulate good behavior. And while I know a great many Christians who DO try to follow Jesus’ teachings, there are many others who choose to ignore those teachings, selectively following some of the worst parts of the Bible.

          Believing in a dark future (i.e. no afterlife) is a far cry from believing that a “loving” god will sentence me to an eternity of torment if I don’t worship him. I have no fear of the former. The latter (if it’s true) describes a god who is neither loving, nor just, nor merciful, but rather a narcissistic sadist.

          • The worship of God is expressed in admiration of the moral purity of character, the torment is the morally corrupt and wasted life of the person who cannot accept that character. Whether one is atheist or immoral the immorality is the cause of the torment that abides forever, It is a poverty of character, of not accepting and admiring and living the life. Christianity teaches a turn around [repentance] and acceptance [my short comings are atoned for] and empowerment to live that life [living in the Spirit of Christ].

            • As I noted in my prior post, one doesn’t need to believe in god to admire and emulate good behavior.

              As for “the immorality is the cause of the torment that abides forever”, are you trying to argue that an eternity of unspeakable torment is an appropriate punishment for a few decades of immoral behavior? Is this the “just and merciful God” of whom Christian’s speak?

              • God is not a physical being, God is Spirit, revealed in character, actions and wisdom.
                As for eternity our lives are recorded in light years observed by the cosmos. At the sun your live is recorded of what you did 8 minutes ago. There is no deletion of that fact. Your behaviour and attitudes affect your personal history and the reality around you.

              • Your posts are becoming more and more enigmatic, while seeming to have less and less applicability to the posts you are responding to. What do any of your obscure ramblings have to do with my comments or questions?

              • If you believe God is a physical being then you do not understand spiritual reality. Your life impacts in character, behaviour and wisdom is what impacts spiritual reality, and hot merely your physicality The body is merely a vehicle to interact with a physical world.

              • I’m well aware that God is purported to be a spiritual being. Do you have even a shred of objective evidence for his existence, or for the rest of your nonsense?

Let me know your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s