Let Your Heart Lead the Way

I have debated a long list of Christians. Some of the debates took place through e-mails, others were on Facebook and more recently they have been on Twitter. The debates can be as short as a few Twitter messages or as long as a few months of lengthy e-mails. While the beginning and middle of the debates vary the end is usually the same. They will explain to me that they understood my points, but that they know in their heart that God is real.

The idea of letting your feelings make big decisions is crazy. A scientist couldn't get his new medication pass the FDA by only saying, "I know in my heart that his medication will work great and isn't dangerous." The FDA would ask for evidence to back up this statement. A lawyer couldn't free his client by simply stating, "I know my client is not guilty because I can feel it in my heart." The judge, like the FDA in the previous example, would also require evidence. Our lives should be based on evidence not the warm and fuzzy feelings that we experience.

When the Bible was written people didn't know much about the brain which is why the Bible is filled with the idea that you think and believe things with your heart. This lack of knowledge has also lead to phrases like "I love you with all of my heart" to be part of our language. An all knowing god would have known about the brain and would not have misled his followers about the body he created. Although, there are so many things wrong with our bodies I can see why an all-powerful god wouldn't want to brag.

I know that many Christians say that everything around us proves God exists. However, through scientific discoveries we can explain how our earth came to be and shows that God isn't necessary for any of it. I know this doesn't mean that we can say with 100% certainty that there is not a god. However, there is enough evidence to feel comfortable living as if there isn't. Just as Christians live as if the all the other gods don't exist.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" -- Stephen Roberts

Welcome to Reality

This is a response to Karla's post titled Unpacking Truth Claims.

She states that she is a Christian because it lines up with reality. I have heard this line from other Christians and I have yet to see how Christianity fits reality.

I will start with the Bible. There are plenty of sections in the Bible that don't fit with reality. The Bible shows very clear signs that it was written by some very primitive people. These people were writing based on what they thought to be true. They obviously didn't have some of the great minds that we have today, nor did they have all the technology that we have today to make all the discoveries that we have made.

First, the Bible starts off with this story of how the Earth was created. Basically, the story says that God said it, and it happened. The theory of evolution has showed time and time again that this isn't how the Earth was created. I know that there are some Christians out there who say that God put Evolution in motion. Cut out the crap; if that is what God did, then that would have been recorded.

Second, I would like to point out the story of Noah and the Ark. I did a post on this a few weeks ago, so for a more complete justification of why this story doesn't line up with reality, read it and follow the links that I provided. For those that are reading this post, all I have to say is there is no way that a little over 4,000 years ago there were only 8 people and a few of each kind of animal. There would be all kinds of inbreeding problems and repopulation issues.

Finally, and probably most importantly, there isn't a shred of evidence for the Christian God or any other god. It is actually quite the opposite; there is plenty of evidence that all of the major monotheistic religions have conceptions of god that are incompatible with reality.

For a "fisk" of Karla's post titled Moral Framework see my husband Kevin's blog post. I hope that there are other readers out there that are enjoying this discussion.

Unmuddling Morality

In this post, I am taking apart a comment that Karla over at Answer Bearer wrote to me after I commented on her post entitled "Who is God?". In her post, she made the following statement:

There is no reality outside of Him. That is why a skeptic or an atheist has to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to substantiate their questions for there is no other reality.

I wasn't exactly sure where she was going with this statement, so I left a comment quoting it and asking:

Would you please explain what you mean by that statement, thanks.

Her response was as follows:

I believe that there is one foundational worldview that is truth, namely Biblical Christianity. Truth being that which corresponds to reality. All other worldviews borrow from the truth of Christianity to validate their positions. For instance, if someone claims that the existence of evil means that there is no God. For evil to exist there must be good as well. And for a person to know that there is good and evil there must be a way to distinguish between the two objectively. That way is a moral law which is inherently known by all people on a basic level (we may disagree with specifics but the basics we all maintain). If there is a moral law then there is a Moral Law Giver. So the skeptic or atheist borrows the concept of evil from Christainity to disprove the existence of God and only really finds he can't use that concept at all without first accepting God's existence. That's just one of the many examples of where one must borrow from Christianity to make sense of their questions.

I would like to "fisk" this comment (take it apart piece-by-piece) in hopes that other atheists will find this information helpful if they are ever in a similar situation and to also show Christian apologists that this argument has many flaws.

I believe that there is one foundational worldview that is truth, namely Biblical Christianity. Truth being that which corresponds to reality.

If I were to say that I believe that there is one worldview that is truth, "Pastafarianism" (belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster), on what basis would you say that your belief is the one and only truth and that mine was not?

All other worldviews borrow from the truth of Christianity to validate their positions.

I have a feeling that anyone who holds true to another religion would say that they validate their position based on their particular religion as well. How can you say that your religion, Christianity, is the only true religion? There are people throughout the world that have never even heard of Christianity; do they also borrow from the truth of Christianity to validate their positions?

For instance, if someone claims that the existence of evil means that there is no God. For evil to exist there must be good as well. And for a person to know that there is good and evil there must be a way to distinguish between the two objectively. That way is a moral law which is inherently known by all people on a basic level (we may disagree with specifics but the basics we all maintain).

I agree with you on this point.

If there is a moral law then there is a Moral Law Giver.

This point is just thrown out there, but not really explained. How does the fact that there is a moral law mean that there has to be a law-giver? I have heard this idea before and I find it utterly absurd for a number of reasons. Here are two of them.

First, this thought process assumes that there is one moral law that has been and is followed by all people. That just isn't the case. What we considered morally right and wrong in the past isn't what we consider morally right and wrong now.

One example of this is slavery. In the past, slavery was widely accepted and considered morally right, but according to today's standards slavery is considered morally wrong and rightly so. This can't even be twisted around to say that that Christians found slavery to be wrong in the past because in fact the Bible condones slavery (Exodus 21:2-11, Exodus 21:20-21, Leviticus 25:44-46, Ephesians 6:5, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2).

Even today, there are very different moral standards around the world. In some places it is acceptable to have more than one wife, or to treat women as far less than equal, but here in the US those practices aren't accepted.

Second, the idea of a moral law-giver says that we as humans are only moral to please this giver. It is a very sad thought indeed if everyone is acting morally right just to please some giver so that he rewards us and doesn't punish us. This idea of a giver doesn't take into account that we are mature and want to do what is right. This idea says we do what is right because we are afraid of punishment or want to earn another gold star.If the only reason that Christians act morally right is because they are afraid of punishment or want to reap rewards in heaven then I am sure glad that they are Christians and hope that they never stop caring what God thinks of them because then there could be some serious problems.

So the skeptic or atheist borrows the concept of evil from Christainity to disprove the existence of God and only really finds he can't use that concept at all without first accepting God's existence.

The concept of evil isn't a concept that the Christians own. I hope that through this blog post and the links that I have provided at the end you see that is perfectly clear.

That's just one of the many examples of where one must borrow from Christianity to make sense of their questions.

I would love to hear more examples. I truly love to have discussions and debates with people who are very strong in their beliefs.

In conclusion, I would like to recognize my sources for this blog post.
From Ebon Musings: Mere Christianity, Unmoved Mover, and The Ineffable Carrot and the Infinite Stick. I also would like to thank my wonderful husband Kevin for his input and editing help.