Gott Mit Uns: Open Letter to Atheists and Theists

[TheShadow.]

Whether you believe it or not is a matter of your own faith. However, the Catholic Church and, I believe, every major Christian religion, has that principle as one of their basic tenets: God knows everything; past - present - future.

Irrelevant to my position though. The man addressed me and thought I was silly for believing in something I don't believe in.

You don't have to be able to see something to know it exists. You can't see oxygen, but just try living without it. The atom has been proven to exist, through many detailed, and repeatable, scientific experiments. We know from experimentation that, if you combine certain atoms under certain conditions you will get the same result every time.

I've heard people who claim that something which seemed miraculous to them proves the existence of God. For example, someone surviving an accident which, by all rights, should have killed them. But there are far too many accidents in which someone who should have survived doesn't. Why didn't God intervene there?

I've heard people who claim that God must have created the world because it's just too complex to have developed on its own. Yet when confronted with the all too frequent breakdowns of those complex systems, something an infallible God should have been able to avoid, they place the blame on Satan. Why is it that anything bad that happens has to be Satan's fault, and not God's?

No, I'm afraid that we can never prove that God exists until the time that he stands in front of the world and proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that he does. But by the same token, we can never prove that he does not exist, either. It is, and always will be, a matter of faith.

Funny, where did I try to prove God exists? the thing is, that is not my job. Either he exists, and I am fine for believing in him, or he doesn't and I am wrong. Doesn't really matter unless I am right that he exists but wrong about who he is.

Anyway, the purpose of my post was to illustrate that people believe in a lot of things that they have no proof of except that people tell them it is real. On the other hand, I have built a homemade cloud chamber, and have proven to my satisfaction enough of the theories surroundin nuclear physics to accept them as real. Yet people stand up and call themselves skeptics yet blindly accept what scientists say, believing that they are better than me. Witness the OP in this thread as an example. I wonder if he ever thought to question science, or simply accepted them blindly and without question.

Bit ironic, don't you think?

[Thorne]

Funny, where did I try to prove God exists? the thing is, that is not my job. Either he exists, and I am fine for believing in him, or he doesn't and I am wrong. Doesn't really matter unless I am right that he exists but wrong about who he is.

I didn't mean to imply that you did try to prove it. Obviously you must believe there is enough evidence to justify your faith in God, but that does not mean you have to try to prove his existence.

Actually, I think from what I'm seeing here that you and I are approaching the same point of view from different sides. We believe what we believe and don't feel the need to prove our positions to anyone. The real difference between us is that you believe in God, and if you're wrong you lose nothing. I don't believe in God, and if I'm wrong, I'm screwed!

Anyway, the purpose of my post was to illustrate that people believe in a lot of things that they have no proof of except that people tell them it is real. On the other hand, I have built a homemade cloud chamber, and have proven to my satisfaction enough of the theories surroundin nuclear physics to accept them as real. Yet people stand up and call themselves skeptics yet blindly accept what scientists say, believing that they are better than me. Witness the OP in this thread as an example. I wonder if he ever thought to question science, or simply accepted them blindly and without question.

Bit ironic, don't you think?

Well I, for one, don't necessarily take scientist at face value. I always try to make certain that one scientists claims have been checked, double checked and triple checked by those considered responsible, and then I do my best to understand what has been stated. That's not always easy so yes, I do sometimes have to make the assumption that those dozens of scientists who have corroborated the data are right. Still, I always reserve the right to change my opinion pending receipt of new data.

I remember when cold fusion was being touted in the newspapers as the greatest breakthrough in scientific history many years ago. Scientists, those with the resources and the training, immediately set about trying to duplicate the results, working quietly and diligently. For my part, while I would have liked to see something like that work, I do know enough science to have had serious doubts.

It's true that we all have to take some things on faith at some point. We have to pick and choose our battles. I prefer to place more faith in a system that at least tries to correct itself through repeated experimentation and peer review than in a system whose only source of "data" is a book which has undergone numerous rewrites and translations after being written down from an oral history handed down through generations of "believers".

[TheShadow.]

I didn't mean to imply that you did try to prove it. Obviously you must believe there is enough evidence to justify your faith in God, but that does not mean you have to try to prove his existence.

Actually, I think from what I'm seeing here that you and I are approaching the same point of view from different sides. We believe what we believe and don't feel the need to prove our positions to anyone. The real difference between us is that you believe in God, and if you're wrong you lose nothing. I don't believe in God, and if I'm wrong, I'm screwed!

I agree with that, mosy of my response to you was based on your replies to what I said anyway, and was not about disagreeing so much as clarifying my position.

And as far as you being screwed, not necessarily. As I often tell pepole when they try to pin me down about who will go to heaven, that is a management decision. I can actually point to Bible verses that indicate that everyone will be given a second chance to make a informed decision about following God, which really drives a lot of people nutty. They really go apeshit when I tell them that I really don't think anyone will actually go to heaven.

Well I, for one, don't necessarily take scientist at face value. I always try to make certain that one scientists claims have been checked, double checked and triple checked by those considered responsible, and then I do my best to understand what has been stated. That's not always easy so yes, I do sometimes have to make the assumption that those dozens of scientists who have corroborated the data are right. Still, I always reserve the right to change my opinion pending receipt of new data.

I remember when cold fusion was being touted in the newspapers as the greatest breakthrough in scientific history many years ago. Scientists, those with the resources and the training, immediately set about trying to duplicate the results, working quietly and diligently. For my part, while I would have liked to see something like that work, I do know enough science to have had serious doubts.

It's true that we all have to take some things on faith at some point. We have to pick and choose our battles. I prefer to place more faith in a system that at least tries to correct itself through repeated experimentation and peer review than in a system whose only source of "data" is a book which has undergone numerous rewrites and translations after being written down from an oral history handed down through generations of "believers".

I understand, but if you examine all of the evidence you might find that that book has been proven to have existed essentially unchanged from a much earlier time than most believe, and is actually pretty reliable as far as things that can be checked.

[Thorne]

if you examine all of the evidence you might find that that book has been proven to have existed essentially unchanged from a much earlier time than most believe, and is actually pretty reliable as far as things that can be checked.

I have heard many different opinions about that, and I'm fairly well convinced that there is not all that much of the Bible which has remained unchanged. In the first place, the Old Testament is a conglomeration of morality tales, primarily, based on old oral histories and then the Torah. But there have been numerous revisions and translations and revisions of translations. The basic stories are the same, but many of the phrases, which may have meant one thing in Aramaic, meant something slightly different in Hebrew, and more different in Greek, then in Latin and then in English. It's like playing that old children's game of telephone, where each person has to pass on a message to the next person, with each person translating from what he was told by the previous person.
Even the New Testament has been revised since the first writings, with the leaders of the Catholic Church picking and choosing among the various gospels in existence at the time, then tossing the one's they didn't like. That doesn't mean that the one's they selected were accurate, just that they sold the message the Church leaders wanted to sell.
And, while there may be some archeological evidence to corroborate some portions of the Bible, there is an awful lot of blank space, things which one would suspect should have left traces, but for which no tangible evidence has been found.
So we cannot say that the Bible is unchanged; we cannot show that many, if not most, of the happenings in the Bible, including most of the New Testament, ever took place; we cannot even prove that some of the most important characters in the Bible actually existed. How, then can we say it has remained essentially unchanged for thousands of years?
And all that aside, when so many people who profess to believe in the Bible can interpret it in so many different ways, how are we expected, rationally, to accept it as gospel? No, I think I'll have to pass on the Bible as an historical artifact and interpret it more as a morality play, a teaching tool for the rules of society.

[Belgarold]

I understand, but if you examine all of the evidence you might find that that book has been proven to have existed essentially unchanged from a much earlier time than most believe, and is actually pretty reliable as far as things that can be checked.

To add to Thorne's great post, many of the parables and stories were added to the Bible by monks as late as the dark ages.

The powers that were also left out many books (The Gnostic Chronicles) which actually had Jesus saying, (and I am paraphrasing, sorry), "I am god, but you are too."

It was decided to leave out the book that described Jesus as a child was voted out of the bible.

And, to me, when you consider that the books of the New Testament were written 60 years after the events, you have to wonder.

I am sorry but the statement that the Bible has been unchanged for thousands of years just doesn't hold water.

And for the record I am not an Atheist, I have a strong, personal belief in God. But I do not think the Bible is the end-all be-all of religious thought. TO me God speaks to us through many means and many people.

The Bible has many good things in it, but as THorne alluded too, it is way too easy to interpretation. And it seems to me, most organized religions, are based on a few verses and they easily ignore the rest.

[leo9]

It was decided to leave out the book that described Jesus as a child was voted out of the bible.

If you've read it, you'll see why. It has him acting like one of the more capricious Hindu gods - he make mud animals and brings them to life, then when another child damages them, he strikes the child dead. And so on. It must have been an embarrassment even back in ancient Rome.

The deleted gospel that I find more intriguing is the Life of Mary, which credits her with a portentous birth and miracle-working life to equal her son's. One can certainly see how the Roman church, which had already taken on board all the Roman attitudes to women, couldn't be having with that.

[leo9]

And as far as you being screwed, not necessarily. As I often tell pepole when they try to pin me down about who will go to heaven, that is a management decision. I can actually point to Bible verses that indicate that everyone will be given a second chance to make a informed decision about following God, which really drives a lot of people nutty.

Which verses are those? I would have thought the First Commandment pretty much settled it.

However, a great many religions don't actually hold that you won't go to Heaven unless you "believe" right; their position is that what matters is that you lived a virtuous life, who you prayed to is a secondary or even lower matter.

Following the "right" religion might give you useful pointers as to the approved kind of virtue (whether to rub blue mud into your navel on the Solstices or the Equinoxes), but if you get it right by pure inspiration, you qualify just like a True Believer.

I understand, but if you examine all of the evidence you might find that that book has been proven to have existed essentially unchanged from a much earlier time than most believe, and is actually pretty reliable as far as things that can be checked.

As a matter of interest, which excluded books of the Apocrypha do you consider part of this unchanged and accurate book, and which of the ones that were removed from it within recorded history were never part of it?

Are you aware that some of the "things that can be checked" are the Roman records of the history of Judea, and they show no record of, among other things, the census that supposedly took Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, or the Massacre of Innocents? (To name only the events large enough, from the point of view of the Imperial government, to have certainly been worth recording.)

Enquiring minds want to know.

[Thorne]

However, a great many religions don't actually hold that you won't go to Heaven unless you "believe" right; their position is that what matters is that you lived a virtuous life, who you prayed to is a secondary or even lower matter.

Obviously you are unfamiliar with the American Southern Baptists. As near as I can tell, you are either a born again Christian who may make it to heaven, or you are the spawn of Satan trying to lure others to hell. There seems to be very little middle ground.

Are you aware that some of the "things that can be checked" are the Roman records of the history of Judea, and they show no record of, among other things, the census that supposedly took Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, or the Massacre of Innocents? (To name only the events large enough, from the point of view of the Imperial government, to have certainly been worth recording.)

I've heard similar reports, many dealing with events which should have been recorded. There are, supposedly, records from the Roman government in Judea from the time of the crucifixion, many dealing with criminals and executions, but to my (admittedly uncertain) knowledge there is absolutely no historical evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ outside of the New Testament.
Add to this the fact that even among the four Gospels which the Church deemed worthy of inclusion in the Bible, there is a plethora of contradiction and disagreement dealing with something so important to the Church as the life of Christ. Much of the early life of Christ, as related by the Gospels, seems to have been edited to conform to the Hebrew prophecies dealing with the coming of the Messiah.

[leo9]

Obviously you are unfamiliar with the American Southern Baptists. As near as I can tell, you are either a born again Christian who may make it to heaven, or you are the spawn of Satan trying to lure others to hell. There seems to be very little middle ground.

That particular faction isn't found in this country, but we have our own versions. I'll never forget an interfaith forum I once attended which was all friendly and ecumenical until the two Christian ministers fell out over the question of whether unbelievers could be saved. I can still hear the Protestant minister getting more Irish by the moment as he shouted "I don't care what the Pope says, the Bible says..."