GREAT WEBSITE!!! You actually discuss very sensitive subjects rationally and calmly even when you disagree. How refreshing.

I have no idea how this universe came about. Nor do I care. I care about where I am today, where I want to be tomorrow and how I am going to get there. In any event, I do reject the idea of a Big Man in the Sky. If there is an intellegent, purpose driven force responsible for all of this, I wouldn't recognize it any more than an ameoba recognizes my obvious superiority... and vice versa!!!

Title: Moses did not believe in afterlife – Part 2

Jesus was known to have risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. Saint Paul states in the New Testament that “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain” (1 Corinthians 15: 13-14). Well said. Let us hear what he says in 1 Corinthians.

1 Corinthians
15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead then
Christ has not been raised;

15: 14 If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching
is in vain and your faith is in vain.

15: 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God,
because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom
he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.

15: 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has
not been raised.

15: 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile
and you are still in your sins.

Paul continues his tirade about the resurrection of Jesus following his endless circular reasoning (1Corinthian 15:1-58). Paul did not see Jesus’ resurrection in person. He only saw the “vision” of Jesus after Jesus died. Paul was still a fierce persecutor of Christians even after Jesus was crucified. But when he was on the way to Damascus to persecute the remnants of Christians, he saw the vision of Jesus who scolded him in the vision. After that event Paul turned 180 degrees: he became an ardent disciple of Jesus (Acts 9: 1-9).

Acts
9: 1 But Saul [Paul’s original name before his conversion],
still breathing threats and murder against the disciples
of the Lord, went to the high priest

9: 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus,
so that if found any belonging to the Way, men or women,
he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

9: 3 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and
suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.

9:4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to
him, “Soul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

9: 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said,
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;

9: 6 but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you
are to do.”

9: 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless,
hearing the voice but seeing no one.

9: 8 Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were
opened, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand
and brought him into Damascus.

9: 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate
nor drank.

The detailed story of Paul’s dramatic conversion must have been created by the author of the book of Acts of the Apostles. Many scholars believe that the Acts was written by Saint Luke between AD. 85 and 90, about 55 to 60 years after Jesus died. Paul died (beheaded) in Rome in AD. 67. But it seems that Paul’s sudden conversion was true. Paul seemed to have had guilty feeling in his heart even before he saw the vision of Jesus because he had persecuted or even killed Christians (Acts 8: 3; 22: 4). It might be possible that Paul had the suspicion that “probably Jesus might have been the true son of God because so many Christians do not give up their belief in Jesus even before persecution or death.” These kinds of complex feelings in Paul’s subconsciousness seemed to have caused him to have hallucination and see the vision of scolding Jesus.

After his resurrection, according to the four Gospels in the New Testament, Jesus appeared only to his followers. This is a weak point of the story of Jesus’ resurrection. If Jesus really had had the intention to save all Israelites or humanity, he should have appeared not only to his faithful followers but also to all others who had suspicion about Jesus’ resurrection. Had Jesus had the power to rise from the dead and turn his enemy (Saul) to an ardent apostle, Jesus should have exercised such power in converting many of his enemies. For example, Jesus should have converted any or all of his enemies, especially notorious anti-Christians such as Pontius Pilate, Nero, Marx, Lenin, Mao Tse-tung, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc., to just name a few, and made them his loyal servants.

Paul says that Jesus was the first fruits of those who have died (1 Corinthian 15: 20).

1 Corinthian
15: 20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the
first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Paul was wrong. Jesus was not the first fruits who rose from the dead. Jesus raised Lazarus who had been dead for four days and already gave off “odor” (John 11:38-44). Ezekiel (Jewish prophet in about 578 BCE) witnesses in the book of Ezekiel that Ezekiel turned bones of men into living men with the power God gave to him. That was long before Jesus’ resurrection (Ezekiel 37: 1-10). It is amusing to see to what extent religionists’ story telling ability can unfurl. Let us hear what Ezekiel says about the resurrection of the bones.

Ezekiel
37: 1 The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me out
in the spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the
valley which was full of bones.

37: 2 And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold,
there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry.

37: 3 And he said unto me, Son of man* can these bones live?
And I answered, O Lord God, thou knowest.
*[ Note that Jesus was not the only Son of man.]

37: 4 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones,
and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.

37: 5 Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones; Behold, I
will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:

37: 6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh
upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you,
and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the Lord.

37: 7 So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied,
there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones
came together, bone to his bone.

37: 8 And when I behold, lo, the sinew and the flesh came
up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there
was no breath in them.

37: 9 Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy,
son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord God;
Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these
slain, that they may live.

37: 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath
came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their
feet, an exceeding great army.

The New Testament also states that many dead bodies of saints were raised at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion (Matthew 27: 50-53).

Matthew
27: 50 And Jesus cried again with a loud voice yielded up his spirit.

27: 51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two,
from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split;

27: 52 the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of
the saints who had fallen asleep were raised,

27: 52 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection
they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

It seems that those saints who were raised from the tombs at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion did not appear to Paul.

Continued to Part 3
(I have revised this chapter and made it into three parts.)

Title: Moses did not believe in afterlife Part 1-2

There is not a positive word or line in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) that has to do with afterlife, resurrection, last judgment, paradise, hell, purgatory, etc.

There are many different theories about by whom and when the Pentateuch was written. It is obvious that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses himself. Some people even say that Moses did not exist. But my position is that a legendary religious leader known as Moses lived in about BCE. 1200’s and that he led the Hebrews “and a mixed multitude (peoples of various ethnic origins)” (Exodus 12: 37-38), who had been slaves in Egypt, out from Egypt and led them into the land of Canaan (what is now Palestine), and that the legends of Moses became the skeleton of the Pentateuch later.

I would not discuss the history of the Pentateuch in this chapter. The main purpose of this chapter is to discuss the fact that the Pentateuch does not contain the concepts related to afterlife, which is paramountly important doctrine for Judaic-Christian-Islamic religions. Judaic-Christian-Islamic religions believe in common that the Pentateuch was written by Moses and that Moses’ God is the Creator of the Universe. In this chapter, I will assume that the Pentateuch was written by Moses.

The story about the Original Sin appears in the book of Genesis states that since the first man (Adam and Eve) ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God forbade man eternal life (Genesis 3: 22-24).

Genesis
3: 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil [This was very good for man!]: and now lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

3: 23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken.

3: 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

The Book of Genesis teaches us through explanatory myth that eternal life is impossible for man. In this respect, I respect the insight and honesty of the author of the Genesis whoever that was. The Pentateuch mentions about the death of many fathers of Israel, from Adam to Moses. The Bible states that each of the fathers simply “died” without alluding whether any or all of them ever went to heaven. There is, however, one exception: Enoch, the seventh descendent of Adam, were “taken (alive to heaven?) by God (Genesis 5: 23-24). King James Version reads as follows:

Genesis
5: 23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:

5: 24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not: for God took him.

All ancestors and descendents of Enoch were described as “died.” So it is unusual that Enoch was taken by God. Does it mean that God took Enoch to heaven alive? I am not sure. Much Later, Elijah (Israel prophet lived about 800s BCE /The World Book Encyclopedia, 1979 ed.) “went up into heaven by a whirlwind” (2 Kings 2: 11). So at least two persons, Enoch and Elijah, went to heaven according to the Old Testament. But the author of the book of John in the New Testament states that “no one has ascended into heaven but Jesus” (John 3: 13).

John
3: 13 No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.

John did not know that Elijah went up to heaven by a whirlwind. Not only the author(s) of the Pentateuch but also the authors of the books of Psalm and Ecclesiastes clearly expressed their disbelief in eternal life.

Psalm 6
6: 5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee [Lord]: in the grave who shall give thee thank?

Psalm was known as the work of David. But it is not certain. The author of Ecclesiastes denied afterlife more bravely than David (Ecclesiastes 9: 4-6).

Ecclesiastes
9: 4 For to him that joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.

9: 5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

9: 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

Tradition says that Solomon (BCE 900’s) wrote Ecclesiastes, but scholars believe that the actual author of the Ecclesiastes lived at later time, probably about 250 BCE (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1979 ed.). Biblical scholars believe that Psalm and Ecclesiastes must have been written far later not by the alleged authors. In any event, the authors of the Pentateuch, Psalm, and Ecclesiastes were more honest and wiser than Jesus in the point that they denied eternal life and heaven.

According to “The Encyclopedia of Religion (1987), the concepts of eternal life, resurrection, heaven, hell, purgatory, virgin birth of Messiah, rise from death after three days, last judgment (Armageddon), etc. were originally the religious ideas of Zoroastrianism, an ancient religion of Persia.

Zoroastrianism was the ancient religion of Persia what is now Iran. (Iranians have become Muslims after the invasions of Arab Muslims in the 7th BCE). Zoroastrianism was introduced to many Middle Eastern nations long before Jesus began to teach about eternal life and heaven. During its peak time in 500’s BCE, Persian Empire included most area of Middle East, Asia Minor, Northern India, Palestine, and Northern Egypt. Naturally, Zoroastrianism, the state religion of Persia, influenced many people in these areas. It is out of question that many, though not all, Jews absorbed religious ideas of Zoroastrianism.

There are two theories about the origin of Zoroastrianism. The World Book Encyclopedia (1979 ed.) states that it began in about BCE. 600’s (article “Zoroastrianism” by Kendall W. Folkert). The Encyclopedia of Religion (1987 ed.) states that it began in about BCE. 1000’s (article “Zoroatrianism” by Gherardo Gnoli, translated from Italian by Ughetta Fitzgerald Lubin).

On the other hand, the idea of resurrection was believed in ancient Egypt probably from about 3000’s BCE or earlier. Pyramids had to do with the belief of the resurrection of Egyptian kings. It might be possible that the idea of resurrection was exposed to Moses and his people when they lived in Egypt. But it seems that Moses believed in neither resurrection nor eternal life. Had he believed such stuffs, he must have expressed his belief in such ideas in the Pentateuch.

The New Testament states that “wise men (magi) came from the East led by a star to worship newborn Jesus” (Matthew 2:1-2). This line seems to be the evidence that the author of the book of Matthew was influenced (indirectly) by the Persian religion. Magi were famous for their astrology and they were known as wise men. The World Book Encyclopedia, (1979 ed.) states about “Magi” as follows:

Magi, MAY jie, were the priests of ancient Medes and Persians. After the rise of Zoroaster, magi became the priests of Zoroastrian religion (see Zoroastrianism). The ancient Greeks and Hebrews knew them as astrologers, interpreters of dreams, and giver of omens. So they were generally known as “wise men.” The Greek words “magic” originally meant the work of the Magi. Later, the Magi became corrupt. The three “wise men from the East” who brought gifts to the baby Jesus are supposed to have been Magi. .... (Contributed by Bruce M. Metzoer)

The story that three wise men from the east came to baby Jesus was a fabrication. This view point is supported by the untrue stories concerning baby Jesus in relation with the King Herod (see Chapter “God Who Killed All the Firstborn of Egyptians”).

It is obvious that many Jews, especially Pharisees, believed in eternal life and resurrection even before Jesus began to teach about them. In Jesus’ time, Pharisees believed in resurrection, heaven, and eternal life whereas Sadducees believed in only Moses’ teachings in the Torah (Pentateuch) and denied resurrection and eternal life (Luke 20: 27). Jesus was close to Pharisees in the point that he believed in resurrection and eternal life. But Jesus vehemently hated both Pharisees and Sadducees because both of them did not believe in him as the son of God.

Jesus' major doctrines were closer to that of Zoroastrianism than the teachings of Moses. In this respect, Jesus’ father was closer to Aura Mazda, the god of Zoroastrianism, rather than to Jehovah (Moses’ god). Jesus discarded many laws of Moses and taught quite different laws after Ahura Mazda. As long as the doctrines of eternal life, heaven, hell, resurrection, and the last judgment are concerned, we can say that Jesus’ Father was Ahura Mazda. This means that those who believe in Jesus are also the children of Ahura Mazda, the god of Zoroastrianism. Jesus gravely violated Moses’ God. This was the reason that Jesus was killed. Moses’ God clearly warned that his words should be observed without alteration (Deuteronomy 12: 32) and that any one who teaches foreign religions should be killed without pity (Deuteronomy 13: 6-11).
---------------
To be continued to Part 2-2.

Title: ex-KGB confession / The ideological subversion technique

Yuri Bezmenov, the ex-KGB and the interviewee in this video, tells us very shocking but important information.

Edward Griffin, the interviewer, is nice guy but unfortunately he is a Christian and another useful idiot, according to my judgment. I will tell about this guy later.

In order to better understand this video, I recommend that you (members of this site) see the introductory/digest version, whose running time is 16 and ½ minutes, first.
If you want to see the whole version, please do so after you see the intro/digest version.

Introductory/digest version: 16m 35 s.
Click here: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov_news

Full version: 1h 21m 28s
Click here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2307456730142665916&ei=0QLzSOiACJH8qAPUtJH4Dw&q=Yuri+Bezmenov#

ex-KGB confession / The ideological subversion technique


Yuri Bezmenov, the ex-KGB and the interviewee in this video, tells us very shocking but important information.

Edward Griffin, the interviewer, is nice guy but unfortunately he is a Christian and another useful idiot, according to my judgment. I will tell about this guy later.

In order to better understand this video, I recommend that you (members of this site) see the introductory/digest version, whose running time is 16 and ½ minutes, first.
If you want to see the whole version, please do so after you see the intro/digest version.

Introductory/digest version: 16m 35 s.
Click here: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov_news

Full version: 1h 21m 28s
Click here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2307456730142665916&ei=0QLzSOiACJH8qAPUtJH4Dw&q=Yuri+Bezmenov#

Absolutely riveting! Thank you so much, Brian, for the links. I'd advise all our readers to watch the long video (which includes the substance of the short one) if they can find the time, but at least to watch the short one.

Please tell us more about Edward Griffin, the interviewer.

Liberty MUST be the litmus test. Not God. Not choice. Not D nor R. American Liberty is not some brand that has simply lost it's patent. We can not sit idly by while our country is re branded by socialists conscripting the underclass to facilitate their agenda. Please appeal to fellow conservatives...we must look beyond these subtle differences and toward our common thread. We must assist in lifting the less fortunate to a new role of independence.

Wow, you guys are really something. A minority of a minority group. Considering the vast majority of atheists are anything but conservative, I guess you've really found your niche. Doesn't it ever bother you that most religious types are conservative? Sure there's some progressive "social justice" churches out there, but they are few and far between. Strange company you keep...

Just out of curiosity, does your principled stand on "individual freedom" include a woman's right to choose? Or to protest unjust wars? God and country first, right? Oops, I mean country, not God.

Atheist conservative here. My conservatism is for conserving the founding principles of this Republic, particularly the individual sovereignty. I am fiercely pro choice and I think this is consistent with the individualism in true conservatism, which is the conservatism before the so-called "Moral Majority" hijacked the Republican Party and destroyed it.

I've been pro-choice and capitalist and pro defense longer than I can remember. An atheist since age 7, but confirmed in my polemics and philosophy in my teens in the 1970s. That was a highly socialist era. Lots of older boomers were very socialist still in the 1970s! I used to argue with a socialist on my college campus in the late 1970s.

I was beginning to think that I was pretty much alone in my beliefs until I stumbled on this site. On top of that I live in the upstate of South Carolina in a small city where the bible pretty much IS the law of the land. Only one member of my family knows that I am an atheist and if the rest found out I would probably not be welcome at family functions. What I do have in common with my family and community is that I am fiercely conservative...I just consider myself a more "enlightened" conservative if you will.

I am assuming that by a "woman's right to choose" you mean abortion. By my interpretation of our constitution and the basic principles contained therein, our government has no say in the matter. This is one of many reasons that although I am a conservative I am most certainly NOT a republican. I am my own, unique brand of conservative in my estimation with many beliefs that border on totalitarianism...My willingness to die for my individual freedom and liberty is one of a number of issues that stops me short of being national socialist or quasi-fascist.

Protest unjust wars? Uhm...I think the first amendment covers this pretty thoroughly and conclusively to my staunch approval. I may be conservative but I by no means agreed with much of what the Bush administration did, including the pretenses by which we invaded Iraq. Don't get me wrong...The fall of Hussein and the Bath party was a wonderful thing to happen to the people of Iraq, and I have no misgivings that is was us who deposed the dictator or that we did so militarily. I only disagree with the pretenses that were used to justify the invasion.

And no it doesn't bother me that most religious types are conservative. Where I live most don't even understand that they are conservative. My own father is registered as a democrat but he is clearly a conservative and I will not condescend him in an attempt to convince him of this. Every single person I come in contact with to the best of my knowledge is at least a theist if not a christian. Most are pretty good people and I applaud their faith. I simply do not share in their faith to the point that I do not believe in the supernatural in any form, much less some invisible man in space who created me to be what I am and is going to punish me to eternal damnation for acting on my natural instincts (for me primarily lust and other indulgences)...but he loves me. When you look at the history of theism in our world from a broad stance I feel it is obvious that there is no god and that everything has a logical, scientific, and/or mathematical explanation, some of which we have simply failed to discover.

Although there is great ignorance on a vast scale in the region I live in, southern bible-belt christians are not stupid. As much as I hate to say it I feel that the majority of them are just weak-minded but only on a certain level because most are certainly not weak-minded in general.

I am glad that you are curious about us and asked what you did. That was a nice excercise for my brain.

Many conservatives, including Ron Paul, would agree with you regarding Iraq. I was fine with the invasion of Afghanistan and our involvement into Iraq up to when we captured Saddam Hussein. At that point I was thinking that's enough. Let's get out. since then I am for pulling out. My pro defense is based on the true meaning of "defense," not "offense."

I've always preferred to say we are "an anomaly wrapped within an enigma" as opposed to a 'minority squared'

It would be much neater if you deleted my earlier comment! I should have logged in so I could revise it. Also there is another Mark who will be confused with me - and who may not appreciate it if the world thinks he can't spell 'ideologically'!!

Mark, we read 'idealogically' as a typo, and are sure any reader would. We think your comment is interesting. China is a case well worth discussion among free marketeers. We don't agree that freedom or anything else - not even earthquakes, deformed babies, or the H1N1 virus - is 'God given'.

We prefer not to delete comments. We deleted one a few months back that was both an attack on a particular person we had quoted and also contained remarks that would give very general offense, but after consideration re-instated it, only warning the author that we'd accept no more such messages from him. (He hasn't returned.)

Look what fun we're having with this exchange. If we deleted your first comment we'd need to delete your second one too, or it wouldn't be referring to anything - and C. Gee's and this one of mine for the same reason. It would all be a loss.

So please, Mark, give us your revised comment. You could start by saying that it is a revised version and why you want it to supersede the other one. We are looking forward keenly to reading it.

My revised comment would have been just a clearer, shorter version of the original - so there is nothing to look forward to keenly! But what about China? They have less freedom and yet they seem to be becoming much stronger economically. You say (in the Articles of reason) that individual freedom is a necessary condition for prosperity - this seems then to be incorrect - doesn't it?

One thing to consider is: China has a virtually endless supply of cheap labor, and do not have anywhere near the amount of regulations and protections as compared to the United States; hence China is able to produce goods much more cheaply. China is "successful" if you limit your comparison criteria to such things as "flow of capital" -- but you have to consider other "criteria" as well.

China's government is overly oppressive. For example, participating in online forums over there can get you sent to prison (depending on what you say).

China's polution problem is quite severe (and getting worse each year -- more so than the United States).

China doesn't protect its citizens all that well from unsafe work environments (not when compared to the United States).

etc, etc...

In my opinion, a "pure free-market economy" typically ends up (if you wait long enough) with a vast divide between the haves and have nots. That is why (I believe) we need a "certain amount of government" to ensure that those with most of the capital do not have "too much power" (i.e., the government needs to provide some regulations, and make laws to protect workers from unsafe conditions). That being said, I do believe that "free-market *based* economies" are better than those which rely more heavily on socialistic principles.

I would like to think that most members here can agree that the United States has strayed far too left (towards socialism).

You raise a very interesting question. I don't know the answer. I'll try to find one, for my own sake as well as to reply to you. If and when I do, I'll post it. If I don't, we will have to revise or at least qualify our statement about freedom and prosperity.

My thoughts at the moment, after some cursory research, is that the prosperity of China may be short lived if it does not allow more political freedom. Also that innovation, usually necessary for sustained economic growth, is unlikely under a Communist government. But I can see that this is not a strong answer to your question.

Thanks for raising it. If you have any more thoughts on the subject, please let us know.

You may find this worth reading:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65947/the-end-of-the-beijing-consensus?page=show

Could you please delete the comment I sent yesterday. I would like to replace it with a revised version.
Thanks

Go ahead and post your revised comment. No need to delete your comment of yesterday.

You say in a note in articles of reason that tyrants cannot change in response to changing conditions, and cannot know what people want. Maybe they can guess what people want, and who says they can't change in response to changing conditions? I'm thinking of China. In some ways they can take action more effectively and more quickly than democracies can.

I'm on your side idealogically, but you've got to admit that we in the West are losing out economically - again think of US debt much of which is held by China. I am sympathetic to free market ideas (Mises, Hayek), but the idea that you can't have capitalism without political freedom doesn't seem to stand up. Also I have some doubts about individual freedom as a dogma - in the US context it is God-given and if you don't believe in God I think you have to rethink it. (I am not religious and I believe that individual freedom is important, but I don't think it helps to state it as a dogma or a doctrine without some analysis.)

It's good to know I'm not the only one who shares your exact conclusions on religion and conservatism.

As an agnostic conservative, I agree with most of your tenets, but your claim that "Agnosticism is atheism and should confess to being so" is simply incorrect. Atheism - and specifically "strong atheism" consisting of an explicit denial of the existence of deities, which is your implied belief based on your Articles of Reason for Atheism - is separate and clearly distinct from several types of agnosticism.

As an agnostic, I do not have any evidence that there are one or more gods that interact with the universe. However, I do believe that the universe itself exists -- and that this existence springs from something. Do I believe that "something" is a god? No, but existence itself is indeed one single piece of evidence supporting such a hypothesis, and as a rational human being, I must accept that further evidence (which has not been discovered, and may not exist) could turn that hypothesis into a theory, and with enough evidence, a fact. This is clearly distinct from an explicit and absolute denial of the possibility of "god" (taken in the broadest sense of the term, a "creator"), which is a central tenet of atheism.

Moreover, your suggestion that agnosticism "confess to being [atheism]" incorrectly - and rather insultingly - implies that agnostics are somehow afraid of "coming out of the closet" into full-blown atheism, as if agnosticism is some sort of "atheism lite", which is very much isn't.

Fortunately, as a flexibly-minded agnostic, I'm comfortable overlooking this small -- but significant - inaccuracy in favor of sharing in a community of (generally) like-minded conservatives who also have no religion or faith. :)

John,

Athiesm is essentially defined as without god. Either you believe, (have faith) or you don't. If you believe the supernatural exists but think mans knowledge is too limited to comprehend, you still are a believer. If you don't believe in the supernatural in any form, but suspend judgement thinking our knowledge is too limited to comprehend, but that we possibly may have enough evidence in the the future, you still don't believe, are therefore "without god", and therefore an athiest.

I'm recommending this book so often on this site that people are going to think I'm shilling for the publisher, nonetheless, I will suggest you read "The Case Against God" by George H. Smith for what I think a very good analysis of the issue.

You're probably smarter than I am and can find some flaws in his arguments. If you do, please let me know so that I can revise my thinking.

Thanks

Far from being a 'closet atheist' your comment implies that you are actually a 'closet believer'; unlike many who are doubtful about a god but call themselves agnostics as a form of insurance in case there is one. To call oneself a 'flexibly minded agnostic' is the feeblest bit of fence sitting I have ever encountered.

John, you and I are very close philosphically so please don't interpret any disrespect from my comments. You make reference to a god hypothesis. I consider the god hypothesis to be the weakness of all god conclusions. There is no reality based god hypothesis. Here is the catch: If you have to refer to the things you think god did (created the universe), in your god hypothesis, you have failed to make a god hypothesis. It is not valid scientific process to jump ahead of your hypothesis, within your hypothesis, into what you think the hypothesized god did, or does now, you must first give a god hypothesis independent of what he did or does.
No god advocate will give you the raw hypothesis. They will always resort to: "God is incomprehensible", in order to humble you for asking, and at the same time enhance their own image as a person superior to you because they supposedly have a greater appreciation of this incomprehensible being than you do.

Since the raw hypothesis would have to include specific characteristics, like that the god is invisible, silent, unavailable for interview, can't be demonstrated, etc. the god advocates have dodged the bullet.

If an agnostic acknowledges an event or power that is unknowable (ie, the universe) and is a force greater than him/herself, does that by definition constitute a belief in a "god"?

That depends on the individual agnostic and his/her definition of "god".

But of course, mankind has been presented with unknown/unknowable things since the dawn of our species, and has not called them "god": doubtless mankind saw the effects of gravity long before Newton postulated its cause, but my guess is that few people have ever called gravity "god".

John L.

We are very glad you found your way here. Welcome.
There is the possibility of other universes that do not "exist" as we know it. Would evidence for those universes increase, or diminish , the possibility of evidence of a creator God? Is it that the more there "is", the more the possibility of evidence of the possibility of God? Is the possibility of evidence for God, the same as the possibility of God?
From the atheist perspective, the possibility of evidence for God does not exist, the evidence for God does not exist, and, despite that, God does not exist!

> There is the possibility of other universes that do not "exist"
> as we know it. Would evidence for those universes increase,
> or diminish , the possibility of evidence of a creator God?

I'm sorry, but this question is a non-sequitur. The posit isn't that "more stuff (our universe, other universes, etc.) means more evidence of a god". The argument is that the existence of *anything* -- our universe (the only one we currently know about) and everything in it, down to a single quark - begs the question, "from where did it come?"

The atheist argument I've heard in the past regarding this question is, "it doesn't matter, because it's up to theists to provide evidence of a god" (which is a logically correct statement), but that argument is still, in my opinion, a cop-out. The question of existence can be approached philosophically, or it can be approached scientifically. A philosophical approach (which is what an atheistic statement is) allows a statement such as "god(s) do not exist". On the other hand, a scientific one must, by definition, accept the possibility that evidence could be discovered to change that opinion. Anything else is simply apriorism -- whether in the form of religious zealotry, or in the form of absolutist atheism.

I do not concede that the statement "there is no God, no possibility of God, and no possibility of evidence of the possibility of God" is dogma. Call it anti-dogma.

I do not think that any scientist, by definition, should concede that there may be discoveries that will ever point to God. A scientist cannot pursue an inquiry based on the assumption of uncreated phenomena and simultaneously believe in the possibility that he might turn up a created phenomenon. Logically, he would have to believe that all phenomena were created, but some show the hand of God and some do not. Scientific inquiry would be a process of discovering - uncovering - knowledge of God's work. "Keeping an open mind" is, in fact, tacitly accepting religious dogma. If a scientist should stumble across a phenomenon that points to its being created, what would it have to consist of to be such a sign? I doubt that even Higgs boson - the "God particle" - will actually be considered a sign of God. There has yet to be established irreducible complexity. No sign of God in the flagellum or the eye.

"From where did it come" is itself a non-sequitur at the edge of space and time. All origination meaning comes undone there, including any meaning for a creator God.

One can see the temptation for saying that God is creation, is nature, is the universe and every particle within it, but that admits that there can be no evidence of his separate existence, and none of his pre-existence.

And outside "creation", beyond time, space, energy, matter, beginnings, change and endings, there is no possibility of evidence of the possibility of God. God is a conceptual nullity - a void.

> I do not concede that the statement "there is no God, no possibility
> of God, and no possibility of evidence of the possibility of God" is dogma.

Then, respectfully, you simply don't understand what the term "dogma" means. The statement above meets the definition of dogma: it is an established doctrine, it is authoritative, and it makes no room for the possibility of dispute.

> "From where did it come" is itself a non-sequitur at the edge of
> space and time. All origination meaning comes undone there,
> including any meaning for a creator God.

This is a non-answer to my question. "From where did it come" is not a non-sequitur, and indeed, a fair amount of human time and effort has been spent trying to answer that question. Some of it has resulted in dogmatic statements (both of theism, and atheism); some of it instead has resulted in significant scientific advancement (the entire discipline of cosmology, for example). Personally, I prefer a scientific approach that accepts evidence as it is discovered; your statement absolutely denies even the possibility of evidence. One of these is a rational approach to answering the question; the other is a dogma.

John L. - what would constitute evidence of the existence of God?

The same as any evidence used to support a hypothesis or theory: the evidence would have to be collected using the scientific method, by gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence. Does such evidence exist today? A person of faith would say that existence itself implies a creator. I don't necessarily believe that myself, but existence is observable, empirical, and measurable. If additional evidence were discovered in the future that supports that hypothesis, then this would strengthen the argument. To date, no such evidence (to my knowledge) has been discovered.

But what, do you imagine, such evidence would look like? You concede that mere existence is not such evidence. So try to think of something that would be proof positive, please. An example is all I'm asking for. What would convince you personally?

I've always found it strange that many find it easier to think of there having been Nothing and then Something, than to think of Something always having been there and always to be there.

I'm not going to go down the road of presenting hypothetical evidence, because that would be... well... unscientific. :) Suffice to say that if there were enough evidence discovered -- via the scientific method - that the hypothesis of a god (or gods) could rationally be comsidered a strong theory or even a fact, then I might be willing to change my position to say, "god exists". However, no such significant body of evidence exists today.

If you're looking for specifics, I would suggest you look at it in the same way as you would evolution (which, I assume as a rational person, you accept as a scientifically-based strong theory, or possibly even as a fact). While there are gaps in evolution theory, these gaps are vastly outweighed by evidence that evolution is how we've come to be as a species. This theory did not come into being overnight; it took many years of evidentiary support to make it so.

As for "Nothing and then Something", I would point out that Hoyle's "Steady State" theory of a perpetual universe has been widely discredited in place of Lemaitre's "Big Bang" theory. So, all the cosmological evidence points to our universe as having been a singularity at one time, and my questions remain: from where did that singularity come? Was it created, or did it always exist? If it always existed, why did it explode? These are not questions that can be answered easily -- indeed, human beings may never know the answer. But they are, regardless, valid questions that -- depending on the interpretation - may point some in the direction of the "god" hypothesis, and there exists a possibility that this hypothesis could be extended into a theory if additional evidence were to be discovered.

While I've enjoyed this discussion with you and Gee, all I'm simply trying to do is elicit agreement that agnostics (contrary to your Articles of Reason) are not atheists, and that agnostics have nothing to apologize for. I think we can both agree that I am an agnostic, you are an atheist, and that our beliefs are *definitely* not the same thing. And, clearly, neither one of us is apologizing to the other. :)

The point is, John L., regardless of what might happen in the future, at this point in time you do not believe there is a god. You have no god. You are a-theistic.


Right now, lacking the evidence that might one day turn up and convince you to change your mind, you do not believe in a god.

Calling yourself 'agnostic' is saying that you are an open-minded person, that you are not dogmatic, that you are not asserting that there is no god.

But you are saying that right now you do not believe there is such a thing.

A temporary atheist you may be, but an atheist your are.

Boy, the width of these posts is getting narrow. :) So, I'll try to be brief...

Whether I currently believe in a god or gods is irrelevant in the context of our discussion. Contrary to popular belief, agnosticism is not inherently atheistic (although it can be) -- there are certainly agnostics that believe in a god, they just admit that they do so in spite of any evidence (I'm not one of them, but they do exist, and are fairly common).

The clear difference between agnosticism and atheism is that agnosticism admits that the question of whether there is a god or gods is unknown. Atheism, on the other hand, is dogmatic: it explicitly (dogmatically) states that there is no god or gods. It is the dogmatic nature of atheism that separates it from agnosticism. From the agnostic's point of view, atheism is denying that which is not known, or may not even be knowable -- a futile exercise if ever there was one.

Are we becoming narrow-minded, or are our points of difference narrowing? You have squeezed this concession from me: our statement in our Articles about agnostics needs expansion. Not to put to fine a point on it, this conversation is too close for comfort. Must speak to web-master. Must fix space. Pressing need. Thank you.

> You have squeezed this concession
> from me: our statement in our Articles
> about agnostics needs expansion.

That's all I was lookin' for. :)

Now, I'm happy to join in on rational debate around the things we clearly *do* agree on: the need to reign in our bloated, extra-constitutional government, the need to better ensure our national security, the need to reduce our crushing debt through sound fiscal policy, and the need to counter irrational concepts such as political correctness.

Howdy everyone,

I found myself in a unique group of catagories that often finds me at odds with everyone. I am pro life, Athiest, and Conservative. Often the evils of stereotyping causes the most closed of minds to accuse me of hypocracy. From the left I find Humanists who tell me that I can not be an Athiest and pro life at the same time. My Response, how can someone be a humanist and execute the most defenseless of humans before they even get a chance to take their first breath? I hear from the right that I do not respect their religion, they assume this on me. There is no greater defender of the freedom of religion than me. Christians are part of the public, its their public square too, erect that cross. How can an athiest be offended by that? Athiesm is Apathy towards religion. Those who fear the symbols of another religion are filled with too much hate to have apathy. Last I would just like to thank who ever created this page, I needed a place to sound off with everyone jumping my case. It seems I can not please everyone in life without crossing over some boundry of my own principles. I refuse to do that.

John

Please sound off here as often as you need to!
And your point about atheism being "apathy" towards religion is well taken.

Hopefully I have made my political beliefs clear in my comments on your posts.

But that only answers for half of this blog. I am an agnostic; I feel that atheism is going too far. But I still feel that there is enough of a connection to continue trying to show you the values of the left in my comments.

A yearning for Justice or good is merely an unacknowledged yearning for God. Atheists who do not yearn for either are the ones that always reach the top and have done incalculable harm to humanity - Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Kim Il Sung, etc. They all had atheist followers who trusted in nice words and logical philosophies. Men with consciences can never reach the peak , especially in atheistic societies, because the bad atheists have absolutely no difficulty in killing the good ones. Why should they?

brian -

I have no religion. I am an atheist.

I have studied many religions.

I was merely putting you right about Judaism. I think it was of historical importance. If I am alarmingly incorrect in what I say about it, correct me in detail please.

I myself do not believe in Jehovah or any god whatsoever.

The passage you quote above is about war, not ritual sacrifice.

Julian Becker,

“(God said to Moses)… Thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city,

even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations [in the land of Canaan].

But of the cities of these people [in the land of Canaan] which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. (Deuteronomy 20: 13-16)”

“(God said to Moses) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31: 17-18)”
-------------

Julian,
I wrote three books about the Bible and God.
Your knowldege about your religion is alarmingly not correct.

You seem to think that God have helped your people.
You seem to still be under the blessing (seizure) of God.

But I feel that the time is ticking toward the catastrophic global disaster to America, Israel, and the world mainly due to none other than the matter of God.

Sings are everywhere. Hussein Obama was elected. 99% of American atheists are socialists or communists. European leaders are now the hostage of Muslims they have invited. American Christians hate atheists more than Muslims. (Christians think Muslims are their allies against common enemy--atheists.)

I do not think Israel’s war weapons can save Israel forever. What do you think is the cause of the Vietnam War failure? Americans estimated the power of ideology (philosophy) and the number of enemy warriors which were the ultimate weapon.

Christianity and Islamism are the offspring of Judaism. You probably know the Hindi term “Karma.”

If Jesus and Allah are not great, so is Moses’ God. I thought you guys were ready to fight religion to save America, Israel, and the world from the spell of God. But as long as you are so proud of your God, I have to think twice. Good luck.

brian-

Further to the above:

The priests lived on tithes. All those first fruits were for their consumption, not for burnt offerings. The myth of Cain and Abel decrees that fruit and vegetables are not to be offered to Jehovah. He craves meat and doesn't care one little bit for veggies.

Special laws applied to the sacrifice of animals and birds. This or that animal or bird, or a number of them, were to be brought to the Temple to be offered for this or that requirement. A sacrificial creature had to be 'without blemish'. It would have its throat cut, it would bleed to death, and then it would be ritually burnt.

Ordinary oxen and sheep were for the priests' mundane needs.

The people of other religions at the time of Abraham (whether a man or a tribe) sacrificed their children to propitiate unpredictable and cruel gods, and/or to ensure that the seasons or the flood-tides recurred in due order. Forbidding human sacrifice was part of the great leap forward that the Hebrews made for mankind. Jehovah did not need human beings to take action to ensure that nature's cycle continued. (Genesis 8:22 - 'While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.')

brian -

The story of Abraham and Isaac is the founding myth of Judaism. Its message is that God does not require human sacrifice.

Now about the eldest son. To this day observing orthodox Jewish parents 'buy back' their eldest son from the priesthood. Since the destruction of the Temple and the dispersion, this has meant in practice that an amount of money (traditionally in silver coins) is paid into the hand of a Cohen - a descendant of the ancient priests - for the 'redemption' of the son. Christians are wrong if they think that any unredeemed son can become a priest - that position is reserved for the descendants of Aaron, the Cohens. An unredeemed son would be at the disposal of the priesthood, but not destined to be a burnt offering. The founding myth forbids human sacrifice absolutely. (Hence Jews could not accept the idea that the crucified Jesus was a 'sacrifice'.)

Title: Human sacrifice

The Bible states that God ordered Israelites to offer human sacrifice to him (Leviticus 27: 28-29).

Leviticus 27
27: 28 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the Lord.

27: 29 None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.

Many ancient people practiced human sacrifice. Human sacrifice was practiced by ancient Semitic peoples such as Phoenicians, Amorites, and Hebrews. The god who took human sacrifice was Moloch (WorldBook Encyclopedia, 1979 ed. article “Moloch”).

Moses banned Moloch worship in the name of Jehovah (Leviticus 18: 21; 20: 3-5). The reason Moses banned Moloch worship was to ban all gentile gods and not to ban the custom of human sacrifice itself. God (Moses,in fact) ordered the custom of offering firstborn sons to God (Exodus 22: 29-30).

Exodus 22
22: 29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.

22: 30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it to me.

Modern Christians interpret the above passage (Exodus 22: 29-30) that God ordered Israelites to make their firstborn sons clergymen. Such interpretation is not correct. In Moses time, the job of serving Jehovah was permitted exclusively to Levites and the other eleven tribes of Israelites were not allowed such holy job (Number 1: 47-51).

Judging from the context of the above passage (Exodus 22: 29-30), it is certain that Moses ordered his people to offer their firstborn sons as burnt offering to Jehovah just as they offered their firstborn oxen and sheep to God.

The legend that God ordered Abraham to offer his only son Isaac as a burnt offering to Him (Genesis 22: 1-13) might be the reflection of the custom of children sacrifice of ancient Israelites. Abraham, Issac, and Ishmeal were not real persons though (See the chapters “Abraham who sold his wife twice for his life,” and “Abraham the father of Arabs”).
------------
(From my manuscript "Salvation from religion-vol. 4)

Paul,
We certainly do not make the inference that there are no laws (the judicial kind) or rules of morality if there is no God. That is the position of the faithful - pop theists if you like - who warn against the anarchy that would prevail in a society of atheists. To repudiate that idea is precisely why we made that statement in our Articles of Reason. As God does not exist, no law or moral precept can come from him. Whether some moral behaviour is the result of nature (an evolutionary survival trait) and therefore not man-made is interesting, but not relevant . Sufficient for our purposes is the statement that mankind's expressed - conscious - rules are not God-given.

Yes, Paul, we have read Aquinas. And having the understanding of a child, we understand him.

And appreciate him too. The example you give neatly proves the non-existence of an omnipotent god.

Please help us develop an influential school of thought that will achieve all that you foresee for it.

Do you have an argument to defend your claim that, "All laws and moral rules are man-made"?

The statement elicits several questions. First, why do you give it in the section "A. On Atheism"? Whether there are objective laws and moral rules is logically distinct from questions about whether or not there is a god, just as the question about whether materialism is true is distinct from whether or not there's a god. It seems you are making use of a concept stolen from pop theist culture, namely that if there is a ruler god, then there are objective laws and moral rules, but, you reason, if no such god exists, then there are no such rules. If so, your inference is fallacious.

Also, what is the definition of "law" as you are using the word? You don't think that the laws of physics are man-made, do you? That, say, James Clerk Maxwell's equations concerning electromagnetism apply to your computer and other devices if and only if humans choose to make them the law? Or that laws of logic apply iff you chose them? And what about moral rules? How can you argue for an objective, moral condemnation of redistribution ("[t]his is criminal and immoral") if you adhere to a relativist standard of morality?

Finally, are any of you familar with Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Contra Gentiles" (SCG)? As I recall Aquinas argued in it that there are objective standards of reason to which all men must give their assent and, further, that the will, and therefore the omnipotence of Aquinas' god, is limited by objective, impersonal laws of existence. He listed a number of ways in which his god's omnipotence is limited. (More recent authors have added to the list.) Here's a simple example that even a child could understand: Can the alleged god order the letters 'g', 'o', and 'd' in an infinite number of ways? The answer, of course, is no, and this fact can be proven as mathematicians have. Christians who know their theology aren't troubled by the conclusion, but the Muslims do not. (Not surprising, really.) At any rate, it seems that SCG offers one of several points of departure for nonleftist atheists who wish to develop an influential school of thought that will be relevant to political discussions, that retains what is good of our civilization, and which can be used to guide parents when rearing their young.

Another answer is that there is a Malthusian limit. If we disregard the climate change religion for a bit (personally I don't buy the whole CO2 thing at all), and just look at the sustainability comment, then it is true that when resources are limited, then incomes become depressed as populations grow and the resources are shared out more sparsely (for an excellent summary see Gregory Clark's Farewell to Alms book). The only way to escape this is either through tragic population reduction (which is what happened before the industrial revolution); or more happily through innovation and adaptation. And as Mr Clark's excellent book points out, the Malthusian escape through innovation and adaptation only happens when the values that prevail are those of the free and the self reliant: personal saving and handing on those savings to children, innovation and enterprise, restraint (particularly in the number of children one has), disciplined work, education and braininess. None of these qualities has ever flourished under Socialism or the dead hand of a theocratic state. So I suppose the answer for Mark is that the actions needed are the natural actions of free individuals.

Mark:
As an individually free atheist conservative, I do not believe in utopia any more than I believe in heaven. Climate change is a new End of Days religion disguised as politics. Sustainability is to climate change, as equality is to socialism; carbon footprints are to sustainability, as prayer is to faith. That mankind can know, bring about, or sustain an optimum climate is an exercise in futility, but expensive and possibly lethal. The utopia it brings to mind looks a lot like a collective farm in the Soviet Union or a universal monastery. If our articles of reason were to form the basis for policy, only individuals who choose such ways of life would live them, but at their own expense. The rest of us would pursue happiness in other ways.

Thanks for your site.
It seems to make a lot of sense.
It seems to me that your articles of reason would apply well in an ideal world where for example, our water and carbon footprints were at sustainable levels.
Have you considered what actions are needed by individually free conservative athiests to reach that point?