Response to "Believer Why do You Believe" Video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RXmkftK0Sw*
Why does your heaven resemble earth with the same basic materials?
It doesn't, we only have human words for those who have seen it to describe what they saw. I recently was in the position of having to find the words to describe a polished single surface floor rendered to look like plastic in the words of a fictional character who grew up in a shoemaker's house in a late medieval village in a house where the floor was probably straw covered dirt, or maybe wood, and stone floors with visible seams or natural surfaces were likely to be the only other options in his vocabulary. I really didn't want to say a floor like a single polished stone, but the only way i could find that he could describe it.
Why does your god govern in a way that reflects the period in which he was written about?
He doesn't, his system of governance was entirely unlike anything that existed in the time, until he established it, and then it was the only one like it.
Why does god look like you, or other living things?
He doesn't but how do I describe him except to say omnipresent and omniscient - unless i talk about him like a person, or describe him when he put on flesh and condescended to become one of us?
Is your faith the dominant one in your culture?
No, atheism is the dominant faith in Australia, and Christians are conservatively less than ten percent, possibly less than half that if you strip away all the folks who only call themselves Christian on a survey because they aren't a Muslim or a Buddhist.
Is it suspicious that the majority of believers adopt the belief into which they are born rather than any other good qualities that faith might have?
Not at all. People grow up believing what their family believes and often find it hard to think differently later on. Their paradigm is founded on certain beliefs that are hard (even life-shattering) to shake up later. I find it "suspicious" that so many folks grow up as believing atheists and then discover Christ and convert, and that so many of them do this in their teen years when they start asking a lot of hard questions about life and their atheism doesn't measure up. this question assumes that people who grow up in a Christian (or some other faith) family do not evaluate the belief at all as they grow up into it. Certainly this is going to be true of some people (there are always some folks who would rather not do the hard work of thinking about things), but he says "most" and assumes we'll just believe him. He hasn't substantiated any of these claims so far, he just wants us to take it as read that these things are all true.
Do you believe that had you been born in a different country you would still believe as you do?
I personally know Christians who live in Japan who came from Japan, Sri Lanka, Korea and Finland. If it is true for them, then why not me if i grew up in India or Saudi Arabia?
Is your faith the same as your parents and grandparents? Is it the first to which you were exposed?
That depends on which parents and grandparents you want to ask about, but I know plenty of first generation Christians whose first religion was atheism or buddhism, or islam, who no doubt will be happy to take issue with these questions.
Why do we have an issue with calling a child a republican and not a Christian when it is clear that they can't intellectually make this decision for themself yet? A nuanced and complex decision?
I at least have God's word that a child may in some way rely on their parent's faith until such time as they are grown up enough to call it their own faith. there is a normal developmental phase in which young people (usually in their teen years) begin to ask questions about their family's ideals and begin to forge their own beliefs. Prior to that time, their parents are assumed to be responsible to teach them the truth as best they understand it. It is utterly ridiculous to ask a christian parent to lie to their child and tell them there is no God - essentially making them a religious atheist until they think they are old enough to understand and make the decision for themself. Forcing the child to miss out on the years of joy and beautiful faith that come in those early years. Knowing God and knowing that he loves you is not really a nuanced and complex decision - it is on the same level as knowing that you have a Father and that he loves you - most children can manage that at a very young age with no problem at all.
"you are supremely confident in your faith"
No, I have no confidence in my faith. I am supremely confident in God. my faith is just my capacity to trust him to be who he reveals himself to be, and that he will help me to have faith and trust in him because he has done so thus far, and has promised to continue to do so. I will bet my soul on that fact.
There are loads of religions on the planet - people are incurably religious. because God has made us to seek after him. No surprises there. there are loads of christian denominations - who all essentially believe the same basic truths, and a bunch of christian-esque cults who have departed from those beliefs but refused to relinquish the name of "christian" this is also to be expected. people like to argue about things. Loads of people seeking eternal truth the best they know how with finite brains. really no surprises there.
Do you realise that every member of every faith is just as devout and sincere as you are of yours?
Actually I am quite certain that there are a lot of folks who are both more and less devout than I am. But I'd really like to know how he plans to back up his statement.
Do I know they read infallible holy texts? Do I know they have airtight apologetics? I know they call them that, but i see some pretty big issues with them.
Do I know that they feel God's presence and see miracles? Actually, no, I haven't heard those testimonies for myself, but it's no big deal. People can mistake a feeling for God and a coincidence for a miracle.
He claims every religion is mutually exclusive, this is not really true, there are loads of different varieties of buddhism where the buddhist belief system simply superimposes itself onto the local existing faith. It is generally a hallmark of monotheism that it is mutually exclusive of other beliefs, because if there is one God then he can't be who he is not.
Of course not all religions can be right, the truth is objectively true regardless of anyone's ideas about it. So what are the odds that I am right about my ideas about the truth? What are the odds that I am wearing denim shorts right now? For you who has no way to know, the odds are fairly low, i could be wearing nothing at all, or a pink tutu. I could be wearing dress pants or track pants. the truth is the truth, and it remains true regardless. I happen to know the truth, because I am the person in question. If I tell you that I am wearing denim shorts, then you have to decide how trustworthy you think I am and then take my word for it, or don't. God knows the truth, and he tells me. I trust him. No probability study necessary. when we talk about heaven or hell we talk about something that the only person who knows the truth about it has spoken to us. It isn't a question of whose heaven, but rather who knows how to get there.
"Accept God just to be safe" that's a pretty poor excuse for evangelism, really. It's really just a little issue of logic based on a believer's assumption that there are only two choices - belief in God or non-belief in God. and three possible eternal outcomes - heaven, hell or oblivionas if the final outcome is the only factor in play. logic dictates that if you correctly believe there's no God or incorrectly believe there is a God you get oblivion, whereas if you correctly believe there is a God you get heaven, and if you incorrectly believe there's no God you get hell. of course if you assume all religions in the world have equal chance of being right, and mutually exclusive, then you have a much harder equation to figure out, and it becomes impossible to make any decision. *if you assume all religions have equal chance of being right, which is something only an atheist can do, or rather must do, until they are presented with some reason to think one might be more accurate than the others. Just as you would have to do with the question of my alleged shorts. Unless you have my words about them and some reason to trust my words, you must give a great number of alternative possibilities equal weighting. I would never make the assumption that all religions have equal chance of being true, because I have met God himself.
I'm up to about 6:20 in the video - again here, he is making assumptions about why i have embraced my faith, very presumptuous and somewhat condescending. He says that as a believer I am an atheist to every other belief on the planet, but I am a believer, not an atheist. An atheist believes there is no God. It is a positive belief about a negative or non-existence of God. I didn't become a Christian by choosing not to believe that someone else's faith is true, but rather by coming to know God through Jesus. Atheism is characterised by the choice not to believe in anything supernatural, but rather to focus on the tangible, and usually the worship of humanity or belief in science. Most atheists will claim this is not a religion, but it clearly is.
He wonders if religions are just ancient constructs - as opposed to atheism, which is a modern construct. He is assuming religions are made up. He likens them to stumbling like blind people or constructing a puzzle in the dark. and now he reveals the object of his worship "we no longer live in the dark, science is ablaze in this world" - if I said the same "I no longer live in the darkness of modern science, Jesus is the light of this world" you would find that to be somewhat condescending if you believed wholeheartedly in science. The truth is, a lot of what I hear scientists saying in modern times makes it clear that it is them who are assembling puzzles in the dark, and it really sounds obnoxious when they claim my faith has no light to shed on their hopeless situation. He claims to be making out the magnificent vista across the valley, and all I see is a dim reflection of the astounding truth I already knew about.
He says we no longer need comforting stories to make us feel safe and loved (as if that's all religion is), but it doesn't take much to see that modern society really suffers for the lack thereof. There is awe in reality much more than fantasy, so I wonder when he's going to realise what he's selling is fantasy and really get to the awesome God who is the foundation of reality.
"It is time to learn how the universe really is, even if that deflates your conceits, wounds your pride, humbles your point of view and forces you to admit that you do not have all the answers - atheist, if you truly value the truth above all things as you claim, as i truly know you do, you must confront these fundamental questions "far better," Karl Sagan said, "to embrace a hard truth than a reassuring fable"
Why does your heaven resemble earth with the same basic materials?
It doesn't, we only have human words for those who have seen it to describe what they saw. I recently was in the position of having to find the words to describe a polished single surface floor rendered to look like plastic in the words of a fictional character who grew up in a shoemaker's house in a late medieval village in a house where the floor was probably straw covered dirt, or maybe wood, and stone floors with visible seams or natural surfaces were likely to be the only other options in his vocabulary. I really didn't want to say a floor like a single polished stone, but the only way i could find that he could describe it.
Why does your god govern in a way that reflects the period in which he was written about?
He doesn't, his system of governance was entirely unlike anything that existed in the time, until he established it, and then it was the only one like it.
Why does god look like you, or other living things?
He doesn't but how do I describe him except to say omnipresent and omniscient - unless i talk about him like a person, or describe him when he put on flesh and condescended to become one of us?
Is your faith the dominant one in your culture?
No, atheism is the dominant faith in Australia, and Christians are conservatively less than ten percent, possibly less than half that if you strip away all the folks who only call themselves Christian on a survey because they aren't a Muslim or a Buddhist.
Is it suspicious that the majority of believers adopt the belief into which they are born rather than any other good qualities that faith might have?
Not at all. People grow up believing what their family believes and often find it hard to think differently later on. Their paradigm is founded on certain beliefs that are hard (even life-shattering) to shake up later. I find it "suspicious" that so many folks grow up as believing atheists and then discover Christ and convert, and that so many of them do this in their teen years when they start asking a lot of hard questions about life and their atheism doesn't measure up. this question assumes that people who grow up in a Christian (or some other faith) family do not evaluate the belief at all as they grow up into it. Certainly this is going to be true of some people (there are always some folks who would rather not do the hard work of thinking about things), but he says "most" and assumes we'll just believe him. He hasn't substantiated any of these claims so far, he just wants us to take it as read that these things are all true.
Do you believe that had you been born in a different country you would still believe as you do?
I personally know Christians who live in Japan who came from Japan, Sri Lanka, Korea and Finland. If it is true for them, then why not me if i grew up in India or Saudi Arabia?
Is your faith the same as your parents and grandparents? Is it the first to which you were exposed?
That depends on which parents and grandparents you want to ask about, but I know plenty of first generation Christians whose first religion was atheism or buddhism, or islam, who no doubt will be happy to take issue with these questions.
Why do we have an issue with calling a child a republican and not a Christian when it is clear that they can't intellectually make this decision for themself yet? A nuanced and complex decision?
I at least have God's word that a child may in some way rely on their parent's faith until such time as they are grown up enough to call it their own faith. there is a normal developmental phase in which young people (usually in their teen years) begin to ask questions about their family's ideals and begin to forge their own beliefs. Prior to that time, their parents are assumed to be responsible to teach them the truth as best they understand it. It is utterly ridiculous to ask a christian parent to lie to their child and tell them there is no God - essentially making them a religious atheist until they think they are old enough to understand and make the decision for themself. Forcing the child to miss out on the years of joy and beautiful faith that come in those early years. Knowing God and knowing that he loves you is not really a nuanced and complex decision - it is on the same level as knowing that you have a Father and that he loves you - most children can manage that at a very young age with no problem at all.
"you are supremely confident in your faith"
No, I have no confidence in my faith. I am supremely confident in God. my faith is just my capacity to trust him to be who he reveals himself to be, and that he will help me to have faith and trust in him because he has done so thus far, and has promised to continue to do so. I will bet my soul on that fact.
There are loads of religions on the planet - people are incurably religious. because God has made us to seek after him. No surprises there. there are loads of christian denominations - who all essentially believe the same basic truths, and a bunch of christian-esque cults who have departed from those beliefs but refused to relinquish the name of "christian" this is also to be expected. people like to argue about things. Loads of people seeking eternal truth the best they know how with finite brains. really no surprises there.
Do you realise that every member of every faith is just as devout and sincere as you are of yours?
Actually I am quite certain that there are a lot of folks who are both more and less devout than I am. But I'd really like to know how he plans to back up his statement.
Do I know they read infallible holy texts? Do I know they have airtight apologetics? I know they call them that, but i see some pretty big issues with them.
Do I know that they feel God's presence and see miracles? Actually, no, I haven't heard those testimonies for myself, but it's no big deal. People can mistake a feeling for God and a coincidence for a miracle.
He claims every religion is mutually exclusive, this is not really true, there are loads of different varieties of buddhism where the buddhist belief system simply superimposes itself onto the local existing faith. It is generally a hallmark of monotheism that it is mutually exclusive of other beliefs, because if there is one God then he can't be who he is not.
Of course not all religions can be right, the truth is objectively true regardless of anyone's ideas about it. So what are the odds that I am right about my ideas about the truth? What are the odds that I am wearing denim shorts right now? For you who has no way to know, the odds are fairly low, i could be wearing nothing at all, or a pink tutu. I could be wearing dress pants or track pants. the truth is the truth, and it remains true regardless. I happen to know the truth, because I am the person in question. If I tell you that I am wearing denim shorts, then you have to decide how trustworthy you think I am and then take my word for it, or don't. God knows the truth, and he tells me. I trust him. No probability study necessary. when we talk about heaven or hell we talk about something that the only person who knows the truth about it has spoken to us. It isn't a question of whose heaven, but rather who knows how to get there.
"Accept God just to be safe" that's a pretty poor excuse for evangelism, really. It's really just a little issue of logic based on a believer's assumption that there are only two choices - belief in God or non-belief in God. and three possible eternal outcomes - heaven, hell or oblivionas if the final outcome is the only factor in play. logic dictates that if you correctly believe there's no God or incorrectly believe there is a God you get oblivion, whereas if you correctly believe there is a God you get heaven, and if you incorrectly believe there's no God you get hell. of course if you assume all religions in the world have equal chance of being right, and mutually exclusive, then you have a much harder equation to figure out, and it becomes impossible to make any decision. *if you assume all religions have equal chance of being right, which is something only an atheist can do, or rather must do, until they are presented with some reason to think one might be more accurate than the others. Just as you would have to do with the question of my alleged shorts. Unless you have my words about them and some reason to trust my words, you must give a great number of alternative possibilities equal weighting. I would never make the assumption that all religions have equal chance of being true, because I have met God himself.
I'm up to about 6:20 in the video - again here, he is making assumptions about why i have embraced my faith, very presumptuous and somewhat condescending. He says that as a believer I am an atheist to every other belief on the planet, but I am a believer, not an atheist. An atheist believes there is no God. It is a positive belief about a negative or non-existence of God. I didn't become a Christian by choosing not to believe that someone else's faith is true, but rather by coming to know God through Jesus. Atheism is characterised by the choice not to believe in anything supernatural, but rather to focus on the tangible, and usually the worship of humanity or belief in science. Most atheists will claim this is not a religion, but it clearly is.
He wonders if religions are just ancient constructs - as opposed to atheism, which is a modern construct. He is assuming religions are made up. He likens them to stumbling like blind people or constructing a puzzle in the dark. and now he reveals the object of his worship "we no longer live in the dark, science is ablaze in this world" - if I said the same "I no longer live in the darkness of modern science, Jesus is the light of this world" you would find that to be somewhat condescending if you believed wholeheartedly in science. The truth is, a lot of what I hear scientists saying in modern times makes it clear that it is them who are assembling puzzles in the dark, and it really sounds obnoxious when they claim my faith has no light to shed on their hopeless situation. He claims to be making out the magnificent vista across the valley, and all I see is a dim reflection of the astounding truth I already knew about.
He says we no longer need comforting stories to make us feel safe and loved (as if that's all religion is), but it doesn't take much to see that modern society really suffers for the lack thereof. There is awe in reality much more than fantasy, so I wonder when he's going to realise what he's selling is fantasy and really get to the awesome God who is the foundation of reality.
"It is time to learn how the universe really is, even if that deflates your conceits, wounds your pride, humbles your point of view and forces you to admit that you do not have all the answers - atheist, if you truly value the truth above all things as you claim, as i truly know you do, you must confront these fundamental questions "far better," Karl Sagan said, "to embrace a hard truth than a reassuring fable"
Comments