OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Another Religious Freak

Entry 406, on 2006-10-11 at 14:19:50 (Rating 4, Comments)

I have recently been involved with a further debate with a religious person. I guess its inevitable that this will happen because I don't try to hide my distaste for people who take religion too seriously, and while I don't try to start a discussion on the subject, I do leap in with the slightest provocation. Most of the people I debate with aren't bad. They sometimes get a bit nasty when I point out how silly their beliefs are, but their major problem is close mindedness, and/or ignorance, and not anything more negative than that.

No matter what other errors of logic they might have made, and no matter how many gaps they have in their knowledge, the basic problem gets back to this: they decide what they want to believe then collect evidence to support it. That's what I mean by close-mindedness.

Some people accuse me of being close minded too, because I insist on using logic and science to investigate the truth. They say that if I extended my horizons and accepted faith and supernaturalism as legitimate methods to investigate spiritual topics, I would arrive at a different answer. No doubt this is true, but it won't be a more accurate or truthful answer. As soon as these techniques are used you can support any answer at all, and factuality becomes meaningless.

There are good reasons why tools such as logic and empiricism are used as the basis for the institutions in our society which exist to discover the truth - for example science, and the legal process. Imagine what would happen if we based out courts on faith? The defendant's lawyer would say "He told me he didn't commit this crime, and I have faith in him, so he's not guilty". Would that work? Or maybe scientists could announce a new discovery with a statement like "We have no physical evidence that this new species exists, but some people we spoke to said it would be nice if it did, so we are announcing it as true."

Why is it OK to use this sort of argument in religion, but nowhere else? I don't think it is OK, which is why I deprecate faith. Why believe something when the reason for that belief is based on something so demonstrably unsuitable for establishing the truth. So I don't apologise for being close minded by this definition. As the famous quote goes: be as open minded as possible, but not so open that your brain falls out!

Comment 1 (387) by Anonymous on 2007-03-06 at 12:53:41: (view recent only)

You have got it all wrong. There are pretty much two definitions for the word faith. The religious definition is completely different from the everyday use of the word faith. All of those examples of the word faith that you used are the everyday word.

Religious faith is more than just "thinking" something is true. Religious faith is "knowing and believing" something is true to the extent of killing yourself for that belief. Check your definitions. I don't think that person who thinks a species is alive would kill themselves if they could prove it. I think they would just let it go. Not us Christians. Those are two completely different faith's you are talking about.

Comment 2 (390) by OJB on 2007-03-06 at 14:41:06:

Many people are totally confident their beliefs are true, yet most are contradictory and they all can't be right. Just strongly believing something is true doesn't really make it true. We need to apply more rigorous tests to find out what's true. That's what science does. It uses logic, and empiricism to test hypotheses. What is so wrong with that? Its just common sense really.

Comment 3 (408) by anonymous on 2007-03-13 at 04:59:18:

The scientific theory is a THEORY. Isn't christianity the 'theory' of Christianity. I personally am a Christian and I've heard tons of thoughts evolutionists, so I know both sides of the story.

You call our religion a myth, but evolution is just as much of a 'MYTH' as christianity. I've read some of your blogs, and i came across the one where you said we can't prove our God is good because he sends people to hell. I have one question though, if your mother caught you doing something bad, she would punish you. It doesn't mean she doesn't love you, she has to punish you.

Our God is loving and he has to punish the wrong doers. Did you know that the person who created evolution became a christian? He couldn't prove the theory right. I think it takes much more faith to believe in the scientific theory than to believe in Christ. I have another question, if people evolved from monkeys, are apes just ingrown humans?

Comment 4 (409) by nobody on 2007-03-13 at 05:01:09:

The title, why do you think we are freaks?

Comment 5 (410) by Just a ordinary person on 2007-03-13 at 05:05:01:

I have a question, No disrespect or anything but, if you are not a christian, where do YOU think you are going to go after death? Are you just going to float around forever?

Comment 6 (411) by Anonymous on 2007-03-13 at 05:09:52:

Do you believe in atoms? If you do, then why? You cant see them, then they must not be there. Same thing with God, you cant see him, but he is there. Why can you believe in the scientific theory and not God? It takes more faith to believe we came from GOO then we came from an almighty creator. And don't call me or anyone else "Another religious freak" it can upset people.

Comment 7 (412) by God's Logic on 2007-03-13 at 05:11:20:

Religion is a sticky topic. Although the Bible (notice the caps) is true, Evolution can be in part with it. If evolution was to happen then who made Life in the first place. The two can coexist together, science vs religion Is insanity. There is no right answer, but God holds a nice place in our great lives he's set out for us. Don't listen if you don't want to because If you ever realize the truth it should be your own. Accept God's words only if you wish to be saved. If you believe everything is good and nothing bad will come. (look at the first column).

Comment 8 (413) by OJB on 2007-03-13 at 08:24:27:

Wow, I'm a bit overwhelmed with all of this. How can one person be so wrong about so many different things?

First, Christianity is not a a theory, its a faith (or so most Christians tell me) which means its a system based on a set of unchanging beliefs. Science proposes hypotheses which are tested in multiple, independent ways until they are accepted to the point where they become theories, but if the evidence doesn't support a theory it is abandoned. That's a totally different process.

Myth can mean two things: a traditional story (often with a deeper meaning) or a widely held false belief. I would say religion is both, science is neither. If evolution was false the continual testing done by biologists would have shown that it is. All the evidence supports it though. That's why we are almost 100% sure it is true.

Not all Christians are freaks (as I said above) but some are just so far out of touch with reality that I sometimes use that rather unkind, but accurate, description! Freak (n): eccentric, misfit; crank, lunatic.

When living things die they cease to exist, just like before they were born. Does that make sense? Is that really that bad?

I believe in atoms and we can detect them through science. In fact we can now see them as well. Can you show me any objective, repeatable experiment which will allow me to detect the presence of god in any way?

Have you heard of the idea of "the god of the gaps". It means that whenever there is an area of science which isn't fully understood that the religions come in and say: god did that. What happened before the Big Bang: god did it. What started life on Earth: god did it. etc. Problem is that these gaps get less all the time and eventually disappear. Should god also disappear?

We do have theories for the origin of life on Earth. Since it happened over 3 billion years ago its hard to know exactly, but there are quite viable mechanisms it could have happened through, and they don't involve god.

Comment 9 (440) by common sense on 2007-03-13 at 11:36:09:

First of all... GOD DOES EXIST!!!!!!!!!!! He HAS been proven by artifacts and ancient scrolls found in central and southern Europe... people HAVE proven that god DID and STILL DOES exist. Please, just research it.

Also, instead of attacking my fellow Christian bloggers (and myself) just listen to what we have to say. And really think about it too. I have been doing that when i read YOUR blogs. This is not a contest to beat the opponent to believe his/her beliefs. I thought this website was supposed to be a free site where we can simply post our ideas, but it seems a lot more than that. Just slow down... I'm not going to think you're lame if you don't have this huge long response or these huge words to make it sound more convincing. Just tell me what you THINK. I don't care about winning this, I just want to share my ideas.

Comment 10 (441) by OJB on 2007-03-13 at 12:32:55:

I have been researching this for years. I have read the books, I have attended church meetings, I have spent hours on various web sites - both for and against religion. There is no archaeological evidence which proves god exists. There is no scientific evidence of any sort which does. At least, not that I have been able to find, if you have some, please show me.

The fact is that unless you apply a certain amount of critical thinking and logic to a subject you will never figure out what is true and what isn't. I require objective evidence and science is the best way to get that.

Therefore, until Christianity (or any other religion) is backed up by good evidence I cannot believe it, no matter how seriously its supporters believe in it. That's what I think: just show me the evidence.

Comment 11 (442) by Anonymous on 2007-03-13 at 13:18:28:

We "Religious Freaks" do have evidence that God exists. You're a scientist right? You know the part of the Earth's crust that has only oceananic life in it? Well, the floods in the Bible (notice caps) are what caused it. You may say "The Bible only says it was forty days and forty nights, the earth couldn't possibly have that many years of oceanic life fossilized in fourty days and nights".

Truth is, no one was there it witness how many days or nights it REALLY was. It could be years to centuries they are talking about. You can't time God (notice caps). And God has been here more time than the human brain can fathom.

You say you have been researching Christianity for years, tell me, as an evoloutionist, where did humans come from? Science says its from "matter in space" but where did that come from? You can probibly tell I'm a Christian. Im trying to see your side to the religious thing too. If you really have researched the christian religion for "years" (which I'm not saying you didn't, its just hard to believe) then you should further your studies and read the book "Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation" by Dennis R. Petersen. It explained plenty of my questions, I hope it explains yours. I hope i helped to answer some questions.

Comment 12 (443) by Anonymous on 2007-03-13 at 13:21:01:

I have a question, where do you think you are going after you die? (Not being nasty or a freak, just a question).

Comment 13 (445) by OJB on 2007-03-13 at 13:34:02:

There is absolutely no evidence of a flood which in any way resembles that described in the Bible. There are continuous growth rings, cave deposits, geological strata going back 10,000 years. these show no evidence of a global flood. It just didn't happen.

Humans evolved from earlier ape-like ancestors, and the evolution process goes back billions of years to simple unicellular organisms, and self-replicating chemicals. Before that there were organic molecules, before that the early Earth, before that the solar nebula, gas clouds, the Big Bang. Before that was nothing because the Big Bang created our space and time.

After death is like before birth: nothing. We cease to exist. We don't "go" anywhere. What's your point?

Comment 14 (449) by godlovesme77 on 2007-03-14 at 05:00:52:

Thank you SO MUCH for asking that, Anonymous!!!! We do NOT go nowhere when we die??? what's the point of life then? if we are here for a couple of years... a VERY brief time... and then what? What was your life worth? What happened to all you had worked for in your life?

Okay so you become a famous sports figure... YAY good for you. then you donate eighty percent of your paycheck to a children's funds organization. HORRAY!!! you helped someone live... good job. Then, right before you die, you inspire a young adult to write a book about your life... yay more fame! Now you're dead. You donate your heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys. Great, we love you, you save five lives. So now what? you get remembered through books and movies, but what about what really matters? like ETERNAL REWARDS? What was your life worth??? Why did you do so many good things for NOTHING?? Yes, you saved lives and earned fame, but does that really all matter in the end?

All I ask you OJB, is... don't you want your life to count for something when you die that will LAST?

Comment 15 (452) by OJB on 2007-03-14 at 09:05:58:

How many times do I have to answer this "where do we go when we die" stuff? As I have said before, just because belief in an after-life is nice doesn't mean it is true! When we die we cease to exist: just like before we were born. Are we debating what is real, or what would be nice, here?

Comment 16 (454) by godlovesme77 on 2007-03-15 at 03:45:49:

I did not ask you where will you go when you die??? i asked don't you want your life to count for something when you die. There is a distinct difference, believe me. So tell me, DO you want your life to count for something or would you not care? I mean, come on! let's be REASONABLE! :)

Comment 17 (455) by OJB on 2007-03-15 at 07:45:15:

Its up to the whole human race if an individual's life counts for something or not. The individual is gone but his contribution remains. But that is irrelevant because aren't we debating what *is* true, not what we would like to be true?

Comment 18 (456) by godlovesme77 on 2007-03-16 at 04:26:01:

So are you saying that you would rather other people enjoy what you've done than yourself? That's very considerate of you, OJB, but I know a lot of people that would want their contributions to be remembered by other people and get rewarded for their own benefits.

Comment 19 (460) by OJB on 2007-03-16 at 07:46:54:

Its not a matter of what I want, its a matter of what is true. Of course I would like eternal life in some sort of paradise - who wouldn't? But heaven is an obvious myth and just pretending its true isn't going to make it any more real. We should accept things for what they are and make the most of this life.

Comment 20 (475) by godlovesme77 on 2007-03-17 at 04:35:36:

Yes, I understand your hesitancy to accept this, but like I have said many times, you don't have the "proof and evidence" until you've experienced it yourself. Why don't you just want to try it?

Comment 21 (478) by OJB on 2007-03-17 at 07:27:31:

I can't force myself to believe something which has every appearance of a myth which is primarily designed to control people's minds and avoid them discovering the truth. I can only experience something if I genuinely believe it, and until there is evidence, I just can't, even if I wanted to!

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.