"Why I Am Not a Christian"

[MrFrankZito]

Following the path of atheists for whom I have a great deal of respect, such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Carrier, I decided to make a brief statement of the principal reasons why I am not a Christian.

Myself a three-time contributor to Internet Infidels' Secular Web (http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=authors&id=720), I was hoping members of this discussion forum might be able to provide some feedback on my medium-length (roughly 3000-word) essay.

I posted the piece on my personal blog site but, in hopes of wider publication online or elsewhere, I'd like to make the piece as strong as possible, while keeping the length reasonable.

Here is the link: http://mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-i-am-not-christian.html

Thank you for any feedback anyone might provide.

[Towlie]

It's good, but there's too much quoting of writers that you agree with. It makes you look like someone who was persuaded by others as opposed to an independent thinker with original ideas. I think it would be better if it contained only quotes that you disagree with followed by your criticisms, along with your own original thoughts.

[MrFrankZito]

Thanks for your comment.

I guess, in liberally quoting, my rationale was twofold: To show that I am well-read on the relevant subject matter, and to share the insights of minds more fertile than my own.

However, you are probably correct that, if quotation is overdone, a reader might get the impression that I, the writer, have not drawn independent conclusions.

[Brian-M]

Here's a list of my reasons "Why I Am Not a Christian"....

1. There is no sane reason to believe that Christian beliefs accurately represent reality.

That's the entire list. What other reason do you need?

[Towlie]

Here's a list of my reasons "Why I Am Not a Christian"....That's nice, Brian, but MrFrankZito is asking what we think of his article.

[Dave Rogers]

While one or two of your arguments are not ones that I would use, I think you've expressed them very clearly. I'm not sure I agree with Towlie's comment, in that it looks to me like you've developed ideas in your own words and then quoted others to supposrt them; that doesn't say, "Here's what Christopher Hitchens says, I agree with him," but rather "Here's what I think, and Hitchens' views are similar." Any mention of Richard Dawkins will probably make any fundamentalist Christian stop reading, but you've referenced him far enough down that they've probably stopped reading anyway (that is to say, not in the first sentence).

The comment by 'nick', though, is wonderful in its stupidity. It's a thing of horrible beauty, and should be preserved for posterity and possibly attached permanently to the article as an appendix, perhaps with a comment such as "Can you spot which of us is an intelligent, thinking being, and which is a knee-jerking, ignorant idealogue?"

Dave

[MrFrankZito]

While one or two of your arguments are not ones that I would use, I think you've expressed them very clearly. I'm not sure I agree with Towlie's comment, in that it looks to me like you've developed ideas in your own words and then quoted others to supposrt them; that doesn't say, "Here's what Christopher Hitchens says, I agree with him," but rather "Here's what I think, and Hitchens' views are similar." Any mention of Richard Dawkins will probably make any fundamentalist Christian stop reading, but you've referenced him far enough down that they've probably stopped reading anyway (that is to say, not in the first sentence).

The comment by 'nick', though, is wonderful in its stupidity. It's a thing of horrible beauty, and should be preserved for posterity and possibly attached permanently to the article as an appendix, perhaps with a comment such as "Can you spot which of us is an intelligent, thinking being, and which is a knee-jerking, ignorant idealogue?"

Dave


Dave,

Thanks for your comments.

Actually, as you note, I was cognizant of the atheists and freethinkers who I chose to quote and what impression they might leave with my readers. Richard Dawkins, indeed, is a much despised figure among the fundamentalist or biblical-literalist Christian crowd. However, I think his comments are important to the larger point I was trying to make in that particular section of the piece, and so I elected to include him. Hopefully, other quoted individuals, such as Coyne and Hume and Shermer, impart a less negative impression.

I am curious: Which are the one or two arguments that you, yourself, would not use?

And, in brief, why do you consider those arguments to be unsound or unconvincing?

Thanks!

[rsaavedra]

I think it doesn't fit well to have too many rather long quotes in any essay, particularly so early in that essay. Moreover, right after your first quote, you make no direct reference to it, and make hardly any elaboration on it, except for the question "Where are our miracles and prodigies?" Then followed by rather childish examples of what miracles could prove the existence of a god (such as everyone waking up one morning in Mars etc.) That beginning gave me a low starting score for the piece.

Shortly after that I came across a factual error in your text. You say "The Bible is not a product of divine inspiration but, rather, first century ignorance." The Bible is not just the New Testament; it's Old Testament + New Testament. The Old Testament is much older than first century. Better say "ancient ignorance" (even though the same ignorance exists nowadays), or phrase it somewhat differently.

Then I noticed your recurrent pattern of presenting your reasons opening them with sentences of the form: "I am not a Christian because X," then attempting to elaborate with quotes, plus some comments and analyses of your own on that X, then closing with "Because of X, I am not a Christian." In my humble opinion, that is a rather poor stylistic approach.

[MrFrankZito]

I think it doesn't fit well to have too many rather long quotes in any essay, particularly so early in that essay. Moreover, right after your first quote, you make no direct reference to it, and make hardly any elaboration on it, except for the question "Where are our miracles and prodigies?" Then followed by rather childish examples of what miracles could prove the existence of a god (such as everyone waking up one morning in Mars etc.) That beginning gave me a low starting score for the piece.

Shortly after that I came across a factual error in your text. You say "The Bible is not a product of divine inspiration but, rather, first century ignorance." The Bible is not just the New Testament; it's Old Testament + New Testament. The Old Testament is much older than first century. Better say "ancient ignorance" (even though the same ignorance exists nowadays), or phrase it somewhat differently.

Then I noticed your recurrent pattern of presenting your reasons opening them with sentences of the form: "I am not a Christian because X," then attempting to elaborate with quotes, plus some comments and analyses of your own on that X, then closing with "Because of X, I am not a Christian." In my humble opinion, that is a rather poor stylistic approach.


Thank you for the constructive criticism; I appreciate your notes and suggestions.

Perhaps, as it pertains to the Hume quote, I could integrate it into the flow of my text a bit better. Essentially, as I'm sure you realized, my first reason for not being a Christian is the fact that god is silent and inert: the deity says nothing, does nothing, and performs no miracles or prodigies any more. Thus, I think Hume's observation that miracles and prodigies--Acts of God--are most often found among ignorant, barbarous, pre-scientific peoples is salient.

As it relates to my "examples," yes, they might indeed be silly. But, in confecting them, my primary concern was proving not merely the miraculous...not merely the supernatural...not merely the divine...but Yahweh specifically. Corpse resurrection or any other garden-variety miracle would be insufficient to demonstrate the god of the Bible specifically. So, I co-opted a suggestion Carl Sagan made. He suggested that god engrave the Ten Commandments onto the Moon. I just went with Yahweh's name.

And, of course, vis-a-vis the Bible, you are correct that OT is much older than NT, and was written well before the first century. I will correct that point.

Again, I appreciate your notes.

[rsaavedra]

I think Hume's observation that miracles and prodigies--Acts of God--are most often found among ignorant, barbarous, pre-scientific peoples is salient.
A reference/sentence like that one you just wrote right there might be better in some cases than inserting a full quote.

As it relates to my "examples," yes, they might indeed be silly. But, in confecting them, my primary concern was proving not merely the miraculous...not merely the supernatural...not merely the divine...but Yahweh specifically.
True miraculous events need not be grandiose and ridiculous. Something as "simple" as showing let's say the first 30 digits of a trascendental constant (like PI or e) not known until centuries/millenia later would have been pretty miraculous, without messing with planetary-scale formations.

[MrFrankZito]

A reference/sentence like that one you just wrote right there might be better in some cases than inserting a full quote.


True miraculous events need not be grandiose and ridiculous. Something as "simple" as showing let's say the first 30 digits of a trascendental constant (like PI or e) not known until centuries/millenia later would have been pretty miraculous, without messing with planetary-scale formations.


I made the factual correction you rightly suggested.

In the sentence in question, it no longer says "first century ignorance" but, rather, "pitiable pre-scientific ignorance."

[Soapy Sam]

Frank, why are you not a Muslim?

[Towlie]

Frank, why are you not a Muslim?Well, I did say that he was quoting other writers too much. In the case of his title, it sounds like he's quoting Bertrand Russell.

[MrFrankZito]

Frank, why are you not a Muslim?

The simplest answer is this: I am not a Muslim because my parents did not indoctrinate me into Islam but, rather, Roman Catholicism. I have never been a Muslim and, frankly, have given that particular faith little thought.

Nevertheless, using the limited knowledge I have about Islam, I think my first three arguments from the essay DO carry over.

* Allah, too, is silent and inert. Allah does nothing in the real world--has no hand in day-to-day life. If our universe were in the hands of a creator deity, that creator deity's presence would be apparent...would be known...would be beyond dispute or disagreement.

* The Qur'an, much like the Bible, presents no brand new information about the natural order. There is no textual reason to suppose it is anything other than a human work.

* Allah, too, did not reveal his religion to several geographically isolated populations. Islam did not arise independently all over the globe. It, much like Christianity, passes from population to population--not from deity to population several separate times.

Again, I know little about Islam. But, I think the core of my piece could be repurposed for that faith.

[Soapy Sam]

I agree it could. My point is that your essay seems to me less non-Christian than non-religious and might be better crafted that way.
Just my 2c.

[MrFrankZito]

I agree it could. My point is that your essay seems to me less non-Christian than non-religious and might be better crafted that way.
Just my 2c.

Indeed. I am not simply a non-Christian; I am a metaphysical naturalist.

Any self-statement essay should have that positive upshot.

[Darth Rotor]

Following the path of atheists for whom I have a great deal of respect, such as Bertrand Russell and Richard Carrier, I decided to make a brief statement of the principal reasons why I am not a Christian.

Myself a three-time contributor to Internet Infidels' Secular Web (http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=authors&id=720), I was hoping members of this discussion forum might be able to provide some feedback on my medium-length (roughly 3000-word) essay.

I posted the piece on my personal blog site but, in hopes of wider publication online or elsewhere, I'd like to make the piece as strong as possible, while keeping the length reasonable.

Here is the link: http://mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-i-am-not-christian.html

Thank you for any feedback anyone might provide.
You are a potential Christian, given your high score for preaching to the choir here. :D

[rsaavedra]

My point is that your essay seems to me less non-Christian than non-religious and might be better crafted that way.
x2.

[Brian-M]

That's nice, Brian, but MrFrankZito is asking what we think of his article.


I think that the main idea can be effectively conveyed without writing an essay filled with quotes by David Hume, J. B. S. Haldane, Jerry A. Coyne, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, and so on.

An absurdly simplified argument such as my suggestion may be completely inadequate for an essay... but wouldn't the essay carry more impact if it were more concise?

[!Kaggen]

Why do we need to justify not being Christians because of history and science?
This a trap.
For example.
Love your neighbor as yourself is not a law of nature or a historical fact. Its a free individual choice.
If I choose this, why should I now be called a Christian.
In fact from what we know about Christianity, this is the last thing on the majority of followers minds. Therefore I am not a follower.

I could argue about the other religious movements in the same manner.
That is why I am not a follower thereof.

[MrFrankZito]

I think that the main idea can be effectively conveyed without writing an essay filled with quotes by David Hume, J. B. S. Haldane, Jerry A. Coyne, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, and so on.

An absurdly simplified argument such as my suggestion may be completely inadequate for an essay... but wouldn't the essay carry more impact if it were more concise?


Conciseness is a tricky thing, though.

For instance, both Bertrand Russell and Richard Carrier have composed pieces entitled, "Why I Am Not A Christian." Both of theirs is considerably longer than my own statement. And, of course, some (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) have gone the book-length route. In comparison to those, 3000 or so words is very concise. (Of course, I recognize that The God Delusion and God is Not Great are far more ambitious in scope and detailed in scholarship than my own work, so I do not fool myself into drawing a direct comparison.)

In any event, I do believe that, to refute Christianity adequately, some length is necessitated.

[Dave Rogers]

I am curious: Which are the one or two arguments that you, yourself, would not use?

And, in brief, why do you consider those arguments to be unsound or unconvincing?

Humanocentricity, and the inefficacy of prayer. They're both rather trivially countered.

Humanocentricity is easily enough explained by saying that Christianity is the understanding of God as he relates to humanity; that other worlds might have other ways of relating to him is not excluded, and the belief that we are God's special project is sufficiently valid if God is infinitely knowing and caring and is therefore able to give special attention and care to every one of his creations. Even if we aren't the only world God takes interest in, it's good enough for us, for the present, to act as if we were.

As for the inefficacy of prayer in healing the body, if the soul is infinitely more precious and is also immortal, a little suffering in this life is easily portrayed as almost irrelevant. I remember, long ago, seeing a TV interview in which a religious person was criticised for preaching morality while failing to give anyone practical help with day-to-day life; his response was, "Would you save a drowning man's jacket?" In other words, what benefit any healing of the body if the soul is lost, and what loss any suffering of the body if the soul is saved?

Although I don't agree with either of these arguments, neither of them is an argument against religion from the point of view of the religious. Rather, when one is already an atheist, they are arguments that show that a consistent world view can be based on atheism; that, from our point of view, these elements of religion also don't make sense. They're less about why I'm not a Christian, and more about why I am an atheist.

Your other arguments, I feel, are more convincing because they point to internal contradictions in the Christian belief system, which is a far more effective approach to refutation.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

True miraculous events need not be grandiose and ridiculous. Something as "simple" as showing let's say the first 30 digits of a trascendental constant (like PI or e) not known until centuries/millenia later would have been pretty miraculous, without messing with planetary-scale formations.

In the case of Pi, even the first two digits would have been an improvement.

Dave

[MrFrankZito]

Humanocentricity is easily enough explained by saying that Christianity is the understanding of God as he relates to humanity; that other worlds might have other ways of relating to him is not excluded, and the belief that we are God's special project is sufficiently valid if God is infinitely knowing and caring and is therefore able to give special attention and care to every one of his creations. Even if we aren't the only world God takes interest in, it's good enough for us, for the present, to act as if we were.

I believe this is a valid criticism since, clearly, as mere mortals who are stranded in a single solar system, we have no real ability to discern what activities god might be undertaking in other worlds. So, in that respect, I believe you are correct: humans might be god’s special project in our sliver of the cosmos, and he might have other pet projects elsewhere. However, I believe this view is complicated when heaven is thrown into the equation. To my knowledge, heaven is supposed to overarch the entirety of creation—not merely our world but, rather, all that is. I have never heard a doctrine of heaven that incorporates extraterrestrials or other entities from other solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters or universes. What I mean is that the humanocentricity of heaven might very well betray a deeper, more pervasive humanocentricity vis-à-vis god than you are perhaps allowing. If god truly were rampant throughout the cosmos, with special attention spread over many projects, would not the doctrine of heaven speak to this in some way?


As for the inefficacy of prayer in healing the body, if the soul is infinitely more precious and is also immortal, a little suffering in this life is easily portrayed as almost irrelevant. I remember, long ago, seeing a TV interview in which a religious person was criticised for preaching morality while failing to give anyone practical help with day-to-day life; his response was, "Would you save a drowning man's jacket?" In other words, what benefit any healing of the body if the soul is lost, and what loss any suffering of the body if the soul is saved?

To me, this makes eminent theological sense. It’s true: If an afterlife does exist—with some proportion of humanity making it into heavenly bliss and some proportion being consigned to hell—it makes fleeting earthly suffering seem rather trivial by comparison. However, two points warrant consideration. First, despite this solid theological point, Christians, in fact, do pray for prosaic things like bodily healing and success in a difficult job hunt. Thus, it is safe to say that not everybody agrees that prayer should be reserved for more ethereal, worthy causes. [The John Templeton Foundation helped fund the Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer.] Second, if prayer is only efficacious for such causes—like forgiveness of sins and securing one’s salvation—it puts prayer entirely outside the realm of the testable and falsifiable. One cannot falsify a proposition such as, “Through prayer, my sins were forgiven.” Hence, in my judgment, prayer becomes a concept emptied of meaning and power. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and I would be inclined to toss the entire notion away.

[rsaavedra]

They're less about why I'm not a Christian, and more about why I am an atheist.
x2, agree with this.

Russell, by the way, in his famous essay, addressed specifically what being a Christian is supposed to mean, and how that notion has changed over time. He also challenged some aspects of the dealings and character of Jesus Christ; showed flaws in Jesus' teachings, and explained why he didn't consider Jesus the wisest and best human being in history, even placing Buda and Socrates ahead of him in that respect. He also challenged specific arguments about the existence of god advocated by the Christian/Catholic church through history. And finally, he explained how the Christian church has slowed down progress. So in that essay he did write very specifically, even surgically, about why not being a Christian in particular, not so much in general about why being an atheist.

[rsaavedra]

In the case of Pi, even the first two digits would have been an improvement.
Archimedes (287–212 BC) had already computed an estimate of Pi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi#Geometrical_period) by bounding it between two values whose average was 3.14185. In that Wikipedia entry I'm learning that by around the same time, a Chinese mathematician, Liu Hui, had also computed correctly the first three digits using an iterative algorithm. So correct knowledge of the first three digits in the fractional part of Pi existed already B.C.E. in different parts of the world.

[Steelmage]

How about, why I am not a christian because I can think for myself. Or choose to think for myself, rather then have someone else tell me how to think.

[MrFrankZito]

rsaavedra,

I wanted to mention that I've made another edit in response to one of your criticisms.

You mentioned that, following my first Hume quote, I did little to explain its meaning to me or elaborate on it. I have revised that following paragraph to read as such:

Why would a god who, in barbarous and ignorant times, was so clear, present and active suddenly, upon the emergence of a scientific understanding of the natural order, become a silent, inert sluggard whose presence could only be discerned in the most obscure, skepticism-baiting ways? Where are the miracles and prodigies for our scientific age? In an instant, god could carve his name onto the Moon. Or, alternately, god could rearrange the planets in our solar system. Because, as Richard Carrier writes, god does “nothing of any sort whatsoever,” choosing instead to be a do-nothing layabout, I am not a Christian.

I believe this improves upon its predecessor, so I appreciate your input.

[Aepervius]

"Sarah, 127 years" That is not an impossible age, Jane Calmant was 122 years or something. Sure one could argue she was greatly aided by modern medicine, but still she was 122 years. So 127 years while being a very very rare outlier, might not be impossible. The rest of the ages are naturally non sense.

[MrFrankZito]

"Sarah, 127 years" That is not an impossible age, Jane Calmant was 122 years or something. Sure one could argue she was greatly aided by modern medicine, but still she was 122 years. So 127 years while being a very very rare outlier, might not be impossible. The rest of the ages are naturally non sense.


Perhaps it is not impossible, per se, but, in the context of ancient times, during which people lived many fewer years than they do today, and bearing in mind the Bible's pronounced tendency to make ludicrous claims vis-à-vis longevity, I think Sarah does belong on the list, although perhaps with a small disclaimer that this particular example of ridiculousness is not as egregious as some others are.

[rsaavedra]

In an instant, god could carve his name onto the Moon.
So you would start believing in god if the name appeared carved onto the moon?

I keep thinking this is a terrible and ridiculous choice of a miracle example. Because, for one thing, it could be man-made. How do you know there hadn't been secret Yewish space mission sending rockets and robots to the dark side of the moon, carving as we speek some text from the Torah up there?

What size would that carving need to be? And how would it need to appear, and where, for you to take such a "miracle" as truly god made?

What is more, the carving could be even alien-civilitazion made if you want. Notice that you could push this "miracle" that much. An alien civilization with a knack for teasing and playfulness (or manipulation) could learn about our religious beliefs and do such a carving, and yet that wouldn't prove any existence of any god.

[MrFrankZito]

So you would start believing in god if the name appeared carved onto the moon?

I keep thinking this is a terrible and ridiculous choice of a miracle example. Because, for one thing, it could be man-made. How do you know there hadn't been secret Yewish space mission sending rockets and robots to the dark side of the moon, carving as we speek some text from the Torah up there?

What size would that carving need to be? And how would it need to appear, and where, for you to take such a "miracle" as truly god made?

What is more, the carving could be even alien-civilitazion made if you want. Notice that you could push this "miracle" that much. An alien civilization with a knack for teasing and playfulness (or manipulation) could learn about our religious beliefs and do such a carving, and yet that wouldn't prove any existence of any god.


All right... you've convinced me. :D

I rewrote that particular paragraph once more, eschewing my Moon example and selecting a more substantial Carrier quote than I had previously been using.

Why would a god who, in barbarous and ignorant times, was so clear, present and active suddenly, upon the emergence of a scientific understanding of the natural order, become a silent, inert sluggard whose presence could only be discerned in the most obscure, skepticism-baiting ways? Where are the miracles and prodigies for our scientific age? Richard Carrier writes, “For example, only those who believe in the true Christian Gospel [could] be granted…supernatural powers that could be confirmed by science; only true Christian Bibles [could] be indestructible, unalterable, and self-translating; and [a] Divine Voice [could] consistently convey to everyone the will and desires of the Christian message alone.” Because god, if existent, is a do-nothing layabout, I am not a Christian.

[rsaavedra]

All right... you've convinced me. :D
I'm really glad :)

In general, we should never take lightly the difference between something extraordinary and something allegedly "supernatural" or "divine."

[RandFan]

Hey Frank,

I've never liked post hoc justifications (though I'm not immune to such). Your premises could all be true all the while none of them having led to your state of belief (or lack thereof). There is no way to know. A petty complaint I'll concede and one not worth altering anything for.

I liked the article. Parts do seem a bit derivative (though you have addressed that above).

I particularly liked the following quote (as well as the section):

Why would a god who, in barbarous and ignorant times, was so clear, present and active suddenly, upon the emergence of a scientific understanding of the natural order, become a silent, inert sluggard whose presence could only be discerned in the most obscure, skepticism-baiting ways?

I would add (sorry if you did and I missed it) why does god behave and symbolize those barbarous and ignorant times (hell = dungeon/torture) (god = king, lord, law giver, sits on throne, must be worshiped and feted, etc.)

Overall I think it good if though perhaps a bit long but that's just my inconsequential opinion. I certainly don't have any quarrel with the premises or logic.

[Paulhoff]

Why do I not have any so-called god as a god, because I have never found it to answer any question. Those who do have a so-called god, I find their answers to be only ones that they have to start with.

Paul

:) :) :)

[MrFrankZito]

Hey Frank,

I've never liked post hoc justifications (though I'm not immune to such). Your premises could all be true all the while none of them having led to your state of belief (or lack thereof). There is no way to know. A petty complaint I'll concede and one not worth altering anything for.

I liked the article. Parts do seem a bit derivative (though you have addressed that above).

I particularly liked the following quote (as well as the section):



I would add (sorry if you did and I missed it) why does god behave and symbolize those barbarous and ignorant times (hell = dungeon/torture) (god = king, lord, law giver, sits on throne, must be worshiped and feted, etc.)

Overall I think it good if though perhaps a bit long but that's just my inconsequential opinion. I certainly don't have any quarrel with the premises or logic.

Thank you for your comments!

I am especially glad that you liked the section about god being silent/inert because, as I wrote in the opening paragraph of the essay, I chose to present my reasons for not being a Christian in descending order of importance. Thus, god's silence/inertia, to me, represents the very strongest reason to reject Christianity.

It was actually difficult for me to give that reason the primary slot, because I think The Argument from Mundanity--number two on my list--is also sound and unanswerable.

In any case, I'm glad you feel that I gave such a strong anti-Christian argument its due presentation.

[Thunder]

I am not a Christian because the New Testament is BS.

:)

[linusrichard]

Not to mention, you don't need a reason to not be a Christian. You need a reason to be a Christian.

[MrFrankZito]

Not to mention, you don't need a reason to not be a Christian. You need a reason to be a Christian.

I pretty much agree. But, since I used to be a Christian, and de-converted to atheism, I think it's worthwhile to note why I no longer adhere to the faith.

[linusrichard]

I pretty much agree. But, since I used to be a Christian, and de-converted to atheism, I think it's worthwhile to note why I no longer adhere to the faith.

Oh, no doubt. I hope it didn't seem like I was pooh-poohing what you were doing.

[MrFrankZito]

Oh, no doubt. I hope it didn't seem like I was pooh-poohing what you were doing.

Indeed, I think I misread your comment hastily. Cheers! :D

[MrFrankZito]

I just wanted to say that, thanks largely to feedback and creative suggestions I received here and elsewhere, the Secular Web published my article today on its homepage.

The final version, accepted by Internet Infidels, is here (http://secweb.infidels.org/article806.html).

Thanks for all the helpful comments!

[Limbo]

"I am not a Christian because god is absent or, at the least, silent."

So your starting place is conception of God is that of an entirely autonomous external entity "out there" somewhere?

[MrFrankZito]

The Bible speaks of god as a being (after all, he merits a masculine pronoun) who is capable of acting in a clear, unambiguous way, as he did during biblical times.

He does not act at all right now, which makes the biblical accounts rather suspect.

[Limbo]

The Bible speaks of god as a being (after all, he merits a masculine pronoun) who is capable of acting in a clear, unambiguous way, as he did during biblical times.

He does not act at all right now, which makes the biblical accounts rather suspect.


Have you concluded that Divinity itself is not real, or have you merely concluded that an exoteric Christian conception of it is wrong?

[I Ratant]

There's an extensive interview with a atheist/agnostic in today's Los Angeles Times.
She relates the final step in her loss of her religion was doing social work in South Central LA, with black and Hispanic women, whose fervent belief was obvious, but whose circumstances were just plain evil.
Evil and good... where at do they come from?

[gentlehorse]

So your starting place is conception of God is that of an entirely autonomous external entity "out there" somewhere?

Have you concluded that Divinity itself is not real, or have you merely concluded that an exoteric Christian conception of it is wrong?

Let me guess: Pantheist, right?

[Limbo]

Let me guess: Pantheist, right?


Nope.

[GT/CS]

Have you concluded that Divinity itself is not real, or have you merely concluded that an exoteric Christian conception of it is wrong?

When you say 'Christian' are you referring to the belief in Christ or are you also including all religions who believe in his father? Don't Jews, Muslims, and Christians all believe in the same god?

My reason for not believing in god is the need for St. Judes Children's Hospital and other such hospitals.

[Limbo]

When you say 'Christian' are you referring to the belief in Christ or are you also including all religions who believe in his father?


Well whatever way MrFrankZito means it.


Don't Jews, Muslims, and Christians all believe in the same god?


Yeah. But they get stuck on their metaphors and don't realize their reference.

[James in New York]

Good stuff, Frank!

[gentlehorse]

Yeah. But they get stuck on their metaphors and don't realize their reference.

That being?

[Limbo]

That being?


imo, the Self (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_(Jung)).


http://pandc.ca/graphics/psyche.gif

[GT/CS]

If god wrote, or dictated, the bible why must 'experts' interpret and explain it to us? And why do they end up with different interpretations?

Why has god's book been replaced with those inspired by Jesus, and Mohammed, and Joseph Smith?

[Limbo]

If god wrote, or dictated, the bible why must 'experts' interpret and explain it to us? And why do they end up with different interpretations?

Why has god's book been replaced with those inspired by Jesus, and Mohammed, and Joseph Smith?


No easy answers. I would recommend that you check out The Power of Myth series on google video or youtube or whatever. It's an award-winning PBS mini-series. Here is episode one to get you started.

http://vimeo.com/4824510

[Blackadder]

Nice essay. I read most of your sources as well and in fact find it very convenient that you took the time write such an extended summary. I"ll bookmark the blog.

[rsaavedra]

Congratulations MrFrankZito!

[MrFrankZito]

Have you concluded that Divinity itself is not real, or have you merely concluded that an exoteric Christian conception of it is wrong?

Divinity, I think, is a malleable word.

I have concluded the supernatural is not real. I also have concluded, more specifically, that Christianity is false.

That does not mean I reject the numinous and the transcendent, but merely the superstitious and the supernatural.

[MrFrankZito]

Congratulations MrFrankZito!

Thanks!

As I am sure you probably realize, you were especially helpful in improving the article.

So, much appreciated!

[Limbo]

Divinity, I think, is a malleable word.


Yes indeed. As is 'supernatural'. Not to mention 'transcendent' and 'superstition'. Perhaps what you reject is outdated exoteric orthodox conventional ways of conceiving of such things?

[Gawdzilla]

I'm not a Christian for the same reason I don't worry about trolls living under bridges or volunteer to distract Sauron so Frodo can get to Mt. Doom.

[MrFrankZito]

Yes indeed. As is 'supernatural'. Not to mention 'transcendent' and 'superstition'. Perhaps what you reject is outdated exoteric orthodox conventional ways of conceiving of such things?

I certainly reject anything that stands in violation of natural law, or purports to stand in opposition to, or in contrast with, the natural itself.

[Limbo]

I certainly reject anything that stands in violation of natural law, or purports to stand in opposition to, or in contrast with, the natural itself.


Is 'natural' a malleable word?