mike mcquaid dot com

Hi, found your blog on Planet KDE. Just wanted to say it’s great to see a Christian software developer standing up for their beliefs.

Keep it up. We need more people being active about their faith, while still being a “normal guy” (in so far as a geek can be!

Comment by David Webb — October 28, 2007 @ 06:31

Your comments are though provoking. It is indeed difficult to follow Jesus in His simplicity of love.

I would point out that militant atheists like Dawkins or some other group would still find Christians unacceptable, even perfect Christians showing perfect love. They couldn’t be accepted because by their simple true love they would be proclaiming the truth of Christ and thus consequences for actions (for Christ’s death is rather meaningless and not very loving if it did not provide propitiation for sin).(See Jn 15.18-16.4)

Anyway, this reminder is a great way to head to church.

Comment by AD — October 28, 2007 @ 06:32

Bravo! I’m an atheist and completely agree with your conclusions. This is exactly the message of Sam Harris’ most recent book, The End of Faith. All the other stuff just get’s in the way: we can’t have a discussion about that stuff because it’s in the domain of the supernatural; on the other hand, if we spend time talking about real-world questions, perhaps we can reach some conclusions!

Comment by Jason Clinton — October 28, 2007 @ 06:34

I just picked up a copy of ‘The GOD delusion’ yesterday as it happens. Richard Dawkins is a great writer and I’m glad you mentioned him. Although I’m an atheist I like your attitude, if only all christians could be as open minded as you. The ten commandments don’t really make a good list, to use the number 10 is a marketing choice(just happens to be 10, why?) and the list was padded out to suit this. Check out George Carlin’s video on the ten commandments. What it comes down to is treating people the way you would like to be treated yourself.
This ended up on planet KDE, which probably isn’t the best place for religious text but you set a good example to other christians.

Comment by - — October 28, 2007 @ 07:07

As an atheist, I have to say that if all people lived that way, it would be a nice world. Christianity (and Atheism) has a bad press because of fundamentalists who, as you said, selectively pluck the messages they want to promote.

I always believed that the message that Christianity was supposed to be about was “be nice!”, and I applaud that message and try to live by it myself.

Some sects of christianity, such as the Jehovah Witnesses, appear to live by a different rule – “be nice, but only to other Witnesses – all others must be converted”. Yet others appear to live by “be nice, but not too nice – after all, most of those people are going to hell”.

Dawkins appears to be like the Witnesses, by the way, in that he might be friendly to people, but only if they are his brand of Atheist – if they are not, then they are targets for conversion.

Anyway… I like to think that if I met this Jesus lad, we might have sit and have a good meal, agree that we have the same goals in mind, even if not the same beliefs, and go amicably our own ways afterwards.

Bill and Ted had it right!

Comment by Kae Verens — October 28, 2007 @ 07:21

Sublimus Dei:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm

No much to say.
=(

Comment by Martin J. Ponce — October 28, 2007 @ 07:46

The bible is not a 7 sentence book. It is a huge book with a large number of conflicting commandments. Even if this is the most important thing, which is not at all clear since the bible says lots of different things are the most important, it still does not change the fact that the bible demands a large amount of other, often mutually exclusive, things as well. Saying something is the most important issue and saying it is the only issue are two entirely different things.

And even if that was all there is to the bible it would not change the issues Dawkins and others have with religion. All it changes is the way faith is expressed, while the problem many atheists have is with faith itself. The practical problems that have arisen out of various religions are simply provided as counterexamples to the claim that religion is required for morality. Even if those practical problem did not exist the fundamental problem, that it is all based on faith and the rejection of reason, still remains. It would still be a religion, at its core, about a perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god sacrificing himself to himself so he wouldn’t have to punish his creation for a problem he created on purpose.

Comment by TheBlackCat — October 28, 2007 @ 08:53

Loving other people and comparable norms and values preached by Christianity might be a good thing, but it’s exactly the “Love God” idea that’s damaging, and complaints about how damaging that is will continue.

So far it has not been possible to establish the existence of God with the scientific method, so it’s irrational to think God exists. It’s not any more credible than thinking purple flying elephants exist. Putting that radical comparison aside, maybe Jesus’ death, miracles, resurrection and ascension were deification/glorification by his followers, and was Jesus just a normal guy? Then Christianity is nothing more than a radical sect split off of Judaism? Christians will never know for sure, but they simply believe what they believe based on an unreliable source, the bible.
Most Christians believe in God because they were raised with Christianity, they give the bible too much credit, and all are unable to think critically (maybe not in all aspects of their life, but certainly concerning the religious aspect). I consider not being able of critical thinking quite damaging.

What certainly is the most damaging is the Christian proselytism. Christians intentionally try to convert others to their religion, as a consequence stimulating others to abandon critical thinking. Almost all Christian (and certainly other theistic religions as well) parents feel the need to raise their children with a Christian education. It’s nothing more than abusing the trust relationship of child and parent to teach children untrue things instead of letting children grow up without religious meddling and letting them figure out what religion to follow by themselves when they have developed the intellectual capacity.
I’m one of the victims of being raised with the Christian religion, and as long as religions keep proselytizing their faith and preach to love their God, opposition to religion from me, Richard Dawkins and many others will remain.

Comment by Alexander van Loon — October 28, 2007 @ 10:39

Alexander, a stupid example, but how do you know your parents/children/friends love or care for you? You don’t, but you examine their actions and have come to that conclusion (I hope!).
It is the same way with my faith. Although I cannot prove it to you scientifically I have seen, heard and felt things that can only be explained by a deity or that I am mentally ill and frequently suffer hallucinations which are sometimes also witnessed by others (who must be mentally ill too!).

However, I don’t expect this evidence to be good enough for you. I don’t expect this to make you believe. All I ask of telling it is that it might give you slightly more respect and understanding for how I reconcile “irrational” faith with being a scientist.

I became a Christian at 17 and wasn’t raised in a Christian household or going to church. Every step I’ve made towards Christianity has been of my own will and every step has had me try to reconcile my faith with science. Whilst I’ll agree that some Christians do feel the need to abandon critical thinking, the vast majority don’t and constantly question their faith and their church.

The reason why Christians try and share the message with others is because they believe it is a good message and with it others will lead a more fulfilling life. I try and share the message with my friends because it is a core part of who I am and it helps them understand why I behave the ways I do.

I hope this has cleared up some issues. I don’t expect it’ll necessarily change your mind. I don’t ask for respect for my beliefs, just enough for me that I’m not classified as being some idiot just because I believe there is a God.

Comment by Mike — October 28, 2007 @ 14:22

Mike’s answer to Alexander: Most People have some irrational beliefs. Whether you are treated as an idiot or not depends on how much nonsense you are ready to take and how often you talk about it.
As long as you keep critical thinking, there is still hope

Comment by Martin Greendragon — October 28, 2007 @ 15:34

Tim, yes, as Christians we are told that we should. Pretty controversial but Jesus was too.

Martin: I LOLed. Nice comment

Comment by Mike — October 28, 2007 @ 16:17

What it your neighbour doesnt love you as themselves, must you still blindly love them, eye for and eye etc……??

Comment by Tim — October 28, 2007 @ 15:54

Martin Ponce: I’d say that what Sublimus Dei calls for is quite a bit better than what would have been done otherwise, no?

It’s important to remember that ‘the most important message’ doesn’t entail following that message at the exclusion of all others. We are told to love God and love His creations because that is fundamental to every other rule in the Bible; everything proscribed in the Bible is a crime against God, and committing a crime against someone is an unloving thing. Therefore, even if we are to focus on that message, we cannot ignore the other parts as well.

Comment by Ethan Osten — October 28, 2007 @ 18:31

Ethan: The point is that everyone disagrees on what is prescribed in the Bible, therefore they should not be our focus. Clearly there is a universal truth there somewhere, but if we can never know what is and isn’t then I ask if we were ever meant to know?

That message CAN be used at the exclusion of all others because anything the Bible seems to command that contradicts that message is not of God.

Comment by Mike — October 28, 2007 @ 19:13

Comment by – — Sunday 28th October, 2007 @ 7:07 am
“The ten commandments don’t really make a good list, to use the number 10 is a marketing choice(just happens to be 10, why?) ”
Because 10b is 2d. He might have tried to remember geeks that the first two commandments were the most important ones

Comment by foo — October 28, 2007 @ 20:29

What defines someone is not how much nonsense he or she is willing to take, it is how much nonsense he or she is willing to accept. Behaving in a rational manner does not always come easily to humans. There are many situations which lead humans to consistently draw the wrong conclusions. This is what we generally term logical fallacies. Everyone is guilty of them, it is how the brain is wired. What differentiates people is not whether they behave irrationally, it is whether they embrace this irrationality or fight against it. Religion is ultimately a surrender to irrationality and the abandoning need for evidence (to varying extents) . It is impossible to behave completely irrationally and survive or behave completely rationally and be human, the difference is in how hard people try to be one or the other.

People have always blamed things they don’t understand on religion. I know I don’t know everything. If there is something I see that I don’t understand, that only means that I do not understand it. It does not mean it cannot be understood, and it does not mean than any particular god or gods is responsible for it. If I were to see something that seemed to be supernatural, my first inclination would be that I am seeing something that I lack the knowledge to explain, not that it is something that is unexplainable. I cannot explain all the tricks magicians do, they seem to defy what is possible under the rules nature follows, but they freely admit that they are using our own minds and senses to deceive us. Other people use the same tricks while lying about them in order to convince people they have special powers. And there does not need to be a human behind something for it to fool us, there are plenty of natural occurrences that would seem miraculous to those who do not understand what is behind them.

I am comfortable not having all the answers. I am comfortable not being able to explain everything I hear or see. I do not assume that I am too smart to be fooled, and I know that the person who has the easiest job fooling me is myself. But I do not embrace those things, I fight against them constantly. I know I can be fooled, buy I try not to be. I know I can fool myself, so I have studied extensively the ways in which that can happened so I can catch them and correct them. I know I do not have absolute knowledge, but I strive to always expand my knowledge. I am not completely rational, but I do not embrace my irrationality I fight against it with all of my might. The one thing all religions have in common is that they demand that you not do this, at least towards the beliefs of that religion. You cannot apply rational rules to them and you are not allowed to look at them in the context of the normal failings of the human mind. This is the core problem with religion, in my opinion. It demands that people embrace irrationality. I will not do that.

I leave you with these inspirational quotes from the bible, Jesus’s description of his own goals here on Earth:

Matthew 10:34-36
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
For I have come to turn
” ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

and a similar passage from Luke

Luke 12:49-53
“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!
But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.
From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.
They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Comment by TheBlackCat — October 28, 2007 @ 20:49

Are you scientist? Do you like logic?

Okay, follow me: if god almighty, can he create a pizza so big that he can’t eat it?

BTW why should we love god? If I had to choose, I would prefer to love the devil, he killed much less people in the bible than god.

What do you think about pastafarians? And one more thing: I belive in all religions. Those who think I’m crazy, they just don’t have enough faith.

The problem with faith is that you, by definition, can’t question it. That’s what Richard Dawkins says, and that’s what I belive it’s the real problem.

Because maybe you have faith in something like “love other people, love god”, which is not very bad =). You don’t question that. But what if you had faith in something more beligerant like killing people? You belive that’s what god tell you to do, and you have faith in that, so you do it.

Corollary: You need critical thinking to know where to stop, where to draw the line. No faith.

And sorry, but I don’t like these kind of posts in Planet KDE.

Comment by Eduardo Robles Elvira — October 28, 2007 @ 21:17

I think, at least for people who are going to insist on being a christian, the best they can do for everyone else is to indeed focus on these particular versus. The rest of us will hope no twisted sort of definitions of love will develop (like one fellow I know of who used to beat his son for being gay — he loved him so he was trying to help him avoid being a way that he felt he should not be) and everyone will be better off.

From a philosophical and personal standpoint, however, I’m siding with BlackCat on this one. Faiths must be subject to reasons.

My reason for saying this is something I, once a very strong christian believer, discovered though many discussion with a very strong believer of a different faith: the religion is largely immaterial to the religious experience. You can discover this yourself. Ask someone who is equally convicted of a different faith as you about their reasons for believing what they believe (resisting the urge to try and argue for your beliefs). You will see a mirror image of yourself, and come to know that, if you had lived their life, and not your own, you would be just a devote, just a religious, just it wouldn’t be your religion, it would be their religion.

What then does this say about the supposed divine being and the salvation thing? If he/she/it/they did not intend us to reason about religion, then what other recourse do we have? All else is universal to all religions: the strong feelings, the convictions, the divine experiences. We are left with no hope other than that time and events favour us. And if we are so fortunate that they do, we must ask what about those who’s misfortune it is to not be so favoured? A being that enforces such a thing is no friend of the human race.

Further, it is not clear at all to me what the first part of that (love god) means/involves. How do you love the insubstantial? Follow whatever you believe the rest of the bible says? If so, you’ve just went in a full loop because that now puts your particular interpretation of all things biblical above the second part (loving your fellow man/women).

Comment by My2Bits — October 29, 2007 @ 00:13

Eduardo: I don’t really understand what you are trying to say. All faith means is that you believe in something without knowing 100%. You have faith in the ability of every scientist whose papers you agree with but yet whose results you have no personally verified.

As for these posts being on Planet KDE, I told Chris Lee he could either use the RSS feed for my KDE-tagged posts or all of them and he chose all of them. As a Christian I will sometimes blog about stuff that challenges my faith, so this ends up on the Planet. If you don’t like it I’m sorry but feel free to skip over my posts.

Comment by Mike — October 29, 2007 @ 00:39

Faith can mean different things depending on context. Religious faith is a very different thing than accepting the scientific method. What passes for faith in science is merely the assumption of order, the assumption that the universe follows fixed rules. Religious faith, however, goes far further than that. It is the rejection of reason. Trying to use two different definitions of the same word to confuse the issue is one of the fallacies I was warning about earlier (the fallacy of equivocation, specifically).

Accepting that something behaves a certain way under certain conditions one time will probably behave in a similar way under the same condition another time is essential to living, otherwise you could not trust that you won’t fall through the floor and end up in the center of the Earth if you get out of bed tomorrow morning. It is a fundamental assumption required to function in day-to-day life. Science is simply a formalized way of making use of this assumption. Trying to say that sort of faith is no different than believing in an invisible, undetectable father in the sky is simply incorrect.

Comment by TheBlackCat — October 29, 2007 @ 01:19

TheBlackCat: I’m not aware that I said they were no different, I merely was defending the concept of faith. Religious faith is not the rejection of reason. Scientific experiment is based on events you can reproduce. I cannot reproduce spiritual experiences on demand and I cannot enable others to see or hear. This means I cannot convince others of the validity of my beliefs through a scientific method. However, this does not mean that these beliefs are invalid or have no basis.

Comment by Mike — October 29, 2007 @ 01:33

Interresting discussion As a Christian and scientist myself, I find Christianity to very nicely describe the world around me. I chose Christianity because it makes the most sense intellectually. No way I could come close to filling in the details here. I test my understanding constantly and enjoy reading comments that appose my current understanding. So far I have not read anything that was not easily understood from a solid Bible based understanding.

Several comments have been made about faith. A common misconception about faith is that it is just blind trust that a perceived reality you know nothing about and cannot test, is indeed true/false, just because you want it to be. This would be very much like just trusting that Santa Clause exists, because it gives you warm feelings. Faith is not blind at all. If we did not have any revelation of who God is, we could not have faith. I have faith in God because I have seen Him work in my life, and in the lives of many others around me so many times, I would be a fool not to trust Him. Ya, I know, I can’t prove that any of my past experiences came from God, nor can you prove that just because you see your parents, that they really exist. We all are trusting something. Repeated confirmations though do lead to a conclusion for most, and for me, that conclusion is that God does exist, and that He does indeed love me. No, my life has not been a bed of roses, nor did God ever promiss it would be.

Comment by James — October 29, 2007 @ 04:10

Of course you were saying they were the same. If they are so different what was the point in even bringing up faith in science? Your comparison would be irrelevant if they were not the same.

And talking about reproducing results is just a cop-out. The same cop-out consistently used by homeopathy, astrology, ghost hunters, psychics, and all other paranormal and supernatural phenomena. But all that is saying is that there can never be any evidence supporting your conclusion. So accepting something wildly improbable, or worse yet downright impossible, for no logical or evidence-based reason is most definitely a rejection of rationality. It requires that the deity in question intentionally behave so that there is no difference between the deity existing and not existing. If all the evidence you have is in your head, and that evidence can be explained just as easily without involving the supernatural (which it must because a lot of people have beliefs of the same sort that conflict with yours), then in the end it really makes no difference whether the deity exists or not.

If you admit that the universe behaves in the way you would expect if God did not exist, which would have to be the case is if there is no way in principle to scientifically test the existence of god, continuing to hold the opinion that god exists is by definition irrational. On the other hand, if you claim there are fundamental differences between a universe where a god does exists and one where it doesn’t then you should be able to provide testable examples of these differences. You cannot have it both ways, either the universe behaves as though there were no god or there are ways to test the existence of god. Ultimately it boils down to Occam’s razor, in a choice between two conclusions that explain the results equally well you choose the one that requires the fewest unsupported assumptions. To accept both science and religion you must accept the assumptions science makes, of which there are really only 3, as well as accepting the great many unfounded assumptions required to follow any religion. Occam’s razor is one of the most basic rules of science and logic, you cannot claim to to be acting rationally or scientifically if you abandon it.

Bertrand Russel’s famous (or infamous) teapot example is a good example of this:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

Comment by TheBlackCat — October 29, 2007 @ 04:13

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line, not “towing the party line”

Comment by skierpage — October 29, 2007 @ 06:29

TheBlackCat: Merely comparing two things does not mean they are identical. As I’ve said before, I don’t just hold an opinion that God exists, I have encountered him in my life and witnessed too many coincidences and other things not explained by science.

I don’t expect you to fully understand. I also restate that I wasn’t a Christian till I was 17 and it was not other people, religious books or cultural pressure that changed my mind in what I believe. It was an encounter shared by five other people.

To you, the decision to believe in God may be just a decision in abandoning rationality. However, this planet has a great many wise minds and respected scientists who would disagree and also the majority of people on this planet believe in a deity. Accusing them all of abandoning reason to reach that conclusion shows that you haven’t really talked to many religious people about why they believe. This would be a wise idea because this discussion seems to have stagnated. I understand where you are coming from but I don’t think you understand where I am coming from.

Nothing you say today will cause me to revoke my faith and nothing I can say today will cause you to believe, so perhaps we should accept that and move on

Comment by Mike — October 29, 2007 @ 09:25

“I have encountered him in my life and witnessed too many coincidences and other things not explained by science.”

This is exactly the problem I described earlier. You are saying they are not explained by science, but all that really means is that you do not have an explanation for them. The fact that you cannot explain them does not mean no explanation exists, either now or sometimes in the future. Drawing the conclusion that science cannot explain the, is to claim that you know every explanation science has and that you cannot be fooled either by yourself or by someone else. Obviously that isn’t the case., nobody knows everything and everyone can be fooled (although scientists are notoriously easy to fool, and I say that even though I am one). That is one of the cases where you are abandoning rationality. The rational conclusion when you cannot explain something is merely that you cannot explain it. Saying that because you cannot explain it then it must be supernatural is irrational and routinely wrong, both historically and still today.

“However, this planet has a great many wise minds and respected scientists who would disagree and also the majority of people on this planet believe in a deity.”

Argument from authority fallacy and argument from popularity fallacy. There is a reason I warned you about fallacies earlier. Smart people have believed wrong things, and the majority of people in the planet have believed wrong things. That does not make such things wrong, but it also does not automatically make them right. What matters is the evidence and arguments used by the two sides.

“Accusing them all of abandoning reason to reach that conclusion shows that you haven’t really talked to many religious people about why they believe.”

I’ve already explain at length how your decision is irrational, but besides invoking some logical fallacies you have not addressed any of my points. I was religious my whole life. About two years ago I started studying the arguments for and against religion. The arguments supporting religion, no matter who they came from, where consistently and often admittedly irrational. None of the supposedly rational reasons I could find held up under the slightest bit of scrutiny. But generally people took the same tact you did, stating that their decision was based on ignoring the rational conclusion and picking the irrational one. Obviously they wouldn’t use those words, but it is really the only way to describe the position they took. I know your position very well, I tried to hold it for many years but it ultimately became impossible. I know your arguments as well, I have seen them all before dozens of times and used them myself many times. Lots of smart people are very good at compartmentalizing, keeping the scientific and rational approaches in most situations but abandoning it when it comes to their beliefs. This is precisely the “two mode” approach you described earlier, but it is an inherently irrational approach as I explained earlier.

Comment by TheBlackCat — October 29, 2007 @ 15:03

BlackCat: I phrased myself badly. What I meant to say is not that they cannot be explained by science but that, from what I have seen and researched, they are not explained by science. This alone is not sufficient to indicate that there is a God, but enough other evidence to me is.

You may have been religious your whole life but if, by purely self-analysis, your faith fell to pieces then I might suggest it was grounded in irrationality and not rational thought. I feel you are projecting your own embarrassment into assuming that all religious people feel the same. We do not. I don’t “think” there is a God. There is a God or I and a lot of my friends are mentally ill. We may be mentally ill but we haven’t just decided one day to believe in a magical figure.

If you met some of my friends, religious or not, and me discussed with them you’d find out pretty quickly that I frequently get in trouble because I challenge others preconceptions and I frequently reanalyse and reassess my faith.

You may still think I have blind faith and that I’m an idiot. That is fine, I don’t mind. I’m disappointed I have not been able to explain my faith to a point where you at least respect my decision, although wholly disagreeing. I respect your viewpoint perfectly because I was once in your shoes too. I don’t think either of us are changing the other’s mind on this topic.

Comment by Mike — October 29, 2007 @ 18:53

I don’t think you are an idiot, I think you are behaving in an irrational manner and until you actually address the issues I have brought up so far I will continue to hold that position. People who are very smart can still behave in a very irrational manner if they are not careful to reign in the normal flaws in human thinking. As I have said, I have studied the issue extensively and have not been able to find anyone who believes in religion for rational reasons. I have laid out a small bit of why I think that is the case. I may be wrong, these reasons may exist. I would immediately change my position if I ever heard them. There may be rational reasons to accept religion, everyone besides me who believes in religion may have rational reasons to do so, but until I hear these reasons I will have to assume they do not exist. That is the rational way to approach a situation like this, as I have already explained. It has nothing to do with projection, it has to do with the logical way to behave when faced with two possible scenarios that explain the facts equally well. And it has nothing to do with embarrassment, if I was worried about being embarrassed I would not have given up religion in the first place.

So far you have failed to address any of the arguments I have brought up, nor have you actually told me about this event that you found so convincing. You have repeatedly asserted that you have rational reasons for your beliefs, but besides for two fallacies you have not actually presented any of them. You seem to expect me to just accept your assertions when you have not presented anything to back them up. If you can address my points, please do so. If you are acting in a rational manner, please explain how. I would instantly change my position and offer a heartfelt apology if you were to do this. But I am not just going to take your word for it. I would love to be proven wrong. Being an atheist is not easy in this country. If there are good reasons for belief I would be very happy. Having an afterlife is a comforting thought. But I will not just accept it when someone tells me the reasons exist when he or she will not tell me what these reasons actually are. I expect people to back up their statements. I have tried hard to do so with my own statements and would be more than happy to further defend my position if asked to do so.

Comment by TheBlackCat — October 29, 2007 @ 23:32

If you break down your arguments into a bulleted list of single sentences I will try and address them one by one. I’ve been trying to address your arguments but I guess I’ve not been doing a very good job at it!

As for these events, I’m only reluctant to share as I don’t think they will sway you at all and some are quite personal so I’d be reluctant to post them on a public blog.

This seems to just have turned into a two-way conversation. If you check out my contact page I’d be more than happy to talk to you about this by email/IRC/Jabber.

I’m sorry that it is hard being an atheist in the US, it certainly seems that way from the limited information I have heard.

Comment by Mike — October 29, 2007 @ 23:43

Yes, i see that.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1075950,00.html

And of course, “it is not a religious war”.

Comment by Martin J. Ponce — October 30, 2007 @ 04:22

Hi Mike,

But what were you doing being up at 5.03 am?!!!

Go to bed!

Duncan

Comment by duncan — October 31, 2007 @ 00:34

I don’t think faith is blind belief. You get enough of the picture to say ‘hey, this makes
sense..’ and then you take what you know and apply it somewhere new. I believe the Bible is
the mathematically perfect word of a God who invites us to join him in power as we let him
turn us into beings compatible with that power. This means admitting that we’ve screwed stuff
up, and letting God cleanse us and make us more like him until we are all like him.

Basically, I would describe that as ‘godkind’ instead of ‘mankind’, which may sound like
blasphemy at first, but if anyone wants KJV references and simple logic behind my putting
it like that, ethana2@gmail.com

People act like the Trinity is all mysterious. You and me are man. The Father and Jesus
are God. We are divided as a race in mind and spirit. They are not.

I also hold faith to be simple, acting on information derived from God’s word. I act on
information I get from my eyes, the internet, my other senses all the time. I trust those

Comment by ethana2 — November 2, 2007 @ 08:26

(oops- hit tab and enter trying to get a new line with this wierd page formatting)
Oh, hey enter works correctly. I don’t need shift. …k

….sources of information. Choosing to add the bible to your list of trusted sources (man,
I’m a nerd) is how I define faith. From there, it’s logic. And why shouldn’t I trust it?

It went through many, many carriers…
…but it’s digitally signed, and has one heck of a sturdy checksum embedded. The OT, anyway.

Comment by ethana2 — November 2, 2007 @ 08:32

…aaannd it seems bible code math doesn’t hold up to scrutiny; scratch that.

I’d keep my eye on prophecy. Strain out some solid statistical facts about what is our future, and when enough of it has happened, less doubt should be involved.

…and read the Christ Clone trilogy… just because it’s awesome reading if nothing else.

Comment by ethana2 — November 2, 2007 @ 08:50

I’ve been following this discussion, it is very interesting to see a Christian defending his faith to an atheist. As a logic based Christian myself I can relate to the topics and the views from both sides. I would suggest reading Thomas Aquinas (newadvent.org/summa), he is a great writer and gives logical arguments for things like “does God exist”, and “are our souls separate from our bodies”.

God Bless,

David

Comment by David Webb — November 3, 2007 @ 08:13