On Happiness

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.George Bernard Shaw

Theists often contend that a belief in god is justified because theists are so happy – far happier than non-theists, they claim. Studies have indicated that those most satisfied with their religion are often happier, more at peace with their lives, because they feel their lives have a sense of purpose. The popular perception is that religion and happiness go hand in hand. The statistics set forth in my prior post tend to give the lie to that. If Christians are so happy, why are many of them in a perpetual state of movement in and out of their particular sect of religion, or religion itself? If Christianity holds the truth, shouldn’t we all be in a perpetual state of stasis and bliss?

Actually, though, the Shaw quote points to a certain irrelevancy. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that, in fact, all Christians are deliriously happy. All Christians have found the truth in their bibles and that truth is Jesus Christ. Their lives are just one big party, filled with merriment and exultation. The reason for their existence is certain, and this certainty brings a peace of mind unknown to non-Christians.

Lets take all of that as a given.

What if Christianity is not true? What if Jesus was merely a mythical figure, wrought within the minds of the early Christians, such as Paul and Eusebius, and bolstered by an inability of the human mind to find explanations for existence without resort to myths and superstitions, simply because of the relative infancy of advancing civilization and thought? What if, contrary to popular opinion, god does not exist, yet Christians continue to believe he does, and go on blithely ignoring the evidence to the contrary, while feeling happy about it all the time? In short, what if their beliefs are based on a lie?

It could be argued that if you assume that life has to have some meaning, or some purpose, and that elusive sense of meaning is important to you, if you think you’ve found that meaning, then ipso facto, you should be happier. But if life isn’t supposed to have a purpose, if life just IS, to then superimpose a need for purpose and meaning is a form of self delusion. It is the artificial creation of a psychological need. And if that’s the case, then the invention of religion to satiate that yearning is akin to taking a drug. Perhaps Marx had it right all along?

I can’t seem to find any Christians who are bothered by this quandary. If there are any out there, please leave a comment. Even if you feel supremely happy because of your belief in god, what if you’re wrong? Doesn’t it bother you that your happiness may be based on nothing, or at best, a delusional approximation of truth? That you are convincing yourself that something is true when you have no basis for doing so, in order to feel good? Doesn’t the truth of your beliefs count for something?

I guess not. Christians can point to the same thing we point to, the finality of death, and say, “If I’m happy all my life, why should I be concerned about the source of my happiness? If what atheists say is true, then when I’m dead, I won’t know whether my happiness is based on falsehood or delusion, nor will it matter. If they are wrong, I’ll have been happy in this life, and the next. So, why worry?”

The possibility that religion helps them to be happy does not diminish the sense of fulfillment I get from atheism, though I suspect the opposite does not hold true for them. If it did, they wouldn’t be so insistent on proselytization and conversion. It almost seems as if they can’t be happy unless they know I’m happy for the same reasons they are. To have a separate but equal happiness inducing existence based on a completely different world view is anathema to them.

I am much happier knowing that I am the maker of my own destiny, as limited in time as that may be. I’m much happier knowing that some arbitrary super being hasn’t already decided my destiny, in the process creating really good odds that I will burn in hell, or be consigned to some equally deplorable place for all eternity. For that matter, I am much happier knowing that I won’t exist for eternity, for an infinite period of time (that alone would be a reason to snuff out one’s existence). I’m also much happier knowing that life has an explanation, (even though I may not fully know how it works) that the natural order of things is THE order of things, and that I can depend on the natural order to be consistent, without the occasional, unpredictable and arbitrary intervention by god. I don’t have to wonder why the universe is as it is, and I can simply accept the fact that it is, and stand in awe of it.

Christians may be happy, but so am I.

And you know what? More power to them. What ever floats their boat (insert more trite clichés). Me, I want to know what’s true, and base my happiness on that. As long as Christians keep their beliefs out of my life, and stick to the truths of this world, I’ll be happy too.

However, when their happiness comes at the expense of mine, that’s when their happiness becomes cheap and dangerous to mine.

add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!

free stats

65 thoughts on “On Happiness

  1. “What if, contrary to popular opinion, god does not exist, yet Christians continue to believe he does, and go on blithely ignoring the evidence to the contrary, while feeling happy about it all the time?”

    I’ve always wondered what Atheists mean when they mention ‘evidence’ that disproves God. So far as I’ve seen, there aren’t any scientifically valid contradictions to the Bible. Could you explain this, please?

  2. Puppeteer:

    There’s no evidence that “disproves” the existence of any gods. There is a strong preponderance of evidence implying that a god hypothesis is unnecessary and/or contradictory in a variety of instances for which that hypothesis traditionally had been offered as the only “answer.”

    Also, there’s absolutely no evidence — at least evidence that’s verifiable, testable, replicable, and irrefutable — supporting the existence of any gods.

  3. Your opinion comes across as extremely well thought out. And there inlies the problem. You opinion is based on theory. It’s an idea you have dreamed up in your mind I guess. I, coming to Christianity, had a hard time with the question of life and was looking for that happiness you speak of. I did however give the Bible the opportunity to prove itself. I did this with an open mind. I am happy with what I believe. I do feel God. Like the wind, you can feel it but not see it however, it is there. Your point in writing was “our current state of happiness”, and you said you were happy for now in this short life. Well, let me pose this question. What if there is a heaven and there is a hell and we must choose now where our eternity will be spent. After considering that consider this… what if I’m right and your wrong? What If there really was a God to serve? We were both happy but the results of our destiny are much, much different!

    Thanks for you time

    Make time for God-CLICK HERE

  4. Good thoughts man.

    “far happier than non-theists”

    FAR from the truth, I was more miserable as a theist as I always felt I could not live up to the God I created in my head. I tortured myself with the God I personally had invented. It was depressing that I always “missed the mark”

  5. “Also, there’s absolutely no evidence — at least evidence that’s verifiable, testable, replicable, and irrefutable — supporting the existence of any gods.”

    True. I have always been an agnostic and I see no point in searching for the sort of evidence you have described as a way to validate my faith. Faith is, by definition, belief in something completely separate from the human sphere of perception. However, gnosticism is an entirely human invention; only one in a long string of other fallacies that have sprung from misinterpretations of the Bible. We are only now finding the true meaning of the scriptures, partly because so many thinking people have left the oppressive and ignorant Catholic Church.

  6. I recently wrote on this issue. If Christians are so deliriously happy, how come they are so interested in other people lives? Why waste your energy demonizing homosexuals, trying to control women, and trying to make the United States a Christian nation? Plus, if you believe in Heaven, how can you be happy here on earth, a mere pit stop to a much better existence? And, if Christianity leads to a happy and moral life, how can you continue to be happy knowing that good people, possibly family, are going to suffer for eternity? I don’t think Christians take much pleasure in this life, worried as they are about sinning and displeasing the Lord, I actually believe as an atheist I get alot more out of life. I can enjoy science without doing mental gymnastics to make it fit into my beliefs, I can enjoy the company of others without worrying about trying to convert them, and I get to sleep in on Sundays:)

    Sorry about the long post, but this is what I hear from Christians the most…wow, you’re life must be hopeless, how depressing, blah blah. Anyway, love your blog:)

  7. I also agree with Austin Cline from about.com who said that Marx called religion an “opium,” arguing that religion served to make people feel better despite the horrible social conditions they had to endure. Others call religion a drug in the sense that it is addictive despite being harmful – this is the “drug” meaning which has become common today, even though it does not match what Marx meant.

    Religion – Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc, etc -is by definition irrational and, more than that, it is an irrationality that lays claim to the complete truth. How dangerous is that?

    Click or visit the link below to watch Julia Sweeney performing excerpts from her show “Letting Go of God”

    http://www.criticalcritique.com

    Thanks,
    Nick
    Critical Critique

  8. tjstoner said: Well, let me pose this question. What if there is a heaven and there is a hell and we must choose now where our eternity will be spent. After considering that consider this… what if I’m right and your wrong? What If there really was a God to serve? We were both happy but the results of our destiny are much, much different!

    SI and his regular readers are all familiar with Pascal’s wager.

    Back at you:

    What if you’ve chosen the wrong god? What if Allah or Krishna or Thor or any other of the thousands of gods from which to select is the right one? Then you’re as doomed as the rest of us.

    If your answer is that your Bible is the right one and all the others are wrong, then which of the current 20,000-30,000 Christian sects has interpreted the Bible correctly? What if one of the early Christian sects that lost the political battles of the first few centuries ACE was right and was wrongfully defeated? How do you know your group’s interpretation is the right one? Again, if you’re in the wrong sect, you’re as doomed as the rest of us?

    You’re free to believe what you want, but I have no reason to believe that your heavenly eternity is any more certain than the one that I will spend in the dust.

  9. We are only now finding the true meaning of the scriptures…

    To put it bluntly, horseshit. It’s a collection of various books, mostly of unknown authorship. Any “truth” gleamed from the text is pure fairy tales and interpretations of those fairy tales is purely subjective. There’s no puzzle there worth fighting with another to correctly unravel. You want to talk “truth”, at least start by proving who the authors are.

    Faith is, by definition, belief in something completely separate from the human sphere of perception

    This time, bullshit. The faith you speak of is blind faith, and you have no more reason to believe there’s a god hanging out “separate from the human sphere of perception” than you do to believe in a space “separate from the human sphere of perception”. You can say you just have faith such and such exists and I don’t care. Say or even imply that any of what you have faith in has some credible basis, and I’ll call you on it.

    Like the wind, you can feel it but not see it however, it is there.

    Wind is the movement of air molecules. The phenomenon known as “wind” can be observed and measured by all, and those measurements are consistent between all who experience it. In contrast, a suitable definition for “god” can barely be agreed upon by two people of the same faith, it can’t be observed and measured by all and those who claim to have observed it do not give fully consistent reports.

    Now as for SI’s posting, I fully agree and have for a long time considered religion as being comparable to drug or alcohol use. It’s yet another form of escapism, a practice that man has engaged in probably since long before we were walking upright. Now just like with drugs and alcohol, I don’t have a serious problem with people indulging in it. I think they’re hurting themselves but hey, it’s their lives and who am I to impose my will on them? I do, however, have two points where I will object:
    1. When they try to push it on others, especially children
    2. When they cause ill while under its influence.
    For religion though, I add a third that doesn’t apply to drugs and alcohol:
    3. When they assert or even imply any of it is “true”

    So while under the influence, if they’re happy, so be it. If it doesn’t hurt anyone else but themselves, so be it.

  10. Philly:
    I fully agree and have for a long time considered religion as being comparable to drug or alcohol use.

    Wouldn’t it be fantastic if cops pulled people over for “driving under the influence — of god“? And asked them to step out of their cars and think a straight line?

  11. sabrina:

    You’ve just completely misrepresented half of the Christian community. Let’s go through this, shall we?

    1) If Christians are so deliriously happy, how come they are so interested in other people lives?

    I don’t claim to be ‘deliriously happy’, or in any way happier than other people. The only people I know of who would claim that are the Mormons, and they aren’t really Christians anyway. I’m not all that interested in other people’s lives, either

    2) Why waste your energy demonizing homosexuals, trying to control women, and trying to make the United States a Christian nation?

    Again, this is not applicable to all Christians, by any means. I have several friends who are or were homosexuals, and I don’t demonize them. I certainly don’t ‘control women’, and I don’t know what kind of Christian would. As for making the US a ‘Christian nation’, I do know the kind of people who think like this, and I object to it wholeheartedly.

    3) “Plus, if you believe in Heaven, how can you be happy here on earth, a mere pit stop to a much better existence? And, if Christianity leads to a happy and moral life, how can you continue to be happy knowing that good people, possibly family, are going to suffer for eternity?”

    As I’ve said, Christians aren’t supposed to be any more happy on earth than anyone else. We see the world as a miserable place. As for ‘good people’ suffering for eternity, that isn’t going to happen. Everybody, no matter how much they’ve sinned, will get a chance to accept Christ, but some people will refuse Him, and will thus separate themselves from God. The only people who will ‘suffer for eternity’ will be those who have chosen to do so, and would not even want to accept God after seeing what it’s like without Him.

    4) “I actually believe as an atheist I get alot more out of life. I can enjoy science without doing mental gymnastics to make it fit into my beliefs, I can enjoy the company of others without worrying about trying to convert them, and I get to sleep in on Sundays

    As a lifelong evolutionist, I also am free from doing ‘mental gymnastics’. I have never tried to convert someone and would never think of doing so unless they asked me to tell them about God. I can also sleep in on Sundays, since I haven’t been to church for years.

  12. Philly –

    You’re giving entirely too much credit in your comments. Bullshit and horseshit are useful and productive. More appropriate might be the terms ‘mouseshit’ and ‘hamstershit’, which substances are pretty useless.

    Pteer –

    You claim to be agnostic, but you spew out the usual religious nonsense about sin and accepting Christ and the miserable earth yada yada yada. And that you claim you personally don’t engage in some of the foul practices of the churches doesn’t in any way invalidate the criticisms of religion(s). You do sound rather confused. I don’t really care if you are or not, but it’s annoying when people pretend to be all rational about their beliefs and their words and tone say otherwise. In fact I’m so annoyed at that that I’m annoyed that I bothered to comment on your nonsense at all. Now I’m gonna have to go stick pins in a bleeding Christy crucifix for an hour.

  13. Pteer

    I imagine the not being Christian will come as a surprise to the Mormons. I’ll let them know that they’re wrong and you’re right.

    The post is addressing the issue of theists being happier than atheists. I guess you agree with me that atheists are happier since you state that “we see the world as a miserable place”. If you admit that, great. I was addressing the hundreds of responses I get about atheism, which usually include, “depressing”, “hopeless”, etc.

    I like your cognitive dissonance from hell. Well, everyone gets a chance, I mean you can lead a horse to water, right? That means that every person in a different religion, no matter how wonderful, kind, charitable, etc, is going to hell. That means every atheist, perhaps members of your own family, are going to hell. You can’t rationalize that.

    And, I am glad you accept evolution. My comment was geared to those Christians who are still trying to get creationism taught in schools, and who refuse to believe evolution, even with all the evidence. I also appreciate that you don’t try to convert people.

    I appreciate Christians who have faith such as yours, but most of my comments were geared to those fun fundie types:)

  14. Ric:

    It is possible to be an agnostic without being an atheist, for your information. By the way, you ought to see a psychiatrist about those rage issues.

  15. sabrina:

    Thanks for your fair outlook. However, I do find this paragraph confusing:

    “I like your cognitive dissonance from hell. Well, everyone gets a chance, I mean you can lead a horse to water, right? That means that every person in a different religion, no matter how wonderful, kind, charitable, etc, is going to hell. That means every atheist, perhaps members of your own family, are going to hell. You can’t rationalize that.”

    I have explained that everyone will have an equal chance to be saved. That includes people from any religion, as well as those who have none. It doesn’t matter if the person disbelieves God at first; their chance may come at any time in their lives, but it does come eventually. As I said, they are ‘damning’ themselves, not being damned, despite being duly warned of the consequences. It is their own decision, not a punishment forced on them.

  16. I have several friends who are or were homosexuals

    “Were”? As in aren’t anymore?

    As I said, they are ‘damning’ themselves, not being damned, despite being duly warned of the consequences.

    By who, the Abrahamic god? Mithra? Osiris? Odin? Wakantanka? Whose warning should we heed? How do you know?

    It is possible to be an agnostic without being an atheist, for your information.

    No one here said otherwise, did they? What Ric objects to is someone claiming agnosticism when in fact is spouting nothing but theist beliefs from their cyber pulpit. For YOUR information, if you believe “everyone will have an equal chance to be saved”, that’s not agnosticism, that’s clear faith in a god.

  17. ‘“Were”? As in aren’t anymore?’

    They profess that they aren’t. One of them is married to a woman.

    “No one here said otherwise, did they? What Ric objects to is someone claiming agnosticism when in fact is spouting nothing but theist beliefs from their cyber pulpit. For YOUR information, if you believe “everyone will have an equal chance to be saved”, that’s not agnosticism, that’s clear faith in a god.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist

  18. To the Pulpiteer

    You write: “I’ve always wondered what Atheists mean when they mention ‘evidence’ that disproves God. So far as I’ve seen, there aren’t any scientifically valid contradictions to the Bible. Could you explain this, please?”

    There’s plenty out there; you just block it out.

  19. “There’s plenty out there; you just block it out.”

    Again, please – show me this groundbreaking evidence that my religious delusions have ‘blocked out’, something that disproves the existence of God in a manner that is scientifically acceptable. I can’t take the suspense.

  20. Who said Christians must be happy because they believe in a savior and a God? A Christian life is a collection of trials and temptations,for Christians must show that they are of the light. Most people in the Bible went through torment why must we be any different? Everyone suffers and can live happy regardless of your religion. I don’t find this particular blog valid or even worthy for debate.

  21. Pteer

    Everyone will have a chance to be “saved” if they believe in YOUR mythology. That means people, whose faith is just as deep as yours (ie Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc) are going to hell. Now, if Jesus himself came to every disbeliever, and proved that Christianity was not just another myth-based religion, then you could say everyone has a “chance”. I think Bertrand Russell said it best, “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence”. A book that has been disproven by archeology, biology, geology, history, and common sense is not evidence. If there really was a God, wouldn’t he provide clear-cut evidence? But, if there wasn’t a god, wouldn’t it make sense that his only existence could be proven by myths written by a primitive people, in a book full of miraculous events? Events that are recorded nowhere else in history. We know everything about Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Octavian, Cleopatra, all people who lived before Christ. Why do we know nothing of Jesus’ childhood? Why is Jesus’ life so paralled in other god-savior myths, that were around before he was reported to be?
    This is way off the post, so I apologize to SI. The purpose of the post was just to highlight that atheists can lead just as happy of lives as theists. From you earlier arguments, I surmise that you agree with me on that statement. I think we should agree on that, and stop disagreeing on faith. I have no wish to take away your faith which brings you comfort and fulfillment, I just wish to have the same respect given to non-theists. I’m sure you can agree that it would be tiresome to always be asked “how can you be moral without God?”, “how can you be happy?”, “atheism would be so depressing”, etc. That was the gist of the post, that a disbelief in god doesn’t necessarily lead to nihilism and depression.

  22. sabrina:

    I agree that our discussion is over, and the thread has gone way off topic. Just for the record, though, this sentence is ridiculous: “A book that has been disproven by archeology, biology, geology, history, and common sense is not evidence.”

    Firstly, I am fully aware that the Bible isn’t ‘evidence’. I never said it was. Secondly, your laundry list of scientific fields that have allegedly disproved it makes no sense. There are certainly some Biblical interpretations that ignore the truths we have learned from the study of these subjects, as well as common sense (the Young Earthers’ doctrines, for instance), but these are incorrect interpretations, and it is unreasonable to use them to paint the Bible as unscientific or irrational. Unless the kind of ‘evidence’ that thewordofme mentioned does exist, there’s no use claiming that the Bible has been disproved when it clearly hasn’t.

    This is hopefully my last post, since I see that I’m not doing much good in continuing this train wreck of a comments thread.

  23. How can one comment itelligently when you have conflated mundane happiness and “the peace that passeth understanding”, and equated church-shopping with a crisis of faith itself? As theologian, you get an “F”. As sociologist of religion, likewise.

  24. Pteer,

    If you’d like evidence of where the Bible and Christianity have been disproven, pick up any book by Bart Ehrman or Hector Avalos. Archeology has proven that the exodus, or even the slavery of the Hebrews, never happened. Biology has ripped Genesis to shreds, geology has proven the earth is way older than the bible allows, and I believe I have already proven the history part of my sentence. The information is out there, those authors are a good place to start. Other sites to visit would be http://www.daylightatheism.org, or http://www.bandoli.no. Hope this helps you see where we’re coming from on this site.

  25. I didn’t expect such a nice bit of discussion on this post. Thanks all.

    For the record, the viewpoint of this blog is atheistic, so any discussion that sticks to the atheism/theism dichotomy is “on topic”. As long as you’re not trying to sell me something, don’t fret the possibility of derailing the thread.

    Pulpi

    Thanks for your comments. Seriously. You come to an atheist blog, you’re welcome to say what you think is true. Don’t have a thin skin about refutation, however, because it’s bound to happen.

    I’ve always wondered what Atheists mean when they mention ‘evidence’ that disproves God. So far as I’ve seen, there aren’t any scientifically valid contradictions to the Bible. Could you explain this, please?

    Now, as I see it, your first comment made the usual theist error of conflating evidence with proof. I never said there was proof of god’s nonexistence. I simply said that Christians ignored the evidence for it. There are tons of evidence that one could use to come to the conclusion that the existence of god is highly improbable, and in various religion’s incarnations, impossible. And to say that there are no scientifically valid contradictions to the bible is just mind numbingly dense. Sabrina has already put the lie to that, and you have admitted that Young Earth Creationism is a crock. And you call yourself an agnostic?

    BTW, I looked at that Wikipedia site on Agnostic Theism, and to me, it seems that anyone who calls himself that has issues with schizophrenia. For instance:

    By this definition, it is reasonable to assert that one may hold a belief, and that belief may be true, without asserting that one knows it.

    tjstoner

    I’m very happy that you’re happy with the bible. As I said in the post, more power to you. We only have a short time here, and if we’re happy for the bulk of it, then we succeeded in being a self-fulfilled human. I couldn’t care less how you achieve happiness. As Sabrina said, just respect that others don’t find happiness the same way, and specifically that we don’t need the words of a book written 3000 years ago by relatively ignorant goat herders in a backwater province in an isolated corner of the world to find that happiness. All the knowledge we’ve gleaned from existence since then, by civilizations and minds from all over the world, trump the mythology of ancient Palestine as far as I’m concerned.

    CC

    Julia Sweeney rocks!

    ukrule

    I don’t find this particular blog valid or even worthy for debate.

    Well thanks for stopping by anyway.

    hughvic

    As theologian, you get an “F”. As sociologist of religion, likewise.

    An F in theology is a badge of honor here, since in my opinion theology is just philosophy with an agenda – the rationalization of the belief in gods. I think I’ll frame it. Thanks.

  26. OK, you’d flunk out of my Religious Philosophy courses as well. The problem is that you flourish a “private language”—in Linguistics, as well as in Anthropology, an oxymoron. Your thinking runs mainly to categorical error.

  27. Notice the clever slight of hand:
    • First we have “So far as I’ve seen, there aren’t any scientifically valid contradictions to the Bible.”
    • In response, thewordofme said, “There’s plenty out there; you just block it out.”
    • Then from the Pulpiteer we get, “show me this groundbreaking evidence that my religious delusions have ‘blocked out’, something that disproves the existence of God”

    Did you catch that? First we have an assertion about the bible, and then when that’s challenged we get the bible swapped with god. Why? Well it’s obvious. We can spend all day pointing out the bible contradictions, the many inaccuracies from the lack of knowledge of the geography of the region to pi being 3, to the questions of authorship. What we can’t prove absolutely is the existence or non-existence of any god. So of course he does a slight of hand here, which is as shady as his so called agnosticism which isn’t REALLY agnosticism but rather fideism. So you have an ounce more intellectual honesty than the theist who claims he “knows” there’s a god. Well bravo. To me, that’s actually more distressing because you’re clearly more clever than the standard believer because you know that position is flawed, yet instead you choose to still accept this bunk and squander your intellect on clever debate slight of hand like I pointed out above. Being a fool is one thing, choosing to be one is another, and misusing your intellect to defend your foolishness? Well that’s yet another, and in my opinion the worst.

  28. hughvic

    OK, you’d flunk out of my Religious Philosophy courses as well. The problem is that you flourish a “private language”—in Linguistics, as well as in Anthropology, an oxymoron. Your thinking runs mainly to categorical error.

    Explain. For we nonacademic types.

  29. Well, then consider me unenlightened and uninformed. Lets start with your 8:35 AM communication.

    How can one comment itelligently when you have conflated mundane happiness and “the peace that passeth understanding”, and equated church-shopping with a crisis of faith itself? As theologian, you get an “F”. As sociologist of religion, likewise.

    Please explain how I ( I assume your are referring to me) conflated “mundane happiness” and “the peace that passeth understanding”?

    I wasn’t referring to mundane happiness, whatever that was. If you re-read the post, I was referring to the comparative happiness that Christians claim they have and that experienced by all non-Christians. The ““peace that passeth understanding”, I assume is that which we don’t know anything about and can’t until we die and go to heaven, or wherever you believe we go upon death. So you desire to make an intelligent comment, but before you can, you beg another question.

    Prove to me that there is in fact an afterlife and a Christian like heaven, and we can then discuss exactly how I conflated my sense of happiness with it. Because if you can’t, you’re asking me to compare apples and Rfsoyredk. The only happiness I can intelligently discuss is that which exists, not what you fantasize exists.

    Fair?

  30. I haven’t the slightest interest in trying to prove anything, much less in trying to prove something to you. Nor am I interested in being seen saying something intelligent. I’m merely pointing out that you already are comparing apples, which you know, and oranges, of which you know nothing. A principal aim of the scientific study of religions—that study which undergirds courses in Comparative Religion—is to permit one to understand a given religious tradition in terms of what it means to adherents of the tradition. It’s not only good scholarship to do so, it’s good manners.

    One doubts that you would write of, say, Buddhism or Hinduism the way you write about Christianity. Were you to do so, your monologue on Buddhism might read like this:

    “So several of my co-workers are from Japan, and they say they’re Buddhists. They’re always having pot-lucks at ‘the Temple”. Every Monday morning, it’s like ‘The Temple this’ and ‘The Temple that’. So what’s the big deal with Buddhism, anyway? The karma thing? What’s with that? I mean, this one supposedly Buddhist guy at work, he’s the biggest liar there. He steals everybody else’s work. He even stole my promotion. Where’s the goes-around-comes-around in that? This guy never seems to get a karma-check! And why are they here anyway? If Buddhism’s so hot, then why didn’t they stay in a Buddhist country?”

    In your writing on Christianity you show that you haven’t taken the trouble to understand it—evidently because of your materialistic contempt for its supernatural aspects—as any non-Buddhist might take the trouble to understand the rudiments of what Buddhism means to a Buddhist, before ridiculing that great tradition. Instead, you presume.

    And you presume far too much.

  31. And you condescend far to much. You certainly got a lot more out of my post than I put in it.

    I get a better understanding of how people derive so much meaning out of their interpretation of the bible than what actually appears in the writing itself, when I read comments such as yours.

  32. I assure you that it’s you who condescends. That’s the whole point, isn’t it?

    How would one read earnestly any sacred text—or for that matter any good novel (the title of which I daresay you’d capitalize)—without deriving meaning beyond “what actually appears in the writing itself”? And how is it that you have mastered “what actually appears in…writing” in the Christian Bible, and yet display here a marked ignorance of the Bible’s contents?

    Moreover, why do you presume that I have an idiosyncratic “interpretation” of the Bible? In fact, I do not have. I’m quite unimaginative that way.

  33. How can one comment itelligently when you have conflated mundane happiness and “the peace that passeth understanding”, and equated church-shopping with a crisis of faith itself? As theologian, you get an “F”. As sociologist of religion, likewise.

    I thought I’d requote you hughvic since this is what’s the meat of the matter and after so many comments it’s hard to know what’s meant when someone refers to “8:35”.

    Alright then, I’m at a loss why you’re upset. First, you’ve offered nothing to support your first claim that there was a conflation. What on Earth is “the peace that passeth understanding”? Explain why this thing is far superior to an atheist’s happiness or at least explain how, in comparison, an atheist’s happiness is “mundane”. Second, although the results of the Pew report can be interpreted many ways, the fact is a sizable group of the population has changed faiths. I find it valid to conclude that what prompted those transitions could be crises of faith. True, most care nothing about their religion and will change it to suit their new spouse or just to be trendy, but I’d guess most transition because they were unhappy with the one they had and thought to give another a try. That could be a crisis of faith, no? Maybe not in whether there’s a god but certainly in many details surrounding it.

    I haven’t the slightest interest in trying to prove anything, much less in trying to prove something to you.

    Now this I don’t get at all, especially when that lack of interest is followed by several paragraphs and another comment an hour later. I shudder to think what verbosity we’d be blanketed with should you ever get interested. LOL

    I am puzzled why, as an educator, you’d flippantly dismiss someone’s positions then refuse any requests to clarify your objections. I would think, rather, you’d welcome a chance to educate another, especially when that other is, by your claims, so vastly ignorant of the subject he’s writing on and asking you for clarity.

  34. According to Samuel Clemmons, a Kanaka chieftan explained, upon Clemmons’ first visit to the Sandwich Islands: “We understand Christianity. We have eaten the missionaries.”

    Now either I clarified at length, as you say, or else I refused to clarify, as you also say. Whether anyone regards my remarks as intelligent is of no consequence to me, and nor am I in the habit of providing free tuition—though I’m glad that you enjoyed the show of leg so much as to LOLlygag about it.

    I believe you’re missing the point that the Inquisitor pissed in his own World Wide well with his late-night talk-show snidery, which only a fool would follow as though this downstream Maher were in earnest about comparing cosmologies.

    Anyway, that’s my point. If you don’t like it, then kindly scroll down.

  35. Now either I clarified at length, as you say, or else I refused to clarify, as you also say.

    No, I said one of those, the latter, but not the former. I was amused by how one with no interest could continue to write and revisit this blog, but I in no way claimed that in any of that you provided any clarity.

    Whether anyone regards my remarks as intelligent is of no consequence to me, and nor am I in the habit of providing free tuition

    Well that’s great since they’re not. They are nonsensical because they contain assertions which stand on unfounded premises, and since you view substantiating those premises equivalent to providing an education and you also don’t give away free education, then you’ve painted your commenting hear into a corner of nonsense.

    So since all you’re able to post is nonsense, you make no points, therefore I am incapable of liking or not liking these so called points since they don’t exist. I do, however, enjoy your ramblings. In short, you amuse me, like a clown, but less disturbingly, so I certainly won’t scroll past your uninterested comments.

  36. Okay, for the most part I refrain from making any statements whatsoever on these kinds of notions; simply because where is the worth? Where is the value, or want, or need utility? As for me, absolutely no where; yet, that’s quite alright it’s your rant and your blog.

    The only reason I decided to have a read was inasmuch as your ability to construct grammar. Consequently, what I am left with is far more author-generated confusion predicated upon the idiosyncrasies of contradiction. I’ve read this rant now around 25-times and barring the threat in the closing, I find there to be more waxing and waning than anything else.

  37. The only reason I decided to have a read was inasmuch as your ability to construct grammar.

    Does that mean you liked it? I’m confused.

    I’ve read this rant now around 25-times and barring the threat in the closing, I find there to be more waxing and waning than anything else.

    Finally. Someone who gets it!

  38. It’s a code, you see. Christians are covert that way. Goes back to the days of the martyrs and even to the first three centuries, when Christians were as hunted animals. The Ichthys mocked by materialists brandishing Darwinian bumper-stickers—that symbol was itself a life-saving criptogram in the first three centuries of what your kind prefers to call The Common Era. Even the word “conspiracy” is derived from a profoundly Christian word describing the crucial (as it were) element of a kind of secret handshake used by early Christians to identify one another, upon first meeting, as co-conspirators.

    My first post was a disguised admonition to Christian bloggers not to “throw pearls before swine”. That was its connotative meaning. It’s denotation I’d hoped would be of some use to you, but that was at best a secondary consideration.

    There was a time when the Internet was a playground for—strictly speaking, an ideology of—preening Scientism, especially on the part of the sophomore class of atheists. You folks evidently are among the last to get the news: gone are the days of Can’t-Make-a-Rock-So-Big games of gotcha against grandma’s superstitious religion. The Web’s grown beyond any interest in hanging out at the Seventh Grade science lab, demanding that the faithful submit their supernatural claims to you Fun with Science Kit.

    Today, people of faith work to ensure greater latitude in the United States for the expression of atheistic views. Ecumenism begat interfaith understanding which, in secularized form, begat common cause between theists and atheists. But the whole enterprise is dependent upon mutual respect, not classroom spitballing.

  39. “your kind”? “You folks”?

    Please, spare us.

    Today, people of faith work to ensure greater latitude in the United States for the expression of atheistic views.

    News to me. Thanks for the enlightenment.

  40. Oh joy of joys, hughvic has graced us with more amusing nonsense. How on Earth could my happiness now be considered “mundane”? Anyway, come on kids and let’s take a romp through his comment. Oh, you can leave the science kits at home. Save them for the intelligent exercises.

    I’m guessing hughvic has seen the Davinci Code too many times, or reads too many Bond novels or is into Clancy what with his secret codes and conspiracy theories. A great surprise maybe to him is that secrecy, codes and conspiracies were not all invented by christians. Neither was using a fish for a symbol. Much like all the other things christianity has pissed on and claimed as theirs, these have been usurped and are synonymous with them now.

    Now I’m pretty sure the point of not throwing pearls before swine was not to instead pelt them with either stones or condescending insults. Granted I’m no biblical scholar, but when reading Matthew 7:6 I certainly don’t see a 7:6b stating:
    “Nea, rather pelteth them with stones or lest ye be empty of hand or they be out of thy range, cast at them dispersions seasoned with heavy condescension for ye shall knoweth satisfaction and feel superiority in this way.”
    But you know, they change bibles so often perhaps my version no longer contains such a passage. In any event, going strictly by Matthew 7:6 I see nothing implied that warrants hughvic’s repeated comments of condescension.

    Now it also seems hughvic can remember the “beforetime”, that fabled age when the internet was in its infancy and atheists frolicked to and fro singing nursery rhymes about god creating rocks too heavy for him to lift and such. It sounds like a very nice time, allegedly also full of “scientism”, whatever the fuck that is, but it sounds nice. I’ll guess that was when people didn’t ever justify any time, place or situation where one should abandon how he knows and interacts successfully with the world, that being relying on empirical evidence, experience and reason, and instead accept shit on blind faith.

    Now the last part makes me want to know what kind of decent drugs he has access to. Clearly he gets the good shit, high end pharmaceuticals, because he’s higher than a kite if he thinks the religious are the ones safeguarding our civil rights and preserving the separation of church and state in America. HA! That was so funny to read I nearly pissed myself laughing. You know what else was delightfully funny in that last part? This, coming from a condescending, nonsensical clown:

    But the whole enterprise is dependent upon mutual respect, not classroom spitballing.

    Priceless! Oh my comical friend, my faithful fool, you do delight me so. Please kiddies, be kind to this clown, and maybe he’ll tie you a nice balloon animal.

  41. Precisely what I meant by “your kind”. What in hell does a scientific obsession with priority have to do with the Christian meaning of the graphic depiction of a fish?

    You should look up “scientism”, then. Also the meaning of “mundane” in a religious context; I chose it over the proper bit of nomenclature, as you would take it as rude, rather than precise, to distinguish “profane” happiness from religious happiness. Both simply mean “of this world”, as distinguished from other-worldly. I was exercising my artistic license to save a syllable.

    Of course Christians, inventing the word conspiracy, did not invent conspiracy. On the contrary, the Soviets were quite good at it, and they were proud “Scientific Materialists”.

    I do remember the early days of the Internet, as I and my colleagues in our unit of the University of California helped to develop it. WordPress itself abounds in civil discussion, and even libertarian common cause, between atheists, Christians and Jews. No name-calling. No infantile beard-pulling. Just, What can we do to ensure that everyone’s voice is heard?

    On the Internet, Christians no longer are, in the main, the target. In the physical world, atheists still very much are targeted. That’s not good for anyone.

    Especially not for…you people.

    Lighten up, please. There’s more to humor than sarcasm and cheap irony.

  42. WordPress itself abounds in civil discussion, and even libertarian common cause, between atheists, Christians and Jews. No name-calling. No infantile beard-pulling. Just, What can we do to ensure that everyone’s voice is heard?

    Oh, I definitely agree with this. And don’t limit yourself to WordPress. There are other wonderful places to have civil discussions between people of opposite ilk. I’d like to think this blog is one of them. I remember no real flame wars here – yet – even though many comments are hotly debated. Frankly, debates are worthless, to me, unless they heat up. I’ve had lots of Christians here (no Muslims or Hindus, that I remember – in the English speaking world, it’s usually Christians that bear the brunt of atheists, and vice versa).

    I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but your posts have been taken with a certain amount of humor. Philly’s last comment is a point in case. If you found no humor in it, perhaps it’s because it was directed at you.

    I laughed.

    But, honestly, hughvic, your posts drip with personal condescension. I have no problem condescending to theism in general, and you rightly pointed that out. But theism is simply an idea. It’s hard to have ideas get all hurt and weepy due to name calling. But “your kind” and “you folks” does not indicate criticism of what we say or think, but who we are.

    So I will continue to take your posts lightly, and call you on your condescension when I see it. And when you actually post something of substance, I’m sure you’ll get a substantial reply.

    Happy?

  43. Wait a minute, is hughvic going to violate his rule of not giving free tuition AND the biblical rule of cast not pearls before swine and grace us with some explanations for his past nonsensical comments? Fabulous! First though, he asks a question and I, being not so stingy with my pearls, will answer…

    What in hell does a scientific obsession with priority have to do with the Christian meaning of the graphic depiction of a fish?

    I believe that was actually answered at 11:06am today. 😉
    Oh I can’t mirror your condescending commentary and keep a straight face! Seriously then, you sir admonished us not to scoff at your fish for the sake of what it once was, a secret symbol that “goes back to the days of the martyrs and even to the first three centuries, when Christians were as hunted animals” (which incidentally, you christians have repaid the world in spades for and still aren’t through). I thought one history lesson deserved another, especially in light of the implication that christianity was the originator of it and many other things, which is all the more curious why, if giving priorities, you’d object to my “scientific” priority. Ah, I think I get it now. You object to what you call my “scientific” priority because mine is factual. Well yes, I can see how someone faithful like yourself might have issue with fact based knowledge.

    You should look up “scientism”, then.

    Yes well I always welcome adding to my derogatory vocabulary so yes, I looked it up. Well if back in the early days of the intertubes there was rampant “improper usage of science or scientific claims” by atheists, I’m glad that’s over with. Now it’s just the faithful who do that with their misunderstandings of Evolution and the pseudo science of sites like AIG and Discovery Institute. “Scientism”. Hmmm, I’m not crazy about that word choice though. It doesn’t sound pejorative enough really. Thanks for introducing it to me but I think I’ll pass on using it myself.

    As for your cloak and dagger wink-winks and nudge nudges that require the super secret christian decoder ring to translate like “mundane” and your fairy tales of having “other-worldy” happiness, so be it. Enjoy your little games, but here in the reality based world my challenges to your premises for attacking the author here still stand, especially since you made them here, in reality. You can scroll up and find them if you like should you feel inclined to grace us with any more pearls. Try 2 March 2008 at 5:54 pm. 😉

    Unfortunately that was it. The rest is still comical though, with some obscure reach to the Soviets. I often imagine when christians are floundering in discussions they have an emergency lever they pull and out comes their safety blankets – communism, Stalin, Hitler, Mao or Pol Pot. I picture hughvic like a sniveling child going, “well, well, well, um, what about Soviets then? Yeah!” Pathetic. If the rock too heavy for god gag is sophomoric, then the pointing to totalitarian regimes of the 20th century as an atheist attack is jejune.

    Now kiddies, don’t feel left out for not knowing what’s being passed in code by the christians. Much like the scene in Christmas Story, I’m sure the messages are the religious equivalents to “drink more Ovaltene”. Seriously, which would you rather have, your science kits or a decoder ring? Come on, you’re not little kids anymore playing make believe. The choice should be easy.

  44. Spanish Inquisitor, well all right then. That’s OK by me. I’ll drop by and join the fray sometime. These discussions were not possible when I was young. They just weren’t. Now they can be had with ease, and with easy humor.

    No, no, PhillyChief. No pearls today. But oysters are pretty dear enough of late, are they not?

    On scientism, note that I called it passe. I don’t give a damn about knuckle-dragging Creationists and crypto-creationists, as they too are engaged in scientism. On the other hand you may have noted that several of the high priests of Biology Regnant have seemed to seek the pontificate. The superstars of biologydom can get quite full of themselves, to the point where they’re given to making metaphysical pronunciamenti with great sacerdotal certitude. It’s very funny, don’t you think, when they run right off the scientific reservation and indulge their idiosyncratic cosmologies? Aren’t atheists rather sensitive to such absurdities? (I’ve come to count on their being so.)

    As for double-top-secret games, no. Nothing of the sort. Just that every Christian knows that we are forbidden to explicate the Gospel for the amusement of people who are snide. So I’ve offered nothing but (mostly historical) anthropology. Instead of loaves and fishes (or pearls), ethnology and oysters.

  45. Oh and PhillyChief, I sincerely thought you’d like the handy word “scientism”, since it refers to a particular kind of secularized religious pretense. The reference to the USSR was not a knock, but merely a reference to a state-hatched civil religion, a species of scientism: “Dialectical [also, ‘Scientific’] Materialism”. Thought you might key on that quip because civil religion is everywhere around us, and worldwide, and we could join in calling it out and combatting it.

    Spanish Inquisitor, I see lots of humor here, which is fine, except that it’s limited to snidery (SO ’90s), and to the extent that there’s diatribe—a time-honored literary form—it’s merely sarcastically arch, a poor excuse for wit.

    Just joking! Ha! LOL!!!

  46. The name escapes me, but there’s a place (well there used to be, I haven’t been back since Katrina) in New Orleans across from the Acme Oyster House that had the best raw oysters I’ve ever had. You can walk up to the bar, order a quick 6 or 12, see one shucked and presented before you faster than you can eat the last one. Truly special, and dare I say “other-worldly”.

    Shame for the christians their bibles say shellfish is forbidden but hey, more for me. I guess religion ain’t all bad then. 😉

  47. Well, we’ll leave the prohibition against shellfish to our Orthodox Jewish elders. I sure hope that oyster place is still there. It sounds like Avis; because it’s across from Hertz, it has to try harder.

    Sometimes I get the feeling that New Orleans is being replaced by New Orleansland, a plastic simulacrum in three-quarter scale, a tourist playground the whole (white) family can enjoy—not unlike “the New Las Vegas”. Why see California when you could purchase a ticket and see Disney’s “California Experience”? Why sweat pricey New York City when you could lodge on the cheap in a climate-controlled “New York, New York”? Why go to the real New Orleans when you could wait another couple years and buy a ticket for Six Flags over Big Easy?

  48. I would like to comment on the first few paragraphs, its late, so i’ll read the rest tommorrow or sometime next week.

    When you remarked that Christians are all happy because they found their purose in life through the bible, thats not entirely true. What you hear or see why Christians are so happy is because they found salvation through Jesus Christ. And its not happiness, its joy, there’s a big difference. Joy is eternal, happiness isn’t. Sure they are happy because we also know what to do in our lives, but thats just not the bulk of the reason for all the joy.

    When you began talking about “what if god didn’t exist,” you miss out historical facts that prove the existence of God. The Bible isn’t just a Christian book, its a history book. Other history books from different parts of the world can find exact facts that are also found in the Bible. If you are in need of an example or proof, simply google it.

    Then you begin talking about the need for purpose. It’s a natural part of life, of any human being. Humans need a faith or something they can believe in because we live short, fragile, and seemingly insignificant lives in the scope of the grandiose and complex universe that envelops us. Like a flower; here today and gone tomorrow, represents the shortness of one’s life in a segment of eternity. It is natural to seek purpose in life, not an “artificial creation for a psychological need”. How can something so fragile and short-lived come into existence, only to wither away? There must be a reason. Before you start getting ideas for response, debate, or even expressing your anger, take time to reflect upon your life, and ask yourself why you are here on this earth. Ask yourself why are you born into this world, only to die? Ask yourself why is it you, out of all the creatures and organisms in the universe, are born as the most privliged of all; the human being.

    Hopefully this gives you some insight.

  49. If you want evidence that heaven is real , then relatively , meaning that jesus existed . The evidence to that is the “Shroud of Turin”.

    Check it out , and maybe it will change your opinion about christianity. Real proof , real heaven.

  50. Oh, that is just begging for a smack! What did you do, SI, advertise your site on “www.crapapologetics.com”?

    The Shroud Of Turin. Is. A. Fake. It dates from about 1300CE, the Middle Ages, (that’s a bit after the Crucifixion, BTW…). The radiocarbon dating that proves this has been re-examined numerous times (thanks to creatards like Calvary constantly whinging that it must be real, look it’s got a Jesus face on an everything!), most recently earlier this year. Not one result has even come close to suggesting that it might have come from first century Palestine.

    Even if the Shroud was from the correct time period, so what? It would prove nothing about Jesus divinity, or even existence – it’s just a bit of cloth with a face on.

    Find another miracle, Calvary.

  51. I myself, am all the evidence I need; evidence made so painfully manifest by my incessant and involuntary sinning compounded by my awaking every day fresh with the certainty that I know better and wish to do better. But instead, what? Oh oops, natch.

    If someone else wants evidence, that’s just a Materialist concern I happen not to share. And which Rules of Evidence anyway? The word “proof” belongs to the mathematical and scientific professions, and was cadged by others only about two days ago. Even the present, Positivistic, scientific usage is yet a lexicographic embryo. In old-school academe, the word is not to be employed in the Humanities, nor even in the social “sciences” except on those occasions when one of those guilds manages something approximating actual science; for example, in Philology or Anthropology, by use of Human Genome science. Otherwise one finds oneself trying to “prove” things unprovable. (History, Economics, Political Science all are notorious for this faddish error.)

    I would only note, in closing, that these questions we all are toying with are questions drawn from the bailiwicks of Theology and, especially, Religious Philosophy (a secular form of religious scholarship and, unlike, say, Philosophy of Education, a true and foundational branch of the philosophical profession). Not to put too fine a point on it, then, but really, proof ain’t got nothin’ to do with it.

  52. Yunshui, I don’t completely agree on the cloth deal, weather it’s true or not, the way you said “it’s just a cloth, it doesn’t prove Jesus,” is just like me saying, “its just a fossil, it doesn’t proove evolution.” Oh and radio-carbon dating is unaccurate, and my point is that nothing can be considered fact unless you were actually there. So just predicting the age of a fossil doesn’t constitute it as a fact, just a conjecture, a theory. All I was saying is that the proof that backs up evolution isn’t fact, its just a bunch of theories.

    Hugo, by proof, I say what I mean. And what I mean, in this case, is that whatever backs up the evolution theory can’t be found as a fact. It is currently theory, but scientists and many other people keep pushing it on people that it’s fact, when it clearly isn’t. The only way you can truly determine the fossil age of a fossil is to actually be there when the animal died, otherwise, its just theoretical.

  53. Well, yes, Andre. I do agree. But scientists can move mountains with such guesswork. Truly, move them.

    What so few of them seem capable of doing is to absent themselves from their own framework long enough to see how believers, too, seem ever capable of moving mountains. And of doing more: of moving persons so to move.

    Be it theological speculation or scientific, all in all it is, to me at least, splendid guesswork. And, in both cases, well worth a look. Don’t you think?

  54. Andre:

    So – you were there when the Shroud of Turin was made, right? And when the books of the Bible were being written? I mean, how else would you know they could be trusted, if you weren’t there at the time?

  55. Hugo, yes, I do believe both cases are well worth a look.

    Yunshui, i don’t know about the shroud of turin, i just heard about it yesterday, but about the Bible. People were there at the time, and they recorded and safeguarded it in their archives. The Bible was eventually translated in over 100 languages, and they all send nearly the same message. The Bible is very accurate, nothing has been disproved in it and all the prophecies in it has either been fulfilled or yet to be fulfilled. Most prophecies in it are already fulfilled and there are even prophecies being fulfilled today. This is why I can trust the Bible. Its not only factually correct, but it can relate to any subject, issue, problem, or question any person’s life, anywhere, anytime in the past, present, and future.

    But oh look, no one was there at the time to prove evolution, therefore, its just a theory. Like a said before.

  56. Andre:

    “The Bible is very accurate”

    Really? In spite of, I don’t know, some 700+ inconsistencies and contradictions within its own text?

    “all the prophecies within it has either been fulfilled or yet to be fulfilled [sic]”

    Daylight Atheism has a couple of good examples here and here which demonstrate that the Bible contains a number of prophecies that have demonstrably not been fulfilled. Many other example (the prophecies in Daniel, for example) are known to have been recorder after the events they describe. Others, such as those in Revelation, are so vague as to be meaningless – almost any events can be interpreted as their “fulfillment”.

    “It is not only factually correct”

    Really? It’s rubbish at maths (see 1 Kings 7:23 (repeated in 2 Chronicles 4:2) for the “Biblical” value of pi, for example).

    “It can relate to any subject, issue, problem, or question any person’s life, anywhere, anytime in the past, present, and future [sic].”

    Where then is the Bible’s guidance on space travel, say, or a recipe for lasagne? What does it say about overfishing in the North Atlantic? Any passages that give me advice on how to get the greenfly off my begonias? Anything?

  57. The “rubbish” at maths in 1 King 7:23

    New International Version – “He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it—ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea.”

    ———————————————-

    The Sea of cast metal is some display in Salomon’s Temple. The length between the rims of this display is indeed 10 cubits. The display itself was 5 cubits tall, and the display itself was 30 cubits in circumference.

    The rim around the display was 10 cubits in diameter, but the display itself was 30 cubits in circumference. Whats so rubbish about that?

    ———————————————-

    The Bible can RELATE to these things, not tell you about each thing. Obviously it can’t relate to anything personal, like your thoughts or activities specifically. But it covers all topics in life. Everything you NEED to know is there.

    It does say a lot about space, but not space travel, as you can see we havn’t even gotten there. But all the basics of space are covered; like how earth revolves around the sun, and that earth is round, that the earth hangs in space. And this was written thousands of years before science discovered these things. Check out this website, it shows 101 scientific facts in the Bible: http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html

    How do you explain that? How can the Bible know so much at a time when not much was known at all.

    —————————-

    About that page, I looked at the first link about the failed prophecy of Tyre’s destruction. Actually, the Bible said that Nebuchadnezzar would be vanquished and a conqueror would sweep his nation and castle in Babylon. However it doesn’t mention who it was, turns out history tells us that it was Alexander the Great. The Bible doesn’t mention the times of these two events, but it does confirm it’s happening.

    Take a look at verse three of Ezekiel 26 Verse 3: “therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you…”

    And so many nations did

    Still think the Bible is inaccurate or false? Think Again.

  58. yunshui you are articulate as hell, though far from eloquent.

    with all that cant about recipes for lasagne and prescriptions for space travel it’s impossible not to form the opinion that you never really, not even once, read the common Gideon Bible in so much as your nearest No-Tell Motel.

Comments are closed.