# God was looking out for some, not others? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 14, 2001, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643 "2001-09-14T17:53:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/161 "2001-09-25T22:15:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jefnixon \* > Better a war over something that is real?? just a thought. Or do we all stick religion tabs on this too. i.e Northern Ireland. If this is a response to my “revolutionary wars” comment–please note that the fascist regime necessary to eliminate all religions except the one “acceptable” as a world religion would inspire revoultions everywhere. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/162 "2001-09-25T22:31:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beeblebrox \* > The passage does state that believers will go to heaven, but it seems to provide a loophole for non-believers to avoid Hell. In my opinion, damnation is probably the vaguest thing in the bible. I suppose that is to be expected from a book that has undergone the amount of translations and rewrites to update the language that the bible has. > \*\* And then. So, the good believer go to heaven and the good non-believer don’t go to hell.That situation will be eternal Either there is no difference between the heaven and the non-hell, and believing is pointless. Either the heaven is better than the non hell and the non-believer will be deprived from something _forever_ and hence punished forever. Except that you’re not roasting, the concept is still the same : eternal punition. So, we’re still left with an all-loving god punishing his creatures forever. And with all the usual issues : infinite punition for a finite fault, material impossibility for some to avoid this eternal punition (never heard of God, feeble-minded, etc…), omniscient god creating being he knows from the start will be punished forever and nevertheless choosing to create them, etc… ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/163 "2001-09-25T22:34:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by emarkp \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by jab1 \* > > But people in Heaven won’t ever rebel against God? Why? Do people lose their free will when they enter the Pearly Gates? Is there no escape from Heaven? > > (Couldn’t let this one go.) The people who go to heaven will have chosen to be with God. That’s, in fact, the whole point–to become people who will willfully choose to be with Him. \*\* And once they get there, they can’t (or is it “won’t”?) change their minds? (I know I said I was leaving this thread, but I felt I ought to respond to a comment on something I said.) ---
**Author:** ![Spite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/76d3ee/32.png) [@Spite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spite)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/164 "2001-09-25T22:55:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by clairobscur \* > I understand christianism. Because I’ve been brought up as a christian. Like most atheists. Extremely few christians have been atheists. None that I know of, actually. So, usually, the less informed about the others are the theists. I’ve read both the bible and the Koran, by the way… > > Again : most atheist made a very informed decision because they were christians, were brought up as christians, were submitted to christian propaganda during their childhood, attended to the church, were surrounded by christians. How many christians have been in a similar situation concerning atheism? None. If someone made an informed decision _despite_ being surrounded by the opposite teaching, it’s certainly the atheist, not the christian. > > …] Me too. I was raised by chirstians. I did not agree with almost any of that lifestyle myself. Until I learned it for myself. Being “raised” a christian does not give you any more legitmacy than others when it comes to knowledg. I am glad you made an informed decission, what I would like to know is where you get your other information about most athiests and few christains. Like you said in another post. That is arguable. Do you have numbers? I tend to dissagree with you on christians not being taught athiesm. Now more so than ever there are less Christain percentage. Do you think everyone just wised up? No because now it is the pC thing to do to teach athiesm. > [@](#): > > [ > > Apparently, despite supposedly reading a lot of atheist posts, you still didn’t get it. The one who make the claim must prove it. You say there’s a god? Proves it. I don’t make such claim.I’ve nothing to prove or disprove If you’re only reason to believe is that god can’t be disproven, then it’s the same with Zeus, with the Jupiterian, and with the Pink Unicorn. You can’t disprove them. So worship Zeus, the Jupiterians and the Pink unicorn. > > And nor life nor love is a proof of god’s existence. humans have a brain. So, they feel. The origin of life is unknown, but there are scientific hypothesis about it. No need for a god. And as soon as there is a single cell, there isn’t any need for a god. I won’t go back to the evolution debate. > > …] And I say to you that because there is a single cell there is a God. That is my proof. So I challenge you. If you tell me there is not a God where is your proof? I already stated about faith so I will comment no further on your bait about me worshiping unicorns and such. > [@](#): > > [ > Though, it isn’t a lightning bolt, etc…let’s assume it is so. So there is an extremely thin chance that a lightning bolt create something which could eventually result in life.In the same way there is very few chance to win at the lottery. But if you play, say, 10 billions times, you’re pretty sure to win. There has been billions of lightning bolts striking the ocean each year during billions of year. More or less anything which has a non-zero likehood can happen if you wait long enough. > > And concerning your feeling, you have a brain. Your dog too has a brain. And it can be affraid, for instance. It has feelings. You have a more complicated brain , so you have more complicated feelings > > …] Assume what you wish. There is a _scientific_ theory that life was created from a lighting bolt. And so you are saying that if I play the lottery enough I can create life? You missed my point entirely about the emotions issue. Just because you have life does not mean you have feelings. Sure my brain tells me when to be scared or cry. You could even reasonably say that evelution made my brain issues that scared part. Survival of the fittest right? Why didnt the scintists…err evolution give trees a brain to be scared of the fires? > [@](#): > > This statement proves mainly that you don’t have any insight about atheism, contrarily, once again to the insight most atheists have about religion. I would say that the _theists_ believe in the godliness of man, since they think that god made similar to him, that they have a soul, etc…In other words that they are in some way “special”. Atheists believe that we aren’t special in any way. We have a conscience, and it’s the only thing which differentiates us from the animals. After our death, we rot, like anything else. We don’t have some “special”, “divine” treatment like a paradise or any other similar stuff the theists believe they’re entitled to. > …] How can you say I do not know what it is like to not believe? Wouldnt I have to know what it is like to truely believe? YOu see even being raised by christians did not make me born with faith. I had to develope it. I hope you do not assume that I beleived it just bacuase everyone else around me did. That wouldnt be true faith would it? And there was a time I was an athiest. > [@](#): > > Some atheists believe that man is able to eventually find an answer to/understand anything, some don’t. I don’t. Some theists believe that we can eventually find an answer to everything since god give us the ability to understand the universe, some don’t. It has nothing to do with atheism. > And for the umpteenth time, most atheist like me understood and still understand perfectly the concept of god. And understand also that anyway there’s no need form such a being, no reason to believe in it, and that the christian faith in particular is absurd. If you don’t understand why, read my post about omnicient god + omnipotent god+ hell, for instance. But there are much more absurdities. I am sorry, I do not see what you state you understand? I understand there is a God, based upon my faith. YOu understand that it is absurd based on what? You do not have proof so it must be your faith? > [@](#): > > Yes, I do believe that. And if it walks like a dog, barks like a dog, looks like a dog, you’re free to believe that it’s nevertheless a duck. But you can count on me to point out that actually it’s a german shepherd. > …] And how do you _understand_ it is a german shepherd? WHat if it was a poodle? Or even yet it could be a very large, deformed rat that barked. > [@](#): > > Why should someone gives me the right to know something? Does someone gives you the right to know that the sky is blue? Or can you make this statement without prior authorization?..] Actually I could argue with you that in fct the sky is NOT blue. It is always black as night. But that is another theoretical debate. So what you are saying is you can know you are right without proof? like your german shepherd analogy? That is kind of like the nonsense you accuse thiests of isn’t it? > [@](#): > > I can deny there is a god in the same way I can deny there are fairies. I’ve absolutely no evidence that such a thing as a god exists. I’ve absolutely no evidence that there are intelligent speaking cabbages in your garden . I deny there are intelligent speaking cabbages in your garden and I deny there is a god. Can you deny that Zeus exists? Why don’t you make the proper sacrifices to Him?..] If you told me there were intelligent speaking cabbages in my garden I would ask why you would say such a thing. YOu give me your reason, or proof and then I decide. To not do so would make me as closed minded as religious fundamentalists are accused of being. > [@](#): > > [ > > Yes. You rely on faith, even if it means believing absurd statements, like the fact that a guy who was actually god had to be killed in order for a sin to be cleaned by the same god who anyway had decided that there would be a sin at the first place since he’s omniscient and omnipotent.( By the way, next time he wants to erase some original sin, he should snap his fingers, it’s much easier than being born from a virgin and all this stuff). And who, when he’s no busy asking the Jews to slaughter everybody or being nailed on a piece of wood, torture his creatures with an infinite love. I understand then. If you do not understand what He is doing or why then it is nonsense… To me that is nonsense. DOes that make us even? …] > [@](#): > > And as I said before a dog howls when it’s hurt and is affraid when the cat jumps on it…] Back to my original question, what does the tree do? …] > [@](#): > > I don’t expect any answers from them. I did learn what the faith is. The difference with you is that I learnt also that it was a nonsense. And I will agree not to deny that god exists once you’ll agree not to deny that I have speaking intelligent cabbages in my backyard. Who said I deny it? Again it would be close minded of me just to deny your claim without hearing your argument. **That** would be nonsese. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/165 "2001-09-25T23:03:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Extremely few christians have been atheists. None that I know of, actually. …[snip]…How many christians have been in a similar situation concerning atheism? None. Well, except for my friend’s husband. And his buddy. So it’s definitely a non-zero number. Has anyone read C S Lewis like I told them to? …I thought not. Oh well. Carry on arguing about Christianity without knowledge of Christian thought, then. ---
**Author:** ![mancunian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mancunian/32/12244_2.png) [@mancunian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mancunian)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/166 "2001-09-25T23:12:28Z")
## quote: ## Originally posted by jefnixon Better a war over something that is real?? just a thought. Or do we all stick religion tabs on this too. i.e Northern Ireland. If this is a response to my “revolutionary wars” comment–please note that the fascist regime necessary to eliminate all religions except the one “acceptable” as a world religion would inspire revoultions everywhere. It was a response to the Independence comment. I never said there should be on ereligion, just that if there is it should be the same? to me no religion would be best, yes??? ---
**Author:** ![mancunian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mancunian/32/12244_2.png) [@mancunian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mancunian)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/167 "2001-09-25T23:14:38Z")
ooops, I ballsed that up, my response was to emarkp. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/168 "2001-09-25T23:18:07Z")
**Spite** , lay off the crack, dude. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/169 "2001-09-25T23:26:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dale The Bold \* > \*\*The whole issue comes down to perspective. It is evident that there is no God, which is actually proof that there is. I’d start to think there wasn’t a God if they found Noah’s Ark or some other piece of “evidence” because it would destroy all purpose of faith if God were proven to exist. \*\* OK. So, why do you believe in the god you’re believing in and not in another one about whom there is no evidence, either, which is a proof that She exists. Say, Ameratsu? > [@](#): > > So the _lack_ of evidence proves that there is a God WHEN considered in conjunction with the fact that God answers the universal question “why?” God gives us a purpose and a series of guidelines to live by. \*\* -The _belief_ in god gives you a purpose. -Also, why do you believe a purpose is necessary? I don’t believe there’s a purpose to my life, and nevertheless I live, I’ve hopes, dissapointments, pleasures, griefs, etc… -The fact that you feel more confortable with a purpose doesn’t mean there’s one. Why do you think it helps proving there’s a god? -All the religions gives a purpose. Same with the guidelines.Why do you choose this one? -I can give you a series of guidelines to live by. Will you accept me as a savior? The law gives you a series of guidelines to live by. Do you worship the congress? Your parents gave you a series of guidelines to live by. How many times a day do you pray them? > [@](#): > > [Think about it. If everyone obeyed the commands of the bible, there would be no AIDS, there would be no lying, there would be an abundance of giving and never any taking, etc.\*\* -That’s true for most religions, in some way or another. Why did you choose this one? -What if I don’t agree with your “ideal world”? What if I don’t agree with your opinion about adultery, for instance? -Some people have or had a different interpretation of the scripture. If everybody had lived by them, there would be no AIDS, black men would be slaves, there would be no lying, heretics would be burned, there would be abundance of giving, protestantism would never have appeared, there would never be any taking, the earth would still be flat… > [@](#): > > [It’s true that atheists are relatively ignorant of the beliefs they try to refute. .\*\* As I said a lot of times, more christians are utterly ignorant about atheism than atheists are ignorants about christianism. I’ve been christian. Have you been atheist? > [@](#): > > [Some of the most basic beliefs of Christianity are never even analyzed by the majority of atheists, yet they adamantly argue about it. Take for example the famous question “Can God create a rock that even He can’t lift?” The answer is yes, however, He can lift that unliftable rock.\*\* Who used this argument in this thread, exactly? Why are you answering to an argument nobody made instead of adressing the points actually made? . > [@](#): > > [ Today people _know_ that there is no God. Just as Christians craft their world around their “imaginary God,” you atheists craft your world around an “imaginary absence of a God.” Which is right? No one can prove or disprove either side, so they are equally valid in that light. It pisses me off, however, when either side thumbs their noses by “subtly” implying that their opposition lacks in intellgence…\*\* How many times must it be said? It’s the one who makes the claim who must proves it. I’ve nothing to prove. _You_ are claiming there’s a God. Proves it. “I don’t believe in X” and “I believe in X” aren’t similar statements. Not believing is the basis. If you believe, it’s a choice. You must have a reason to make this choice. And you must have a reason to convince me to believe. If it wasn’t the case, you would believe in everything someone tells you, whatever it could be. Do you believe in fairies? Probably not. Why? Because you have no proof they exist. Same with god. And I don’t think believers lacks intelligence, I think they lack a critical mind. There’s no way they would believe in something else than god if the evidence for it were so unexistent and the evidences against it (like the huge holes in the christian belief) were so overwhelming. If believers believed because they had thought a lot about it, either they would all have the same religion, either they wouldn’t pick so massively the religion of their parents, neighbors, etc…If you actually think you have thought a lot about your religion and came to the conclusion that what your religion says is true, you’re stating that all the other people who have other beliefs lack intelligence. The other option being, of course that you’re wrong. > [@](#): > > [ Therefore, when you ask me to explain why God can allow one person’s life to be filled with agony, tragedy, and death, while another wins the lottery and lives a happy life with all the trimmings and yet He can make a fair judgment, you are forcing me to play God. I cannot tell you the specifics. I can tell you my personal theories, but I cannot play God and tell you why a specific teenaged girl was raped while another robbed a store and got away with it. Justice is supposed to come at judgment day, not in bits at a time and I don’t profess to be a judge…\*\* In other words you have no clue, no explanations about this kind of contradictions, but nevertheless you believe. Have you _seriously_ considered that if there’s no explanations, it’s perhaps not because you can’t understand god’s will, but plainly because there is no god, and hence no explanation is needed? You should. But I meant _seriously_ You’ll see…everything becomes immediatly much simpler and clear. > [@](#): > > [ Also, when any preacher emphasizes the power of God and the wrath of God to make his own point, he is using scripture out of context. Yes, God is powerful and even jealous and that is in the texts, but He is many other things before that. Notice I said “emphasizes.” He should not ignore it either, but there isn’t a point in emphasizing any one thing. I think we all have seen the overemphasis on God’s wrath…\*\* He’s using the scripture out of context? How can you know that for sure? I bet he would say the same thing about you. How can you know that not only there is a god, not only that it’s the christian god, but that _you_ know how to interpret the scripture, and this preacher don’t? Because you have thought a lot about it? Didn’t he do the same? Didn’t billions of people do the same in the past and even now? How can you know the wide majority were wrong, are still wrong, and you’re right. Of course, the fact that the scriptures aren’t clear and often contradictory doesn’t help. Why did god choose such an imperfect book, that so much people misunderstand, to carry his message? Why not a clear book in which his will would be obvious for everybody? Of course, if you consider that actually this book has been written by a bunch of mere humans, without contact with any higher power some thousands of years ago, there isn’t any problem anymore, once again…But the answer “God has inspired a book that nobody can understand properly” apparently seems more logical to you. > [@](#): > > [ When Falwell said “you helped this happen,” he should have said “we,” meaning all of mankind. Our corruption causes corruption. The bonding we see across America today is what was alcking before. I’ll take my share of the blame for that. The problem was that Falwell pointed the finger directly at specific groups and people, saying “you.” That make him the judge and not God. That’s the infuriating part. \*\* I agree with you about everything : corruption cause corruption, we all share the blame for that, etc…Except that there is no god in the picture. We are responsible because of our actions (or lack thereof) and the _real_ consequences of them in the _real_ world. Not because there is an original sin and we angered some supernatural being. (In the good old days, we would have sacrified an ox or something to appease him). ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/170 "2001-09-25T23:35:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jefnixon \* > It was a response to the Independence comment. I never said there should be on ereligion, just that if there is it should be the same? to me no religion would be best, yes??? (Side note: you may want to investigate the “quote” link under each post. It makes quoting much easier.) The only way to “unify” all religions into one would be to enforce uniformity of believe. The only way to do that is with a powerful central authority which snuffs out any appearance of variance from the central dogma. That would require a regime more oppresive than the world has ever seen. Rebellions and wars would undoubtedly ensue. It merely exposes ignorance about religion and human nature to suggest that this is possible. Or, to put it bluntly, it sounds doubleplus ungood. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/171 "2001-09-25T23:41:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by genie \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Extremely few christians have been atheists. None that I know of, actually. …[snip]…How many christians have been in a similar situation concerning atheism? None. > > Well, except for my friend’s husband. And his buddy. So it’s definitely a non-zero number. > \*\* You have made a very convenient “sniping”, don’t you? I wrote : 1)A lot of atheists were christians before 2)Very few christians were atheists before 3)I’ve been brought up as a christian, went to church classes, attended to church, was surrounded by christians 4)How many christian have been a similar situation? By snipping 3) you conveniently changed the meaning of my post. So again : how many christians do you know who have been brought up as atheists, have attended to atheist classes, went to atheist weekly reunions, were surrounded by atheists in a country majoritary atheist do you know? And my answer is still : none. And concerning my ignorance about christianism you pointed (I snipped it too quickly)…Can you tell me what i said exactly which proves I’m ignorant of the christian faith? The “feeling that you’re wrong” doesn’t count… ---
**Author:** ![mancunian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mancunian/32/12244_2.png) [@mancunian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mancunian)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2001, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/172 "2001-09-25T23:44:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by emarkp \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by jefnixon \* > > It was a response to the Independence comment. I never said there should be on ereligion, just that if there is it should be the same? to me no religion would be best, yes??? > > (Side note: you may want to investigate the “quote” link under each post. It makes quoting much easier.) > > The only way to “unify” all religions into one would be to enforce uniformity of believe. The only way to do that is with a powerful central authority which snuffs out any appearance of variance from the central dogma. That would require a regime more oppresive than the world has ever seen. Rebellions and wars would undoubtedly ensue. It merely exposes ignorance about religion and human nature to suggest that this is possible. > > Or, to put it bluntly, it sounds doubleplus ungood. \*\* It wasn’t a real point. Like I said “no religion would be best”. My original quote was an ideological perfection. PS, thanks for the quote advice. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/173 "2001-09-26T00:53:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by clairobscur \* > As I said a lot of times, more christians are utterly ignorant about atheism than atheists are ignorants about christianism. I’ve been christian. Have you been atheist? And as I’ve said a lot of times, we don’t take too kindly to baseless assertions and sweeping generalizations around here. As genie has pointed out, it appears that most of the atheists in this thread (and just about every other on this board when discussion religion) have no intention of understanding Christianity (or other beliefs), and most Christians (or other theists) don’t make much effort to understand the atheists. However, my anecdotal experience is that there seem to be more assaults on religion than on atheism here. A few things that people have gotten wrong about Christians lately are: **Prayer is only a petition, and answers to prayers are the granting of said petitions–if you don’t get what you want, then your prayer wasn’t answered.** Prayer is much more than that. It is communion with God. It is more than simply asking for things. It is the process by which we as mortals change our will to be that of God’s. (More on why that is good and not scary in a moment.) **Faith and blind faith are equivalent–that is, if someone believes in God, Christ, etc. it is only because they decided to believe something they read or heard.** In reality, those of us who seek God in prayer receive confirmation of His reality. That communion provides that confirmation. Preaching the Gospel to someone involves giving someone the information, and then explaining that they must seek that personal confirmation. Someone who accepts what is heard or read without receiving confirmation by the Holy Spirit has blind faith, or is relying on someone else instead of finding out for himself. The point of pursuing God’s will is not that it’s a crutch, and not that it’s convenient (often it’s very inconvenient!), nor is it an attempt to suvert our own personalities into One Greater[sup]tm[/sup]. We (that is, we Christians) do it voluntarily, because there is more joy and happiness when we do then when we don’t. Jesus Himself explained that, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” [(John 7:17)](http://scriptures.lds.org/john/7/17#17) Note that Christianity is not claiming to be a scientific thesis (those who have attempted to make it such are mistaken, IMHO), and cannot be tested by objective experiment, because that communion with God can only be confirmed individually–we know of no way to “measure” the Holy Spirit objectively. This doesn’t make it any less real, just not conforming to a reductionist philosphy. An objective experiment can’t test it, but an individual can verify it. Of course, various Christian denominations will quibble with the details of what I’ve written, but I think most would agree on the bulk of it. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/174 "2001-09-26T00:56:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by clairobscur \* > 2)Very few christians were atheists before And the basis for this assertion is? **I** sure have met a lot of people who were atheists before they converted to Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/175 "2001-09-26T01:52:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by genie \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Extremely few christians have been atheists. None that I know of, actually. …[snip]…How many christians have been in a similar situation concerning atheism? None. > > Well, except for my friend’s husband. And his buddy. So it’s definitely a non-zero number.\*\* And Josh McDowell. And C.S. Lewis. And Peter Stoner. And Simon Greenleaf, to name a few. The story of Simon Greenleaf is particularly interesting, as described at: [http://www.foolishfaith.com/book\_chap7.asp](http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap7.asp) [http://www.markers.com/ink/sgtestimony.htm](http://www.markers.com/ink/sgtestimony.htm) ---
**Author:** ![super\_head](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@super\_head](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/super_head)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/176 "2001-09-26T02:23:19Z")
Speaking as a Christian turned atheist… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > The story of Simon Greenleaf is particularly interesting, as described at: I’m not certain what is supposed to be so interesting about Mr. Greenleaf. His summation seems to be “Jesus really rose from the dead because people died for that belief. Oh, yes, I realize other people have died for their beliefs, but this one is different because it started out with people dying for it and why would they do a crazy thing like that and therefore this one is ever so much better.” I’m afraid I find that entirely unconvincing and that his conclusion simply doesn’t follow. Then the site says that it is commonly accepted that the Gospels were written in Jesus’ generation, even though the Catholic Encyclopedia says it is generally held that they do not go back to the first century of Christian era. Who shall we believe? And from there on out it seems to be saying the Bible is true because of what the Bible says… and that incidents in the Bible are historical because they are in the Bible… color me unimpressed. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Holly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/48db29/32.png) [@Holly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Holly)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/177 "2001-09-26T03:35:06Z")
Spite: > [@](#): > > I am waiting on the scientists to tell me why I have feelings. I’m not a scientist, but I understand that emotions are biological phenonomena and they give humans (and many other animals) a survival advantage. > [@](#): > > What is funny is that the so called athiests are just a thiest as anyone. In my opinnion they believe in the divinity or godliness of man. Maybe not overtly now, but man thinks that he/she has the pontential to know all. Your opinion is wrong. As has been pointed out before, atheists (generally- there’s no Atheist Creed) perceive people as just another part of the world, no better nor worse. We do believe that if good is to come about, we have to do it ourselves; we can’t pray and hope god will make it better. Also, when we wish to understand a thing, we either find a way to gain that understanding or we eventually conclude that we cannot due to our limitations, but perhaps people in the future will have the ability to figure it out. We don’t say, “I’ll understand everything someday,” or “maybe no people can understand this, but god does”. > [@](#): > > I do not think that an “accident” could provide emotions or beleiefs. Does the tree cry when it is struck? Does the grass fear when it hears the mower start? Trees and grass don’t have emotions because they are plants. They do not have central nervous systems. > [@](#): > > Why didnt the scintists…err evolution give trees a brain to be scared of the fires? Trees have never evolved to have brains, so they don’t have them. Why didn’t god create humans with titanium vertebrae and more durable intervertebral discs so we’d be less vulnerable to back injuries? > [@](#): > > Now more so than ever there are less Christain percentage. Do you think everyone just wised up? No because now it is the pC thing to do to teach athiesm. Do you have a cite? The statistics I’ve read have pointed to the opposite conclusion. Who is teaching atheism? Or do you mean that education that doesn’t focus on reinforcing Christian beliefs is “atheistic”? > [@](#): > > And I say to you that because there is a single cell there is a God. That is my proof. And I say to you that because my local grocery store sells a generic version of Doritos that is really very tasty, my dog speaks to me in fluent Spanish. That is my proof. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Holly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/48db29/32.png) [@Holly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Holly)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/178 "2001-09-26T10:25:33Z")
Some thoughts on the reason a god would allow suffering and evil in this world. So far, we’ve explored these explanations: 1. Suffering is a necessary test. 2. Suffering is necessary to develop maturity, character. 3. It’s a mystery; we can’t understand it now. 4. Suffering is necessary to ensure free will. 5. Suffering is the result of free will. 6. God uses suffering to create a greater good, eventually. I think there’s an interesting little paradox between 4 and 5. In 4, suffering _results in_ free will. In 5, free will _results in_ suffering. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If Genesis is taken literally, Satan was the author or evil, the first one to sin by disobeying God and tempting Eve. How did Satan have a choice to sin if no evil or suffering had existed up to that point? In his case at least, the existence of suffering/evil _wasn’t necessary_ to ensure his free will, since he chose to disobey anyway. Would Adam and Eve have been tempted to sin if they hadn’t been approached by the serpent? God chose not to warn them about deceit (though he did warn them not to eat the fruit), so they were pretty gulliable. What would have been the result of the test if the serpent had not been allowed to lie to them? Would they have sinned anyway? Could they have? I’d think they _could_ have: Satan had already rebelled so I presume they could have, too. We haven’t really talked about him much in this thread, but according to many Christian sects, Satan is a very real and present danger. He continues to tempt and deceive. Since suffering and evil already exist, isn’t it a bit unfair to let Satan stack the odds against us even more? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/179 "2001-09-26T10:56:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by emarkp \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by clairobscur \* > > As I said a lot of times, more christians are utterly ignorant about atheism than atheists are ignorants about christianism. I’ve been christian. Have you been atheist? > > And as I’ve said a lot of times, we don’t take too kindly to baseless assertions and sweeping generalizations around here.\*\* Ok, so : 1)I admit that I’ve no statistics about christians become atheists and atheists becoming christians. It’s only my personnal experience. Christians who became atheists : the wide majority of atheists I know . Atheists who became christian : 0 2)It still doesn’t change the fact that genie changed the meaning of my post. So, I reiterate : how many christians do you know who have been subjected all their life to an atheist propaganda? 3)Since you quoted that part, and you also point out athiests ignorance : have you any insight about atheism? 4)Now the interesting part. You don’t take too kindly baseless assertions. What are exactly the evidences you and other posters for the existence of the being you’re talking about and who’s called god? 5)For what reason exactly everybody is supposed to back their assertion _except_ those who assert there is a god? What is the “special” ability the “god” belief has which prevent it from being subjected to the same requirment of evidence than other assertions 6)Will you agree to never again refer to your “god” hypothesis, since you have no evidence to support your “baseless assertion”? \*\* > [@](#): > > [As genie has pointed out, it appears that most of the atheists in this thread (and just about every other on this board when discussion religion) have no intention of understanding Christianity (or other beliefs), and most Christians (or other theists) don’t make much effort to understand the atheists. However, my anecdotal experience is that there seem to be more assaults on religion than on atheism here…\*\* 1. I remind you that genie spoke about ignorance about chrisitannity in a response to my post. So, what proves _my_ ignorance? 2)I already know christianity, and indeed I’ve absolutely no intention to revert back to it. I became an atheist because I had good reasons to do so, so why are you expecting that I will defend it in any way? 3)True. It’s an assault against christiannity. It’s a fight against ignorance, in the same way attacking astrology is a fight against ignorance. No other belief than god would still be seriously defended here with such holes and lack of evidences. Why does this belief deserves some sort of special treatment? \*\* > [@](#): > > [A few things that people have gotten wrong about Christians lately are: > > **Prayer is only a petition, and answers to prayers are the granting of said petitions–if you don’t get what you want, then your prayer wasn’t answered.** > Prayer is much more than that. …\*\* 1)Granted. It’s more than that. But personnaly I said nothing about prayer 2)It happens that for some reason _a lot_ of christians pray with the expectation that their hopes will be fulfilled. _A lot_ of christians advise other people to pray god for a healing, for instance. So, it’s perfectly admissible to question christians about this very widespread belief. 1. Do you agree to admit that prayers have no consequences altogether in the material world? Do you agree to tell all other christians that no request made to god in a prayer will be fulfilled? If you don’t agree, all the questions asked about petitions are still valid, and you should defend your position. \*\* > [@](#): > > [It is communion with God. It is more than simply asking for things. It is the process by which we as mortals change our will to be that of God’s. (More on why that is good and not scary in a moment.)…\*\* Such _feeling_ of communion exists in more or less any religious belief. Take the shamans for instance. Why do you think that _your_ feeling of communion is more valid that other’s people feeling of communion? Why did you choose this religion? Actually, similar feeling exists also _outside_ religion. For instance the feeling of communion with a crowd during a music concert. \*\* > [@](#): > > [\*\*Faith and blind faith are equivalent–that is, if someone believes in God, Christ, etc. it is only because they decided to believe something they read or heard.**In reality, those of us who seek God in prayer receive confirmation of His reality. That communion provides that confirmation. Preaching the Gospel to someone involves giving someone the information, and then explaining that they must seek that personal confirmation. Someone who accepts what is heard or read without receiving confirmation by the Holy Spirit has blind faith, or is relying on someone else instead of finding out for himself…)…** So,your belief in god rely on this feeling of communition, of the presence or god, and for this reason isn’t blind faith. 1)Same question as above. This feeling appears in most other religions. Why did you choose this one? 2)Since this belief doesn’t come from what you have heard, what has been told, etc…How do you explain that the wide majority of people keep the religion they have been brought up in? Surely, people with the “wrong” belief don’t feel His presence? So, they should massively convert if presented with the truth? Why don’t they? 3)Since you don’t want to rely on what you have been told, surely you have tried to be very informed about other religions? You wouldn’t take such an important dcision in your life without being sure you’re right? Did you? Surely, you have tried other religions and rites, to make sure that one don’t have the same feelings when praying some idol? Did you? 4)So, you didn’t choose this religion because you were told it was the true religion. Probably you tried to pray once and you immediatly felt His presence. How do you explain then that if I pray, or if, say a boudhist try to pray, we don’t immediatly feel His presence? Would god want to make us err in order to torture us forever? Remember : faith _mustn’t_ be a requirement to feel His presence, according to your own argument : faith comes from the feeling of His presence, not the feeling of His presence from faith. \*\* > [@](#): > > [[The point of pursuing God’s will is not that it’s a crutch, and not that it’s convenient (often it’s very inconvenient!), nor is it an attempt to suvert our own personalities into One Greater[sup]tm[/sup]. We (that is, we Christians) do it voluntarily, because there is more joy and happiness when we do then when we don’t. …)…\*\* 1)I suppose you know that faith is a crutch for quite a few people 2)Atheism also can be inconvenient. You have to face the reality. The reality of your ultimate death, for instance. The reality that you must rely only on your own strength and on the strength of other fellow humans, and that no supernatural invisible being cares for you. The reality that you must make your own choices. The reality that you’re ultimately the only responsible of your choices, moral or others. The reality of evil, that no invisible omnipotent being will ever correct. The reality that _you only_ can try to fight evil. The reality that the bad guys won’t be punished nor the good guys rewarded, if _you_ don’t do anything. And with atheism comes the real feeling of freedom _and_ personal responsability. 3)So you say that religion makes you happy. In what way this shouldn’t be considered as a “crutch”? \*\* > [@](#): > > Note that Christianity is not claiming to be a scientific thesis (those who have attempted to make it such are mistaken, IMHO), and cannot be tested by objective experiment, because that communion with God can only be confirmed individually–we know of no way to “measure” the Holy Spirit objectively. This doesn’t make it any less real, just not conforming to a reductionist philosphy. An objective experiment can’t test it, but an individual can verify it.] The fact that christiannity isn’t a scientific thesis, cannot be tested in any way nor measured (in other word this means that it has _no_ consequences in the real world), isn’t objective is exactly what makes it not real. Something real has real consequences, can be seen or can be measured and _isn’t_ totally subjective. Something without any real consequences is either false or totally irrelevant. As it’s always stated, Invisible Pink Unicorns aren’t a scientific thesis, can’t be tested, can’t be measured, and aren’t objective, and have no consequences in the real world. There’s _no_ difference between an invisible pink unicorn and a god. Except that one can believe in IPUs and another in gods, and a third one in Et abductions \*\* > [@](#): > > Of course, various Christian denominations will quibble with the details of what I’ve written, but I think most would agree on the bulk of it. \*\* And if they use the same arguments, they’ll have to answers to the exact same questions (and i’m sure that another atheist could have noticed some other holes in your arguments). Now, can you explain me why the only thing you manage to pick in all my posts is the fact that I assumed without proof that there are more atheists who were christians than the reverse ? Why didn’t you answer to the questions I asked, instead of nitpicking? What don’t you display the same intellectual integrity you’re requesting from others by giving evidences about this “god” you’re talking about. Reread your post. You’ll notice that basically you said “there’s a god because _I feel_ there’s a god”. To use you own words : “I won’t take too kindly baseless assertions”. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2001, 11:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643/180 "2001-09-26T11:39:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > The story of Simon Greenleaf is particularly interesting, as described at: > > [http://www.foolishfaith.com/book\_chap7.asp](http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap7.asp) > [http://www.markers.com/ink/sgtestimony.htm](http://www.markers.com/ink/sgtestimony.htm) \*\* I stopped reading this site after 4 pages or so. Abscolutely not impressive and full of inconsistencies. See superhead’s post for more. I don’t want to waste my time. I would add two of my owns : a)the assertion that the lack of proofs actually _proves_ that it’s the truth. Yeah…since there is no proof about the UFOs, it proves that they exist since people wouldn’t believe something without proof if it wasn’t for real, would they? b)The contradictors of Christianism didn’t use such or such argument proves that they couldn’t use it, that it was not arguable. One must know that there is _nothing_ left of the arguments and books written by the early contradictors of christianism. For some unknow reason, early christians didn’t feel like keeping these books. The only elements left are those who were _cited_ in some christian books contradicting the contradictors. We are the same situation than someone who in the future would examinate this thread and would only have the cites appearing in _some_ of the posts made by the christians in this thread. For instance, refering to emarkp’s post, the only element of contradiction he would found would be that I said : “more christians are utterly ignorant about atheism than atheists are ignorants about christianism. I’ve been christian. Have you been atheist?”. Obviously, it’s a proof that this is the only argument I used. So it proves that I couldn’t find any valid argument against christianity(If I could, I certainly would have) . So it proves that _I knew for a fact_ that all obvious arguments against christiannity were wrong. Therefore it proves that christianity is for real. It’s exactly the argument used in the cite about the early contradictors of christianism. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-was-looking-out-for-some-not-others/81643.md?page=10)