I have never lived in a world that wasn’t devoutly Christian. From the day of my birth–or more importantly, according to my family, the day of my baptism–I have been brought up in the most Lutheran of households.
I’ve always been told that faith is a virtue, and nonbelief is a great abomination. As a child, I was so used to hearing this that it didn’t even bother me. But also as a child, I was losing my faith.
I never particularly liked church or religious rituals, and I’m too skeptical to accept biblical stories as true “just because they’re in the bible.” My adolescent disbelief then manifested itself as apathy towards religion, and blatant acceptance of the fact that my disbelief in God would live and die with me.
But I would never dream of telling anyone. It wasn’t a big deal; it was just the way it was.
It Is What It Is
My religious apathy wasn’t a big deal to me throughout high school. It didn’t matter that I would never be able to tell anyone. My closest friends didn’t know, my parents didn’t know, my three sisters didn’t even know. I told myself that even when I’m married, it would be too big a secret to share with my husband.
Besides, my family will expect me to baptize my child, and often, if you get your children baptized at a church, the church makes you promise to attend regularly. I was bound to be stuck living as a Christian forever, and I didn’t bother to fight it. It was too hard a fight over so small an issue.
Change of Plans
News flash: never disclosing your true self to your significant other is a lot easier said than done, especially when you’ve never been in a relationship before.
I was still apathetic towards Christianity when I started dating my boyfriend four years ago, in my junior year of high school. But contrary to my previous plan, I didn’t want to keep this secret from him. As it turns out, relationships work best without any secrets, especially huge identity secrets.
He had been raised United Methodist, but he himself didn’t seem overly religious to me. So once I was sure that this wouldn’t be a deal-breaker, I decided it was time to tell him. Religion wasn’t something we had talked about before, so it was an awkward conversation, which for some reason, we had over text.
“Hey, you know that whole….Jesus thing?” I texted.
“Yeah…?” he replied.
“I don’t really believe in all that.” I confessed.
“Oh, okay.”
I don’t think he really cared at the time. Neither of us believed. But he came to church with me anyways, because that’s what you do if you want to win over my mother.
From Apathy to Atheism
I ended up attending college at a small, conservative Christian school not too far from home. I liked that it was small, my mom liked that it was Christian, and we both liked that it was close by.
I was used to everyone I know being a Christian, so I didn’t think it would be a big problem that the whole school lives and breathes (and eats and drinks) Jesus. Little did I know that this school would drive me up the wall.
It was actually my classes here that made me really evaluate arguments for and against God, and the school inadvertently gave me that push from religious apathy to a nearly definite lack of belief in God.
Now, my interest in religion and atheism was piqued; inspiring me to buy and read books on atheism and start my anonymous atheist blog. I spent a lot of time reading and writing about atheism in my dorm room, and it was getting harder and harder to hide what I was losing from my two roommates.
At this point, I knew that it would be impossible for me to keep this a secret for the rest of my life. It was too big a part of me for me to never tell my family or friends. Telling my roommates that I was an atheist was a way for me to both be myself in my own dorm room, and test the waters for how the Christians in my life would react to the news that I’m an atheist. Perhaps if they responded well, it wouldn’t be so scary to eventually tell more people.
And respond well, they did. Coming out to them actually resulted in a long and honest conversation about faith and doubt. As a matter of fact, they have friends and family that are atheists or deists. We are all still friends, and I don’t think that their view of me has dramatically changed.
The Big Announcement
This past semester, I took a class on culture that was required for my major. The final project was a presentation on our cultural identities. We were encouraged to discuss the most salient aspects of our cultural identities, whether they were ethnic, geographical, educational, family-based, or religious.
I spent most of the presentation talking about my family’s religion, and I could have left it at that (my family’s Lutheran, so I’ll let you assume that I am, too), but I really wanted to be honest. My lack of faith is currently the most salient aspect of my cultural identity, since it is so different from those around me.
Because of this, and because no one in the class knew me closely, and therefore the information had no way of getting back to my family, I ended up announcing to the whole class that I was an atheist.
They took it surprisingly well. My classmates had so many questions that the teacher had to stop them for the sake of time.
I loved being able to answer their questions, especially knowing that many of my classmates didn’t know any other atheists. The assignment required student evaluations, and when I got them back, someone answered the question “What was your favorite part of this presentation?” with “The raw honesty.”
It was an amazing feeling to know that my classmates appreciated my bravery so much.
What’s Next?
I know I’m not yet ready to come out to my family, though I hope to be able to someday. However, after my big presentation, I now feel more comfortable at least telling people at school.
Readers on my blog, however, have made me reconsider why I want to come out so suddenly. If there’s a chance that it could change friendships, then do my friends really need to know? I decided that it really depends on the person and on the relationship.
The main reason I want to tell friends is because I don’t want to have to hide who I am, whether that be an atheist or even just a blogger. If either topic comes up naturally in conversation, then I can reveal these parts of my identity; but if it isn’t relevant or even crucial to the conversation, then often it’s best saved for a later time.
—
Knowing that I’m confident enough with who I am to come out of the atheist closet at my own pace is empowering. I can come out one person (or class) at a time, and I have as long as I need to get ready and prepare to come out to my family and the rest of the world.
Meanwhile, writing online as The Closet Atheist allows me to be my honest self with my readers, until everyone else is ready to hear what I have to say.
About the Author
The Closet Atheist is a senior college student at a small Christian school. When she’s not busy rehearsing with the marching band or working at her on-campus job, she writes about her experience as an atheist at a Christian college on her blog.
—
*Featured Image Provided by the Author
COLLEGE MATE 
There is no god. Brahma built the world, but he don’t know who created him. There could be gods and you can call them aliens with super powers. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
“If I say that God is irrelevant, you think you are a believer in God and I am an atheist.
But get this and get this straight. An atheist is still interested in God. He may say that he doesn’t believe in God, but the desire to free others from their belief in God–it becomes a mission to free you from your belief in God and you become some other kind of missionary. So both are in the same boat. And the worst is someone who calls himself an agnostic, he’s sitting on the fence, hoping that one day the sign will come that there is a God so you can jump on one side or the other side. Agnostics–don’t trust them.
If there is any difference between the way you are functioning and the way I am functioning–take it or leave it–the thought that I am different from you never enters my head.
The questions you are asking, they are not in me. Why do you still ask the question, does God exist?” UG Krishnamurti 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t believe you can come sum up the complex thoughts behind a person’s religious beliefs in labels and a paragraph. There are many different types of believers, atheists, and agnostics. And people arrive at their decisions for a multitude of reasons.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I was just joking on the Brahma part. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you do not believe in a God, how do you believe the universe came into existence? Just curious.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The truth is, there’s really no reason to believe the universe has a beginning or end, so the question may not even be a question, but then again nobody really knows and that gives humans something to work on figuring out. It’s pretty cool.
Now if it did have a beginning and we believe god did it, then we run into many issues, like who made god? and what god are we talking about? christian or like a whole new thing? The question that i have fun trying to figure out is, How would we know if it was created by 1 god, or 2, or 10?
LikeLiked by 3 people
You make a great deal of sense. Thanks for taking the time to read and respond with such a thought-provoking answer.
Personally, I believe that strict atheism and Christianity (or other religion) suffers from the same flaw: the need to believe one idea and rejecting another to compensate for the more unsettling fact that we really don’t know for sure and likely never will.
– Alex
LikeLiked by 2 people
The universe as we know it, must have a point of origin. This means that the universe must have originated from an ‘un-caused’ entity, so to speak. The origin of the universe (whether you believe it to be God or otherwise) must, by nature, be inexplicable. I am not making an argument in favor of any particular religion here. But does it not make more sense to believe that a conscious entity created the universe, as opposed to believing that molecules, energy and particles which are inanimate by nature, propelled the universe into existence? Let me expound. If I see a cake on the kitchen table, do I say that the cake came about simply as a result of the eggs, sugar, milk and cream combining of their volition? No, it would be madness to assert such a thing! It would be much more reasonable and logical to say that a conscious entity was behind the creation of the cake. Why then, do we apply such rational thought to the making of a cake and not the creation of the universe?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey!
Thanks for the answer.
I have to reject the first premise.
There’s no way to know wether the cosmos go on forever or are finite. Our universe could be expanding and contracting forever. So it doesn’t have to be created. Once we decide that everything must be created, then we have to ask who created god? Also we cannot say it’s unreasonable questions since it got us here to begin with. It turns the argument into a loop.
When I hear that argument I see a person asking a question. Where did that come from? If you ask that about your self, you can conclude you came from your parents, and they from you grandparents etc. The thing is when we get to God, we hit the breaks and say this is a good place to stop. The minute god is presented, we are left with more questions than answers. Where does god exist?, who made god? Who made the god maker? what are they made of? Why do they create?
Do I make sense? I always ask because I’m not trying to be some jerk, I really like learning and making sure I’m understood clearly. I don’t think you’ll agree with the whole “god is not real” belief, but can you agree that if he is, it’s not where the questions should end, just like we should continue asking where did the universe come from.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I absolutely get where you are coming from. It is always good to have civil discussion without either party getting rude or aggressive.
I am just interested to gain a little more context on your beliefs. Are you a believer in the big bang or?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks, I’m glad we are on the same page. Some people here rather attack me, I’ve had to learn a lot of patience. 😊
The Big Bang is a scientific theory, these theories explain facts, basically a scientific theory connects the facts and comes up with the strongest conclusion. For now it’s the best theory in place until more is discovered. The Big Bang explains the beginning of the universe but it still doesn’t explain where the universe expanded in to and if there was anything before hand. There’s other hypothesis like the expansion and contraction concept but those can only be speculated. At the end of it they are all great to think of, the realm of possibilities allows weaker concepts like contraction and expansion to be thought up, but I like to agree with the strongest evidence until new evidence changes the equation.
So I guess to keep it short. I agree the patterns we see point to one point of origin from all visible stars, but all visible stars doesn’t mean all stars, so it could be a theory limited to what we know until we know more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right, well I think that it is important to understand that the big bang and evolution are inherently flawed theories.
First of all, the big bang asserts that perfection in the universe came about as a result of a cataclysmic explosion. How can this be so? How can perfect order come about as a result of chaos? A nobel prize winner in the 1930’s who was a professor in both mathematics and physics stated that one of the great mysteries of the universe was that the it was orderly. How can the millions of intricate ecosystems we see present in our earthly environment be a result of chance? Well, you could say through the process of natural selection which is what evolution maintains. Well, let me prove to you right now why evolution is inherently flawed as a theory.
1) Evolution asserts that all living systems endured a gradual coming together of cells. There are, however, many living systems that cannot function unless all cellular components are present. They are so complex and interdependent that they could not have been a product of chance or gradual formation.
2) The high information content found in DNA can only be explained by intelligent design. According to information science, intelligence can only be produced by intelligence. DNA is an incredibly intricate storage/retrieval system and contains all the information necessary to create the brain and body. Despite this, proponents of evolution believe DNA to be a product of random chance as opposed to purposeful design.
3) Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information. Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating or substituting already existing information.
4) There is an inherent lack of fossilized transitional forms required for evolution to be true.
Given this to be so, does it not make sense that the intelligent design we see in our earthly environments and perfect order we bear witness to in our universe is a result of a perfect God or a conscious entity to whom the name God could be attributed, who is maintaining everything in perfect order? Does it not make more sense to believe that intelligence is a result of intelligent design rather than intelligence being a result of a chaotic explosion?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Those are great points. I’m not an evolutionary scientist but you can ask one and he/she might have the answers, or not. I’m not sure. From what I do know is 98 percent of scientist that study evolution agree with it as the best posible explanation due to the facts. This is not to be viewed as a consensus argument, since majority agree it’s right. What this is, 98 percent of those that have made it their life work to debunk scientific theories have agreed with it. In science, the best thing you can do is prove somebody wrong and if 98 percent of those people don’t see how these ideas from the 1930s proves evolution wrong, then we have to look into that why that is.
At the end of it all the evolution argument is not as important as people think. Science is happy to scrap anything that doesn’t work, the problem with evolution is that scientist try to debunk it but end up reinforcing it instead. Then if you look at the other 2 percent of scientist claiming it to be false, you run into people who specifically want creationism taught in schools. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and the evidence for creation is still being waited on. So to hold them up as if they were equal would be a lie. If we were to teach creation in science, we would have to teach other things with the same weight. All creation myths that ever existed, from aliens -scientology or sumarian text, to last thursdayism- teaches you the world was created days ago and there’s no way to prove it wrong. Look it up it’s crazy.
So Imaging your kids waking into science class, and they end up learning about creation between, lectures on aliens, magic, satanic beliefs, etc. That’s what the creationist argument is opening the floor for.
I’ll try to answer the last paragraph the best I can.
“does it not make sense that the intelligent design we see in our earthly environments and perfect order we bear witness to in our universe is a result of a perfect God or a conscious entity to whom the name God could be attributed, who is maintaining everything in perfect order? ”
Maybe if it was in perfect order and not in the illusion of order. Have you ever heard this analogy, when we see water in a hole, we don’t assume the hole was created to fit the shape of the water, we know the water has settled to fit the hole. That’s why we can’t assume it’s a design when it looks just like chaos. That’s also why we can’t live everywhere in this world, we have not evolve to those conditions, imagine if you as an intelligent being, designed a world or universe, would make it so that we could only survive within a small perimeter of it, or create animals that have to destroy to survive, basically resources depletion creating famine and competition between it’s creations. That wouldn’t be the traits of a perfect intelligent being, but they are the traits of evolution. We have evolved to live in certain areas, and we take in energy by stealing it from other things. None of these obstacles would be there if designed by a perfect entity, because it’s not perfect. So the argument can give you the results of evolution being real, or god being defined differently, possibly as not all powerful or not all knowing, but definitely not perfect.
“Does it not make more sense to believe that intelligence is a result of intelligent design rather than intelligence being a result of a chaotic explosion?”
I see your point, the thing is you can’t say look at everything, it seems to be coming from the same areas like an explosion. If we trace these lines they go to one point. That information is real, we can see it everyday looking up and tracing stars. That is a solid theory. If everything we knew pointed at at God, then that would be the main theory, but the god argument says, “if you don’t know therefore god,” does not provide anything but a reason to stop learning. When we accept “therefor god” (god of the gaps) we get into real problems. We’ve done this before, and allowed countless of people to die by rejecting logic and reason. It’s very dangerous and this is why I speak to people, not because I want them to become atheist. You can be a scientist believe and evolution and god without any issues. What you can’t do is, decide your beliefs will trump evidence, regardless of how much of it disagrees with you, in order to maintain an intact ego. That’s why science does double blind studies and peer reviews, because they understand human biases and will not allow it to muddy up facts.
And just to reiterate, it’s not between Big Bang and creationism, there are way more hypothesis out there than those two. The reason a god figure shows up it’s because of the preconceived bias. That’s why I always ask instead of proving wether god exist or not, prove it’s only one god not 2-3 or ten working to control everything. This allows to use your critical thinking within your stance. How do I prove there’s only one God?
We also run into the loop I spoke about yesterday. If it takes intelligent design to design something intelligent, who or what designed that intelligent designer. It uses the same logic and cannot be dismissed with just because it is. Then the Big Bang can come from nowhere also.
I think i answered that clearly but if you need me to clarify anything about it I’m always happy to respond. Thanks again for the chat I think you have some great points.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You had stated that scientists who believe in creationism are a small minority. This is simply untrue. Please refer to this link: https://www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/downloads/Scientists_Who_Believe_the_Bible.pdf
In responding to your comment where you assert that teaching creationism in schools will lead to other beliefs being taught (Satanism, witchcraft etc.), I can only say this. I believe in the one true God – the God of the Bible. At the moment, atheism is being taught in schools. The big bang and evolution are being taught as fact rather than theory (which is what they are). You and other atheists might think this is great because to you, atheism is your truth. For me, I couldn’t disagree more. Christ is my truth. And just like you and many other atheists who advocate for the teaching of atheist doctrine in schools, I would much the same advocate for the teaching of Christian doctrine in schools – a specific branch of creationism, thus meaning that the Bible would be used as the only authority and not the teachings and writings of other theistic religions.
You also stated that the notion of humans living in a perfect world is merely an illusion. You stated that animals have to kill to survive and that there are natural disasters and famines. Well this here, is where we get into Christian theology. Why do these things happen? While the world that we live in was created perfect, mankind’s rejection of God has resulted in a fallen world and a corrupted nature. The corruption we see so prevalent in the world is not simply a result of evolution. It is the result of an imperfect world which God has cursed! Also, please refer to what I said in my above post regarding evolution. It is an inherently flawed theory! Inherently flawed! And I challenge you to debunk any of the points I raised concerning it.
You raised a point before asking how we know if there is more than one God. What if there are two or three? In answering this, it is necessary to examine the nature of God. God is infinite and wholly perfect in His love, grace and other fine attributes. There is none but God. None can compare to Him, exceed Him, or be His equal. Understanding God’s nature means understanding that there could be none but Him! It would go against the very nature of an all-powerful, omnipotent God to say that there were others who could stand alongside Him.
Thanks again for your responses : – )
LikeLike
Any problem with evolution has to be taken up with people that have dedicated their life to figuring it out not with me. Evolution is the best explanation and so is the Big Bang. If you have evidence other wise you win a Nobel prize, so trust me people try their best and fail. The other thing about evolution, it’s not a atheist concept. Its an explanation, it doesn’t mean there is no God, but theist feel threatened so they attack it.
Now I know you believe in the Christian god, but we also know other people believe in other things also. So then how do we pick what stays in the science class and what leaves. Do you decide you only teach the Christian point of view? If you added Christian doctrine to schools, what stops satanist from adding their origin story, where god is evil and the devil is the good guy. If you believe in your religion that’s fine but it has to stay out of science.
About the question I asked. Nobody ever answers why is their one god instead of multiple. I know I’m the Christian bible god said he’s the only god but maybe he was lying. He could lie because he is all powerful, although it wouldn’t make him all good, but then again he could lie.
Religion just doesn’t belong in schools unless for historical reasons. If you believe that religion belongs in the science class, you need to show me when has religion solve a problem that stumped science. When you research it you’ll see it’s never happen, and with a record of zero predictions and zero scientific breakthroughs, I would believe more in what science shows than what one book claims. That’s being reasonable and using logic. What you are saying to me is my belief trumps your logic. You are saying what you don’t understand in evolution equals god. It’s a big leap, and while science provides endless evidence, all Christian’s provide are arguments against them. We need evidence or your claims are as valid as any other religion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You say that you believe in science and yet cannot refute the inherent flaws present in evolution as a theory. And then you say I would have to ask someone who has dedicated their life to evolution to ask them about it…but then you use it as the authority for what you believe and say that while not perfect, it is the best explanation for what you believe and is 100% scientific. Seems a little confusing. Btw, not trying to sound passive aggressive here.
Evolution and the big bang are not SCIENTIFIC. They are inherently flawed THEORIES. Science is God’s explanation for His nature. The more we look into nature, the more we see God revealed in it. How can you say to me that the billions of ecosystems working together in perfect harmony in our environment are a product of CHANCE? Are a product of evolution or the big bang which I reiterate, are inherently flawed theories. You say that you believe in science, but what you believe in is not scientific at all.
LikeLike
I asked for evidence and said all christians do is argue what they don’t like about scientific theory. I’m still getting that here. Evolution explains relationships in nature. That doesn’t mean their is no God. The two claims exist separate from each other. When science claims, they present evidence. That’s all every atheist ask for. To attack evolution is in order to prove that you are right is a political move. My opponent doesn’t know what he’s talking about so I’m right, yet I’m not claiming why I’m right. In my eyes we could both be wrong but that’s reality for us. Atheist are open to see evidence and that’s all I’ve asked for. Do you have any?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am not attacking what you believe in order to validate my own stance. I am attempting to debunk what you believe and through it, show you how creationism comes into play.
Also, if you are trying to tell me that atheism and belief in God are not mutually exclusive, then you are dead wrong. Atheism isn’t about saying that perhaps there is a God, it is advocating for there not being one at all!
Would you like evidence? I can give you some. Here is one point. As mentioned before, our earth consists of trillions of ecosystems working together in perfect harmony. Do you assert that such intelligence we see prevalent in the environment is only a product of evolution and not a Creator? If you wish to use evolution as your explanation, please address my previous comments debunking the issue.
LikeLike
Those are not the two choices. You are assuming it’s either God or evolution. Like I mention before, if I claim to know why everything is, I need evidence, you claim that but only provide an argument against evolution. I don’t need evolution to be real, the definition of atheist has no words in it about evolution or the big bang, it means, i don’t see evidence for your claim. You can’t debunk one to prove the other, what you need is evidence.
I didn’t say atheism and the believe in god are mutual. Read it again, I said evolution and the belief in god have nothing to actually do with each other. If it threatens you’re beliefs, then you have to bring your own evidence. Do you have evidence? Try showing me evidence without debunking other claims. Debunking is not evidence. So to help you get passed that part. Evolution is fake, there is no evidence of the Big Bang. How can you prove god is the explanation?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not using ecosystems merely as a means to debunk atheism, I am making the point that intelligence is evidence of intelligent design. Making an argument for God is not hard. If you want me to make an argument in favor of a specific God, I would ask that you look to the Bible which is beyond reproof. The Old and New Testaments written thousands of years apart and yet prophecies are fulfilled. Different accounts by different men at different times and yet all of their testimonies attest to the fact that Jesus is indeed God. How can this be so? That different men from different parts of the world have all reached a mutual consensus throughout the ages. How can it be that their teachings perfectly corroborate? How can it be that scientific observations were made in the Bible when science at the time and for hundreds of years afterwards until it got more advanced said otherwise? How could all of this knowledge including prophesies, observations and testimonies about Jesus have been written with it being beyond reproof?
LikeLike
Did all testimonies say jesus was god?
John 10: My Father and I [Jesus] are one.
John 14: My Father is greater than I [Jesus].
What happens to the righteous?
Psalm 92: The righteous shall flourish.
Isaiah 57: The righteous shall perish from the earth.
What were the last words of Jesus?
Matthew 27: The last words of Christ: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”.
Luke 23: The last words of Christ: “Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit”.
John 19: The last words of Christ: “It is finished”.
How can all these contradict? There are a lot of verses that do this and we could pull them all up to see if you can justify each one if you like, but I don’t think you can. If you like to prove that we can go down that route, but I only mention this because you dismissed evolution for a couple questions you can’t answer, but believe that this is a revelation of god even if I give you 50 contradictions.
It brings us back to the original statement. Where’s the evidence?
To answer the rest of the questions.
How can it be that scientific observations were made in the Bible when science at the time and for hundreds of years afterwards until it got more advanced said otherwise?
We could look at the information on the books and see if it reveals anything that we can observe now. So if god mentions four corners of the earth, we could look for those corners. If he mentions a massive flood, we could find evidence around us that would point out to a flood.
How could all of this knowledge including prophesies, observations and testimonies about Jesus have been written with it being beyond reproof?
All this information actually comes from one place. It’s not a bunch of guys that ran into each other like did you see God, yeah me too. It was actually put together by regular people with a government. That’s like The president telling you, “this is the new word of god, you must follow it or suffer the consequences” and you saying “yes, why would the government lie to me?” I still haven’t seen what prophecies. What did jesus predict?
It all brings us back to the original statement. Where’s the evidence? He said she said is not evidence because even they are contradicting each other. One said jesus was god one said he wasn’t, how do you choose between those two?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is easy to take a few Bible verses and take them completely out of context. I’m not quite sure what point you are trying to make with the verses you listed…
And your statement that the Bible was used as a tool of government to control the masses is historically ignorant. Christianity had an eventual influence on government but was never used as a means to control the masses. It doesn’t even make sense to assert to such a thing. True Christianity is a hard life to live, but Christianity has been perverted throughout the age to suit various agendas. The Catholic ‘Church’ has been a prime example of a body that has perverted doctrine to suit the agenda of a select few.
And by the way, if you actually look at who wrote the various books in the Bible, they were individuals who did have ties to the government at all. In fact, Paul is a prime example of a New Testament writer who rejected the establishment in order to pursue a life for Christ.
You also made the statement that scientific observations made in the Bible are all nothing that cannot be observed now. AGAIN, an historically ignorant statement. Let me provide you with a link that might enlighten you: http://inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html
LikeLike
Pointed out verses where multiple people describe an event with no consensus. I mentioned this because you claimed all these people said the same thing so it must be true. I showed you they didn’t. Claiming verses are out of context only happens because of secularism. Religions have to evolve in order to survive. In the past slavery was justified by Christians, now it’s not, but we still have the same word. What changed were the people, they decided that god was not literal about that part, but is literal about homosexuality. He doesn’t really send you to hell for coveting your neighbor, but he will for believing he is not god, although sometimes it was claimed he wasn’t by his own book. The funny thing about the context argument is you never know when it’s out of context until it goes against your own personal believes. When god said he is love. Nobody sit around and asks about the context. They just say yeah, of course. When he said he’ll kill all the first borns it’s a context issue, if the context still proves immoral, like in this case god hardening the Pharos heart so he doesn’t let the Israelites free, then it becomes a thing about how it’s part of a plan we will never understand. That’s the equation to debating about context. I could put up verses and you could give me the context but if it follows that formula I’m just not willing.
Government,
What’s a council considered when it gets together and decide the law of the land? Government. To reject the establishment and start your own is just another form of government.
You see, in the Bible you can find love and ways to punish people for picking up sticks on the sabbath, but god is all good because somebody said he said it.
Do you understand how this is full of contradictions and paradoxes? Can you see how threading somebody to follow your rules with eternal punishment might be considered controlling, even terrorism.
About the link you sent me, yes I read it all. It shows predictions in science like Nostradamus predicted the future. Once we discover it, the Bible is reinterpreted the word, and set to fit the reality. I’ll give you a couple examples from the link.
Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. [Hebrews 11:3]
What the the site explains is this means god was telling us about atoms. Now there’s smaller things than atoms, that we can’t see, once we see those then the title will be changed to god predicts x.
Another thing they do is leave part of the verse out. This is how that verse continues,
“By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain”
It goes from supposedly explaining atoms to who’s sacrifice is better for god, note, (god nows the future so he set Cain up to kill abel).
I can honestly do this all day it seems easy when you read the context. Here’s another and then you can pick one if you like me to explain.
“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.” (Isaiah 40:22)
This means the world is a sphere. Then in the same chapter it said.
“The Lord is jthe everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth.”
Where is the end of a sphere?
What about this part….
Job 38 12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
Where are the edges of the earth? Would you describe how you would pick up a basket ball by the edge?
Every verse in his claims also has contradictory verses. So if the earth was a square this line would work, but since it isn’t we look at the one we’re he mentions a circle and of course forget the one where he speaks of the corners of the earth.
Now if flat earthers end up right, they aren’t, the same guy will point out that God mentioned corners and say of course he wasn’t mention in it was a sphere. That’s why I call evolving to survive because any religion that doesn’t evolve dies out. Ask anybody that believes in Zeus and they’ll tell, you but you won’t find that because bad lies die if they don’t find a way to redefine it self.
And I know you don’t think science is as valid as god. I get that. But take this into consideration. If we were to destroy every evidence of science and religion, every book every memory to leave a world with either. If we leave those people alone for along enough they will create a god to explain things. Their explanations will be different as every religion already does. Science on the other hand, will return exactly as it is. Because the rules of science are not beliefs, they are the literal truth eternally. You can’t make it disappear, it always returns because it’s the logical conclusion. This is why most countries believe in different gods but do the same science. It’s reliable. Your book just isn’t im sorry.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have read what you said and think that for now, we need to agree to disagree. Thanks for your time and willingness to debate in a respectful manner. Much appreciated. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not a problem! Thank you for taking your time. I checked out your blog, Great stuff by the way. Thanks again.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi The CreAtheist and HotButtonOfficial,
All in all, it is important for, and also courageous and admirable of, us to confront these sensitive and polarising issues amidst social prejudice, ignorance and bigotry, to have lived an examined life, and to be inquisitive and open-minded, such that “On this blog: All forms of commentary are welcomed and published.” Perhaps some of us could take comfort in the fact that in recent years, the Catholic Church has had to accept evolution, though on a theistic basis.
For one of the most recent takes on atheism, visit http://www.thesixwaysofatheism.com.
As for the pitfalls and fallacies of the design argument, visit the following:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html
It will be nearly or altogether impossible to claim or prove that (the theory of) evolution is wrong or invalid, for it has been estimated that if evolution (both macro and micro) were wrong then more than 99% of all scientific disciplines would be wrong too due to the high degree of cross-collaborations and confluences of data. That is not (just) my claim; and it is from some scientists who have made the interconnections and stocktaking of disciplines and knowledges. When creationists try to debunk certain parts and/or the whole of the findings of evolutionists or evolutionary scientists, they have cited certain problems with some scientific claims and/or techniques which rely on or are founded on mathematics, measurements, instruments, various disciplines and so on in very interconnected ways, and have been reliably used for a long time. For example, many instruments rely on the veracity and reliability of quantum mechanics, electronics and electrical engineering, which in turn rely on other disciplines such as physics, mechanical engineering, optics and so on . . . . It is a very highly interconnected web.
By “cross-collaborations” (whether by design or by accident, whether independently or co-dependently, and whether concurrently or not), I meant the cumulative results, benefits and synergies from the convergence of evidence from diverse disciplines and researchers who may or may not be collaborating and/or aware of each other’s findings and activities in the first place; and I also meant that research(ers) on/in evolution and evolutionary sciences have relied and benefited, both directly and indirectly, fertilizations, findings, paradigms and techniques from diverse disciplines. Let me quote Michael Shermer from his essay entitled “A skeptic’s journey for truth in science” as further examples:
LikeLiked by 1 person
I absolutely get where you are coming from. It is always good to have civil discussion without either party getting rude or aggressive.
I am just interested to gain a little more context on your beliefs. Are you a believer in the big bang or?
LikeLike
Wow this article is so relatable. Imagine being an atheist in a country like India where customs traditions and orthodox conventional views is the way of life.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I can imagine. I’ve been an agnostic/atheist in Jamaica, the country with the world record for churches per capita square mile. It’s not easy, but it’s doable.
– Alex
LikeLiked by 1 person
This article is so relatable. Imagine being an atheist in a country like India where religion customs and orthodox traditions is the guiding principle of conduct.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This article is so relatable. Imagine being an theist in a country like India where religion, customs and orthodox traditions is the guiding principle of conduct.
LikeLiked by 2 people