---

 

Introduction

CHRIS:

I don't know if you're still getting opinions through this site since no dates are posted but I thought that I'd try anyway. 

 

BRUCE:

Yes, I still get responses to my essays and discussions, although many of these come in the form of "turn or burn" admonishments and one-line hate messages about how I am "doing the work of the devil," that I am "anti-American," and other such rhetoric.  Of course, I realize that these people do not represent the thoughts of the majority of people who classify themselves as "Christians," but it's important to note that each will claim themselves to be a "true Christian."

 

CHRIS:

I'm a Christian firefighter and have read many of your opinions and comments that have been posted.   You certainly have done a great job of outlining many of the questions that Christians have had over the years and many of those questions I still wonder about occasionally also.

 

BRUCE:

I used to be a "Christian" myself (Baptist), for seventeen years, in fact.  But the questions I ask are not just for Christians, they are for anyone who claims that a god (and specifically their chosen God) has some divine master plan in mind for such tragedy and needless suffering in the world.  They are questions that you should be thinking about a great deal more than just "occasionally," I think, especially in this time of heavy religious propaganda following the WTC disaster.

 

It has been my experience, from the literally hundreds of discussions I have had on these topics with Christians of every flavor, is that most of them specifically avoid these topics in any degree of detail because they are so disturbing, and because they get very uncomfortable when they are forced to face them within the confines of their own sacred scriptures. 

 

 

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence?

CHRIS: 
Unanswered questions themselves though do not deny the existence of an answer. 

 

BRUCE:

Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and yet that doesn't stop Christians, and adherents to any among thousands of different religions in the world, from proclaiming that they know the truth, and that that truth is the religion that they profess!  As such, when you proclaim that there are an "answers," I doubt that you will say it is the answers provided by Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons (provided you're not a JW or Mormon, of course), or any other religion outside mainstream Christianity.  Am I correct? 

 

It is virtually impossible to prove a negative, so anyone can make any claims to the existence or truth of anything, no matter how absurd, no matter how unsupportable in the face of lacking evidence, and then demand that nonbelievers must accept it as reality if they cannot prove it does not exist!  For example, prove to me that the Hindu god Vishnu DOES NOT exist!  If you cannot then, by the same rule you applied to me, you must conclude that they do in fact exist.  See the problem?  It is precisely for this reason that the responsibility of proof and evidence rests on the person who makes the claim.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! 

 

 

Why Do You Want 'Answers' that Make Sense?

CHRIS:

The impression that I get though listening to your comments though is that you want answers that you can understand and that make sense to you.  Why? 

 

BRUCE:

Are you serious?  OF COURSE I want answers that I can "understand" and that "make sense"!  Are you saying you don't?  These are conditions that are paramount to survival in general, not just in terms of religion and philosophy, but every aspect of life on a daily basis.  In terms of religion, would you not say to the nonbeliever that "if you would only accept Christ into your heart, you would come to UNDERSTAND, and it would all MAKE SENSE"?  That's the kind of rhetoric I used to preach to people and which is preached to me now by not just Christians (each with much different doctrines on the same Biblical tenets), but Jews, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses and countless others with respect to their own doctrines of believe now = understand later.  Well, sorry, Chris, but belief is not evidence of anything.

 

If You Were "Honest" and "Rational," You'd See It My Way!

CHRIS:

If you're honest about having a rational discussion about Christianity, I would like to know what the reason is for having answers from a omnipotent, omniscient eternal being that the human finite mind can understand and AGREE with.  

 

BRUCE:

Yes, it's the "If you were really honest..." innuendo, implying the opposite, of course.  In other words, anyone who comes to conclusions about Christianity that don't jive with what the "true Christian" (TM) believes then that person must not be "honest" in his/her assessments!  They must be in some way "irrational" in their thinking, otherwise they would be a "Christian," right?  I hear this all the time. 

And when people find out that I WAS a Christian, they then claim that I "must not have been a true Christian, otherwise I would still be one."  Of course, this doesn't explain why there are thousands of different and mutually exclusive sects of Christianity in the world, with each claiming their version is the true version, and in many cases even threatening those other so-called Christians with hell for their misinterpretations!   The sword also cuts both ways when we get to the different religions all together.  I'll let my Muslim friend, Muhammad Al-Safri, respond to demonstrate the point:

BRUCE:

I will also allow my Hindu friend, Ramakrishna Dayananda, speak as well:

BRUCE:

Do you see the problem, Chris?  Just because you CLAIM that there is a god, and that that god is Jesus, and that he is an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being, doesn't make it so, no matter how much you would like it to be true.  Now, having said that, it is perfectly fine if you, as an individual, CHOOSE TO BELIEVE such things, but it is quite another matter when you seek (at the direction of a self-serving church establishment) to go unto the world and impress those beliefs on others. 

 

Accountability: The Parent-Child Analogy

CHRIS:

Since you mentioned that you're a father, you can certainly agree that your children don't always understand or agree with your decisions, do they?  Do they NEED to know why you do EVERYTHING you do? Are you accountable to your children in every way they imagine and call for? I certainly hope not.

 

BRUCE:

Yes, I am a father of a wonderful 4-year old girl.  But your analogy is fallacious for the obvious reason that my child can see me, she can touch me, she can hear me--she has a real physical presence to experience!  She laughs when I tickle her.  She cries when I scold her.  She is captivated when I read to her and introduce her to the world around her.  She feels my warmth when I hug and comfort her.  There is a huge difference between this real presence I can offer her as opposed to that which she would experience if I were to be killed in the line of duty, and for the rest of her life only be told how much she was loved by me; or that I am still with her, but in spirit from some mythical heaven.  But even here the surviving child, if old enough, would have a memory of the real person they experienced first-hand.  There is nothing, and I mean nothing, that will ever replace the physical presence of the fathers and mothers killed in the WTC disaster for the thousands of children that survive them!  And no amount of propaganda about how Jesus loves you, and how you are to love Jesus more than you love your mothers & fathers, daughters & sons, family & friends, etc., will ever equate to the realities of death and loss.  Jesus is an idea.  People, life, suffering and death are the realities of the world, right here, right now. 

 

If Jesus, or any other mythical savior hero in ancient mythology, were really a distinguishable presence in the daily lives of people who live and function in a physical world, then we would not be having this discussion now.  But that is not the case, so here we are.  If you disagree, then I challenge you to put forth the evidence for Jesus' reality.  As I have stated time and again in the past, all it will take to convince me is the resurrection of just one single child:  just one Lazarus; just one "only son of a widowed mother"; just one daughter of Jarius. 

  

 

A Priori Assumptions

CHRIS:

Part of the reason why you may never see your resurrection is God knows he's accountable to no one nor does he have to be...something that sooner or later I KNOW you'll find out. 

 

BRUCE:

And you know this how, Chris?  Think about the a priori assumptions you imply in this statement: 

 

 

Well, Chris, if you are one to assume such things (especially the primitive and barbaric church-imposed fear tactics of a literal heaven/hell), and if you seek to impose them upon me and the rest of humanity, then I am going to demand that you provide the evidence to back it up.  If you cannot, then you have no right imposing it on anyone.  Such concepts are cruel, insensitive, arrogant and harmful.  In fact, by definition, they are forms of terrorism!  Indoctrination through fear and threats of punishment for failure to conform. 

 

Just One Resurrection Today!

As for my demands of evidence through resurrection, Chris, I can back up my demands for JUST ONE SINGLE RESURRECTION TODAY from what your own Jesus is made to offer in the gospels; and from what he is made to say is not only possible, but WILL BE GRANTED for any "believing Christian" to perform "in his name," so that "the father may be glorified through the son" and so that those present will "see it and believe"!  Whenever you feel prepared to challenge this, just let me know, and we can debate the issue in the theological arena of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. 

 

I will close here by asking you one question:  Would you see it as a "miracle of grace from Jesus" if, say, JUST ONE of the 300+ dead firefighters in the WTC tragedy were to be suddenly resurrected from the dead?  If, say, one of the firefighter's with 3 young children were suddenly resurrected and returned to his grieving family?  Or how about the fire chaplain that was crushed by falling debris? Or how about one of the many children that were on the four planes that crashed?  Would such an event give you rise to call it a "miracle from Jesus"?  Would you proclaim it as evidence for "God's love for his people"?  Where pulpit evangelists flood the airways with claims that, through such tragedy, thousands of people "come to the faith," would not such a resurrection from the dead be the ultimate tool in bringing millions, even billions, to Christianity so that they too could be saved? 

 

Think about this carefully.

 

---

Part II: Second Exchange

Back to Top

---

 

Biographical Info on Chris

 

CHRIS:
I first would like to apologize if I appeared to doubt your sincerity.  

 

BRUCE:

No apology necessary.  I'm very sincere for the simple reason that I have spent many years on both sides of this issue. I have experienced the gamut of emotions and turmoil that comes with coming to grips with religion. I have shown dedication in my willingness to continue studying each aspect of a given point, and not just one view.  I would suggest that you cannot say the same, however, for one very important reason:  you come to the table with some a priori assumptions of truth about the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible.  You place your sacred literature on a pedestal and adorn it with an aura of unchallengeable authority that is presumed to be truth in whatever it says, and that anything in the way of empirical evidence that may challenge it's accuracy must be considered to be in error, and not the holy text.  These are not blind assumptions on my part, but come from the comments you have made, and the references you have made or alluded to.  Perhaps I am wrong, we shall see...

 

 

The Poor, Humble, Victimized, Christians...

 

CHRIS:

As I'm sure you're aware, many people use forums and media to supposedly look for answers when in reality they're just looking for opportunities to espouse their opinions and possibly hammer "religionists".   

 

BRUCE:

While there is some truth to this assertion, it is grossly distorted and in fact the evidence suggests the contrary is true; that it is the evangelical & fundamentalist Christians in this country who play by those self-serving and disingenuous tactics.  In fact, for every hardline antagonist fighting against Christians, there are at least a thousand Christians (a conservative estimate to be sure) on the holier-than-thou warpath against everything perceived to be non-Christian (as if you will ever find any point where everyone proclaiming themselves "Christians" will be in universal agreement on).   

 

Christians have a penchant for trying to make themselves out to be "victims"; the poor, hapless, beaten, suffering, rejected, souls who are just doing "good" in the world and "made to suffer for it."  Puh-lease!  That's a bunch of malarkey that gets lapped up from the pulpits, but it has no basis in reality, especially here in the U.S. where anyone who dares challenge the exalted establishment is ostracized in short order. 

 

Look around you, Chris!  It is this multi-billion dollar Christian industry that dominates the media here in the U.S., including television, the press and especially radio.  And no sooner does someone appear on the scene to publicly counter the rhetoric, than the Christian networks will put great effort and funds toward pulling the plug to get them off the air or discredited!  Did you know that there are highly funded Christian organizations that are dedicated to just that, using their political and financial clout to forcefully remove dissenting voices from the airwaves of television and particularly Public Radio?  They accomplish this by simply buying-up the private radio stations, restricting the Public Radio programming available in communities, buying the time slots used by these dissenters, even on a local level, and replacing them with their own evangelical and conservative programs.

 

It is the Christians who build magalithic multi-million dollar TAX FREE churches on nearly every corner in our communities (Colorado Springs, alone, has more than 500 churches and more than 160 Christian organizations, many of which are based here, including Focus on the Family, Compassion International, the Navigators & NAVPRESS, Summit Ministries, the World Prayer Center, International Bible Society, Bibles For The World, Cook Communications).  Focus, all by itself, brings in over 130 million dollars per year just in donations alone (not counting all their other publishing and radio endeavors)!  Moreover, twice in the last 12 months the good Dr. Dobson has had big articles published in our local paper citing the crisis in lagging donations and requesting people to send more money!  

And what does Focus contribute to the tax base of our good city?  Nothing, that's what!  But our fire dept certainly makes a lot of runs to Focus on automatic fire alarms (once or twice a set, in fact).  Such irony, then, that none of you seem to see the hypocrisy in the act as you sit in plush comforts all along while there are people in each and every one of those same communities that are homeless, malnourished, and in desperate need of health care! 

 

Your own Jesus tells you that you MUST (not should, or if you have the chance, or if it's convenience, but MUST), "sell your possessions" and "give all your money to the poor."  It's such a central concept for Jesus, in fact, that he makes it a REQUIREMENT for "salvation"!  The "true Christian" should not have one thin dime to his/her name, but do "Christians" follow this direct command from Jesus?  No way!  When one is poor and the minority (as the early Christian community was) it was easy to say "give everything you have to the poor" because you are the poor, but it's quite another issue when you are in the majority, in power and disgustingly rich (Christianity today, in the West)--then, er, well, such demands to sell all your possessions and give it all to the poor are conveniently ignored or rationalized away, even though the words supposedly come from Jesus himself. 

 

 

Is it "We the People" or "We the 'Christian' People"?

 

Our own President is allowed to trample all over the Constitution through his incessant invoking of "God" and "Jesus" and "Bible" quotations into his public policy statements (to hell with "We the People", I guess), and he gets away with it because the media allows it, and even propagates it!  For example, last week USA Today ran an editorial by guest columnist, Kathleen Parker, who made a multitude of not only false, but arrogant and insensitive statements against people who do not profess belief in God:

 

Ms. Parker's entire article can be found here: God, Country Gain Fragile New Toehold

 

Contrary to Ms. Parker's acerbic grandstanding, there most assuredly ARE "atheists in foxholes (there is even an organization of Military atheists!), and there ARE atheist firefighters, paramedics, doctors and nurses (lots of them!), and there most certainly WERE atheists in the World Trade Center!  These people also have not been silent in the wake of this tragedy, far from it, it's just that their voice has been squelched by the media while the grandstanding Christians, with their emotional pleading and "miracle" rhetoric (more on this later), have been given an open microphone to express their grief, while thanking Jesus in the process, and all without having to back it up.  

 

It is the atheist, and even the non-Christian in general, that is unilaterally censored in these cases, even moreso than usual these days; and worse, we frequently find ourselves being targeted as scapegoats to place blame on, as we recently saw from Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson on the 700 Club.  They had the audacity to blame women getting abortions, homosexuals, and people defending the separation of church and state as "bearing much of the responsibility" for this "attack against America and Christian values!"  Yeah, right!  Everyone is talking about "Islamic extremists" like Bin Laden, but we have our own brand of Christian extremists right here in America; people who spread hate and intolerance and mask it with words like "love," "kindness," and "good Christian values"; people who have made it their purpose in life to tear down our Constitution and make America, not a republic, but a Christian theocracy. 

 

So, government leaders, editorialists, school boards and evangelists can play-up God and Jesus all they like, it seems, and have no fear of reprisal, or losing their employment, but the same cannot be said in reverse.  Last week the Dallas Morning News reported what happened to Tom Gutting, the editor of the Daily Sun in Corsicana, Texas after he dared to write a column criticizing Bush as being "a puppet, not a leader."  He was immediately fired and the next day, the publisher issued a front-page apology that concluded with "God Bless America."  Translation: "Go ahead, Mr. President, do whatever you like; ignore the Constitution if you want, follow the advice of your military advisors and get us into another Vietnam if you want, invoke your theocratic agenda at the cost of all tax payers if you want!  We're all behind you--er, the people who matter, that is, the 'good Christians' of this country, the 'true Americans'--and we will admonish and punish those who dare challenge you.  Because to be an American you must also believe in God!"

 

But, the poor Christians, they're the ones being "victimized."  They can hardly get a word in edgewise, right?  Society has become so much more "immoral" and "violent" today (well, at least that's what we constantly hear from the pulpits, even if it's not true) because "God was taken out of our schools" and because "secularists and liberals have infected our children's minds" and because "people do not have enough religion, and Jesus, in their lives" and, of course, because "evolution" is being taught (that is, the empirical findings from all of our natural sciences are being taught--how dare they)!  Give me a break! 

 

The fact is, people are inundated with God, religion, and Jesus, in this country.  You cannot go anywhere to escape it--it is constantly imposed on society, in the media, in our work places, in our schools, on the streets, and even door-to-door.  As I will get into more detail later, your own words belie the extent that religious propaganda has provided you with a completely distorted and ignorant view of not only science, evolutionary biology, and what is meant by empirical evidence, but even of Christianity, the Bible and other man-made religions of the world, their doctrines and their divinely inspired holy books.

 

It's not that there is not enough religion in the world; the problem is not even that there is religion in the world.  The PROBLEM is that we have too many religions that claim they and they alone are the "one true religion" and that they have some "God-given right" to impose their sectarian views on the rest of the world without any consideration for the very real and very abundant harm that they inflict.  Christians are specifically instructed from the pulpits to "go out unto all the world" and "profess the good news", to evangelize, to go on missions, to convert every person in every crevice of the earth!    And what has it accomplished?  Love? Peace? Happiness? No, it has caused dissension, hate, plague, and murder.  It has wiped-out or assimilated entire cultures through the spread of foreign disease for which they have no immunity (evidence of evolution, btw), destroying their cultural identities, destroying their way of life.  It has caused and will continue to cause the types of "terrorist" attacks we are getting a taste of now; events that people in many other countries live with on a daily basis in their lives, including countries like Northern Ireland where Catholic and Protestant CHRISTIANS fight, terrorize and murder each other for control of their theocratic government.

 

 

Of Gods, Monsters & Evil

 

CHRIS:

I still have difficulty in determining whether or not you really are looking for answers or are trying to convince us religious folk that our beliefs are at best on shaky ground. 

 

BRUCE:

I have found the "answers" through extensive studies in ancient & modern history, comparative religion & mythology, philosophy, the natural & physical sciences, and the humanities.  Once you come to understand that "God" and "religion" represent TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS that are mutually exclusive, the "answers" become not only simple, but obvious! 

 

You will not see me make a positive claim that there is no "god" of sorts in the universe, although if I were to apply such a term (which I find wholly unnecessary other than for illustrative purposes) it would mean something far different than you would view it as a Christian.  Indeed, you would call me an atheist in Christian terms, and that would be accurate.  One could refer to the universe itself as being "god," but not requiring any sort of self-awareness, special creation, intent or even intelligence.

 

The idea of a "personal God" that is conscious and intelligent in terms of our understanding,  that interacts on our behalf, that listens to and answers our prayers, that rewards and punishes us for our actions or nonactions, and who chooses one group of people over all others as it's "chosen people", and even goes so far as to demand (and even assist) these chosen people in the wholesale slaughter other neighboring cultures, including innocent women, children, suckling infants, right down to the last breathing animal, is not only arrogant, but repulsive in the extreme.  Such an insecure, arrogant, petty and vindictive "God" would not be worthy of worship.  In fact, if such a "God" were to be construed as "all good," as Christians are fond of saying, then it becomes impossible to determine what would constitute "evil" in this world.  We call the WTC terrorist attack "an act of pure evil" but compared to the wholesale murder and destruction performed by the "good, loving, YHWH (i.e., Jesus)" throughout the Bible, that event pales in comparison. 

 

For example, in 2 Samuel 24, as "punishment" for David's taking a census of the people, the "good, loving, Yahweh (i.e., Jesus), makes David decide between two possible punishments for his horrific crime (tongue firmly in cheek):  (1) the people can suffer a three year famine; (2) the people of Israel can suffer at the sword from their enemies and flee from them for three months;  (3) the people can suffer a 3-day pestilence.  David choosed the third option and Jesus sends a massive plague on the people of Israel for three days, killing 70,000 men, women and children!  Praise Jesus, for He has shown His love, kindness and forgiveness for His people! 

 

Say, come to think of it, didn't we just have a national census just this past summer?  Cripes!  That must explain the WTC attack!  The one true God (i.e., Jesus) did it as "punishment" for the "sin" of performing a census!  So, if "God did it" is it still "an act of pure evil" or not? 

 

Of course, millions of Muslims around the world are saying it was "the will of Allah, working through his righteous Moslem servants, to battle the forces of evil, the servants of the devil, the United States..." that caused this attack to be not just a success, but a magnanimous success beyond all expectation.  Hmmm.

 

Do you see how ridiculous this rhetoric is, Chris, and why it is so harmful? 

 

 

Religion & Spirituality

 

There is also a big difference between spirituality and religion.  While, again, where you would proclaim the "spirit" to be a conscious, intelligent, entity that interacts with we humans, I am not using such terminology and I have seen no evidence to warrant such wishful thinking.  By "spiritual" I am only assigning a word to a common trait (not a being) shared by all humans that encompasses all the mystery and wonderment of the unknown that we seek to understand as physical beings living in a physical world: who we are, how we got here, why we are here, where we are going, the mysteries of life, birth and death, and the ultimate question, "is this all there is?".  These questions are common in every culture throughout recorded history, and no doubt well before, and each devised "answers" to satisfy those questions and fears.  They wrote stories to explain them, and without exception, the culture that produced the stories made themselves the focal point of their creator god(s).  They all had their sun and moon gods.  They all created mythologies of birth/death/rebirth based on the rising & setting of the sun and moon, and by the movement of celestial bodies.  Naturally occurring events like earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornados, lightning, thunder, the seasons, etc., were great mysteries that needed explanation, so "gods" were invoked as the cause of these events. 

 

Over time these stories came to be part of the identity of these cultures, and the stories continued to evolve with the complexity of the society--the more primitive the culture, the more primitive their god(s) and their "answers"; the more advanced the culture, the more advanced and "complex" their god(s) and "answers."  Ultimately, then, "religion" should be described as a cultural interpretation of their spirituality, which is based on the natural world they live in and experience every day of their lives. 

 

For this reason, it is wrong for you, as a Christian, to claim that your religion is the one true religion, or even that it is superior to that of a tribal culture living in the jungles of Central America, or anywhere else. 

 

 

 

CHRIS: 

If you receive this impression, it may be because no Christian claims to have all the answers.  

 

BRUCE:

Yeah, right!  Who are you fooling, Chris?  I used to be a Christian!  I know how you are taught to view yourself as humble and unassuming all along while you are taught the direct opposite--to "profess the gospel to all the world" as being the "ultimate truth from God."  Those who would question you are considered, "deluded by their own arrogance," or "angry at God," or "misled by Satan," or "confused because they don't have Jesus in their hearts, and, if they would only accept Jesus they would see the error of their ways."  Such is the "humility" of Christian evangelism.

 

Christians are famous for their claims to truth in Christianity while simultaneously admonishing other religions as being "false," or "from the devil."  And that's just in the concept of an assumed invisible spirit world where their chosen god hangs-out.  But they don't stop there.  No, they claim "truth" right here in the physical world by their demands that we not only believe all of these ancient mythological tales in the Bible as being not only true, but taught as literal history and empirical science in our public schools!   It is beyond arrogant, for example, that Christians will put aside all skepticism and common sense in order to maintain an irrational belief in fanciful fairy tales we find throughout the Judeo-Christian scriptures:

I could easily go on with example after example of far-fetched fantasy tales we find throughout the Bible, and all of them, evidently, to be taken as "truth" that is above questioning by us silly, arrogant, ignorant, little humans, of course! 

 

Later, when we get into the "evidence for Jesus outside the Bible" (as you erroneously allude to a little later on), I will be revisiting some of these things that were so miraculous, so awe inspiring, so unique in all of history, that exactly no one noticed, not one contemporary chronicler saw fit to mention them!  I will also be relating many similar stories of miracles performed by other pagan savior heroes, and asking if you also believe those stories to be true, given that you are willing to accept the mythologies surrounding Jesus and other biblical tales as literally true historical events, without question.      

 

CHRIS:

Personally speaking, I don't need to have all the answers in order to believe something.    I do my best to understand but some things are just beyond me as I'm sure they are you.

 

BRUCE:

True enough, but then placing unquestioning belief in, and making moral and ethical judgments about not only your life, but the lives of everyone else on the planet, based solely on the fanciful tales, primitive customs, and laws (frequently barbaric) of ancient tribal cultures is not only irresponsible but dangerous--a fact history has demonstrated year-in and year-out for thousands of years. 

 

 

Natural vs Supernatural

 

 

CHRIS: 

Before we get into reasons for Christianity, it appears that you're not even sure whether or not a supernatural world even exists.  It's either that or you're not sure which "religion" to believe?

 

BRUCE:

What evidence do you have that supports a supernatural world?  Just because you require such an a priori assumption in order to validate your religious convictions, doesn't make it so!  Belief and mere assertion is not evidence of anything.  Furthermore, why does the universe have to have had a creator?  And even if it did, why would that creator necessarily have to be intelligent?  And even if this were the case, then why would this creator have to be your chosen God (a very youthful God, by comparison, btw) that did it?  Why couldn't it be any of the thousands of other Gods that that have been and continue to be worshiped by millions (no, billions) of people throughout the world?  So what sort of evidence do you have to offer, Chris, that would provide some definitive proof that your God not only exists, but that "He" did all this creating of the universe and everything in it?  Please keep in mind that such proof would have to be conclusive enough to allow someone who had never previously heard of your God to accurately identify him, to the exclusion of all other alleged "Gods."

 

Do you see the problem, Chris? 

 

On the other hand, if life began in it's most simplest form (as all the empirical data we have demonstrates, without fail) and it developed more complexity over billions of years, then why should the universe be any different in it's development?  In fact, the most abundant element in the universe is the simplest element, hydrogen, which is comprised of only one proton and one electron.  In terms of evolutionary events on this planet, by far the most dominant and well-adapted organisms have always been and always will be unicellular bacteria.  They dominate because they are so simple, and thus they easily adapt to changes in their environment.  The larger and thus more complex the organism in relation to it's environment, the less adaptability it will have to sudden, dramatic, changes in that environment.

 

When speaking of evolution, whether we are talking about how the universe evolved, or the development of life on earth (two separate questions, by the way), we must understand that we are speaking of processes in their simplest terms, i.e., a process that progresses from simple to complex, in that order.  But creationists, for purely religious motivations, flip this upside down and demand complexity up front, before simplicity.  But they shoot themselves in the foot here since, if it is true that all things that exist must have an exterior influencing cause that is more complex than itself, then that means any sort of "intelligent designer" (as the new creationists are substituting for the word "God" these days in their efforts to slip their Biblical creation mythology past the Constitutional road blocks), then that complex God requires an even more intelligent, more complex, designer to have created it.  This process would necessitate an infinite regress toward increasing complexity at each stage! 

 

 

Do Christians "Need an Answer"?

 

You have said more than once now, Chris, that you "don't need all the answers," but in fact, your statements contradict that position in that you apparently do require an uncaused first cause intelligent creator "God" in order to satisfy a disturbing question in your own mind with an "answer" (you just attempt to take the question part out of it, and assign the answer as automatic truth).  And it's not just any answer you postulate, mind you, but one that actually confines your own "God" to a set of rules and measurements that conforms with your concept (a human concept) of space and time.  In other words, that same "God" that you tell everyone can do anything ("with God all things are possible", right?), evidently can't do everything, since you have identified an event that you have ruled-out as being impossible--the possibility of a universe that had no beginning, but simply always has been, even if such a concept is impossible for us to comprehend.  

 

It's interesting to note that, back in the late 1940's, three astronomers, Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle, postulated a universe that is, in fact, "infinite" and "had no beginning" and "has no end."  But there was a problem in how to explain the expansion of the universe, and thus the dissipation of usable energy. Their solution was a "steady-state" universe, and it basically presumed that there must be a constant influx of "new atoms" being created from nothing (ex nihilo) in order to maintain this steady-state of energy and matter in the universe.  This theory has long been abandoned by cosmologists, and for obvious reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it breaks the first law of thermodynamics, which states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.  Even among religious circles, Hoyle's hypotheses have conflicted with sacred religious dogmas about creation (as is the case for Biblical creationism as presented in Genesis), and thus warranted his being discounted out-of-hand for that reason--a point I will be bringing up again later when I address your extreme probability reference of a "tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a 747," which was proposed by that same Fred Hoyle.  (see section titled, Abiogenesis and the Game of Big Numbers).    

 

What is really interesting to me is how Christians will make that illogical leap in proclaiming that their God "has existed forever" and that "there was never a time at which their God did not exist" and that "God's complexity and intelligence was, at all times, just as complex and intelligent as it is now"; and yet these same people will turn around and flatly reject the possibility that the universe itself, or matter, could have always existed, without beginning, and even without any intelligence or self awareness.  Indeed, one of the more popular hypotheses among cosmologists today, most notably the famed physicist Steven Weinberg, is that there was no beginning; that there were increasingly larger big bangs, so that the [multiverse] goes on forever--the multiverse has simply been here all along, that matter itself is eternal.  Or, as physicist Michio Kaku put it (Astronomy, May, 1996), "...the ultimate reality could well be that it is just impossible for nothing to exist."

 

If existence can only be explained only by postulating that something has to have necessarily existed for "eternity," then why couldn't aht eternal why "something" be matter itself?  Matter is comprised of particles that are very simple in their structure, but if this god of yours exists, he would have to be, by your own demands, complex and intelligent.  So, we have two alternatives before us (note: there doesn't have to be just two possibilities--the analogy is for illustrative purposes):

 

And from these two possibilities, we can can apply a basic principle of simplicity vs. complexity:

 

So which is more likely to be the eternal "something," that which is simple or that which is complex?
 

 

Ultimately, as I will repeat later, the God question is irrelevant!  What matters is life (however you choose to view that) in the here and now.  We are all people with real feelings and real flesh and we feel real pain.  As such, until such time as anyone can produce some actual verifiable, testable and repeatable evidence for the existence of a deity, and specifically their chosen deity, then no one, and I mean no one, has the right to impose, proselytize, make grandeurous promises of happiness, or terrorizing threats of pain and suffering to anyone else!  If your religion works for you, if it makes you happy and gives you comfort, great, toodles for you, but that DOES NOT mean that your religion is "the answer" for everyone!

 

CHRIS:

I'll assume the former since you need to have that before you can accept any religious creeds. 

 

BRUCE:

Not so.  Just because your religion requires a conscious, intelligent, personal deity to comfort you and give your life meaning, doesn't mean that all religions, philosophies require that.  The Jains, for example, hold that the universe, as well as the earth, has existed from all eternity, and that the various life-forms populating the earth (and elsewhere) are equally without beginning. Therefore there is no need to explain either the origin or development of either life or the universe.  They are, by definition, atheistic in their views, and yet they hold "religious creeds," along with other moral and ethical precepts.

 

Buddhists, also, are essentially atheists by standards Christians, Jews and Muslims adhere to.  They do not believe in a literal god, or even a literal world.  To them, this reality is all an illusion and the ultimate goal is to achieve Nirvana, which is not a physical or even spiritual place, but rather becoming one with the universe by NOT having to be reborn (reincarnated) back into this illusion.  As such, the questions of God and the universe are meaningless, and yet they do have religious tenets they follow to assist them in achieving that highest transcendent consciousness.

 

CHRIS:

I'm not sure how a 'resurrection' will explain tragedy and needless suffering although I suspect you're saying that you would be satisfied in accepting the supernatural (and a supernatural origin of events) if you witness a supernatural event.

 

BRUCE:

I'm not saying I would be satisfied with the problem of evil and needless suffering in the world.  Indeed, I would have a lot of poignant questions for "God" in this respect if such a being were ever demonstrated to be a reality beyond the fertile imaginations of the superstitious people who create such beings.  I also don't say that just any so-called supernatural event would suffice, because that is not specific enough, as I will expound upon later.  I need to see a physical resurrection of a biologically dead person!  I want to see the dead body in front of me, preferably one of these many children I have seen die, and see Jesus or even one of his devoted followers lay hands-on the dead person and see them resurrected, just as we told happens in both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.  If I were to witness such an event then THAT would be sufficient for me to believe everything else "on faith."  And that is not an extraordinary demand, as we can see from the questioning of Peter, Thomas and others in the New Testament.  They needed to "see" and they got their wish, and guess what, they then came to complete belief (or so we are told).  So, why should I expect anything less?  If Jesus saw them as needing to see in order to fully believe, AFTER THE FACT, and he grants them their needs, then why should he not also provide the same for anyone else?   

 

CHRIS:

Here's one area where we differ.   Your foundational assumption is that the supernatural does not exist and it's existence must be proven to you.  I, on the other hand, assume that it does exist and you (or anyone else) must prove to me that it does not exist.

 

BRUCE:

Chris, no offense, man, but you really do need to take a basic logic class.  I have already explained previously the problem with proving a negative, but I will go over it once more.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and, by rule, the person(s) making the extraordinary claim(s) MUST be held responsible for providing the proof to support their claim(s).  It has to be like this, otherwise any doof on the street can make any ridiculous claim he wants and then demand everyone accept it as truth if they cannot prove the claim to be false!   

 

For example, when Muslims claim the WTC attack was the "work of Allah," and that "Christians are servants of the devil" then these are extraordinary claims to be sure, but if the rules of evidence are not applied, and their assertions become your responsibility to disprove, then if you cannot prove them wrong (and you can't) then, by default, you must conclude that their assertions are true.  So, do you believe that, as a Christian, you are a "servant of the devil", Chris?  If not, why not?

 

Is any of this starting to sink in, Chris? 

 

 

God of the Gaps

 

CHRIS:

Reasons for justifying supernatural existence?

* Where did the 'Big Bang' come from?  What was before it?  (This is assuming that I deny a literal biblical view of creation).

 

BRUCE:

I have addressed these issues above, but for the sake of clarity allow me to repeat:  On what basis are you determining that the "Big Bang" (if that's what actually happened) was anything but a naturally occurring event?  Maybe the oscillating universe theory is somehow correct and it expands and contracts over the course of billions, or trillions of years, and ultimately comes to a point again and produces yet another "big bang"?  Or perhaps the multiverse is correct, and "Big Bangs" occur all the time, with universes boiling into the next?  Perhaps that is the natural, eternal, state of the universe that has simply always existed?  Just because something is beyond our current level of scientific understanding does not mean that we will necessarily never understand it.  Nor does it mean that there is some "supernatural" explanation that must be invoked to account for it. 

 

This fallacy has a name; it's called the "God of the gaps" premise.  Throughout history, any time there has been some "gap" in our scientific knowledge about natural phenomena such as lightning, thunder, rain, volcanoes, hurricanes, etc., THAT is where they would insert their God(s).  "Zeus did it!"  "Thor did it!"  "The Gods are angry!"  But we don't say such things today.  Why?  Because as our science and understanding of empirical evidence progressed, we came to understand why and in most cases how these events occur in a natural world.  Suddenly those "gaps" in our scientific knowledge were closed and we no longer needed those "gods" to explain them, so those Gods went away to the mythology bin. 

 

So my questions to you, Chris, are these:

---

---

 

Focus on the Family and Dobson 

 

Focus, along with two other major Christian organizations based in Colorado Springs, are among the top ten money-making religious organizations in the U.S., (near or above the $100 million dollar per anum mark) and yet even in their home city the problem of homelessness is just as prevalent as anywhere else in the country, let alone in the world. 

 

Focus all by it's lonesome could easily resolve the homeless problem (even without the help of the plethora of other Christian organizations based in Colorado Springs) if they would apply just one-month's income (roughly eleven million dollars) over the course of the year (each and every year!) toward building dormitory style boarding houses on some of their massive land holdings (Focus sits on some truly beautiful property). 

They could provide free bus service for all the homeless to and from the downtown area up to the "Focus Kingdom" on the Northeast end of Colorado Springs.  This would sure make us firefighters feel a lot better, since we get calls all winter long for reports of "fires" underneath the overpasses and along the creek banks, and we have to respond and put-out the fires these homeless make to keep themselves warm--it's really sad! 

They could set up free medical clinics in the down town area, perhaps right next to the Red Cross shelter (the American Red Cross, incidentally, is a secular humanitarian organization that was founded by a freethinker, Clara Barton), and thus offset some of the huge emergency room bills run-up by the homeless, all of which gets footed by the tax payers. 

They could do any number of things to resolve the homeless problem right here at home, let alone around the world, but do they?  Nope! 

 

It's also a ruse to cite Dobson as "not taking a salary from Focus" proper [as stated on their website]!  In fact, he makes much more from his book sales and media exploits than most any CEO would expect to make from running a comparably sized corporation to that of Focus!  But by making it sound like he doesn't take a salary he is made out to appear as though he is giving some supreme sacrifice!  Yeah, right!  Dobson is a multi-millionaire, pure and simple!  I have seen his immaculate house (from the outside anyway).  He lives in the "rich" neighborhood and is hardly the representative role-model of the poor, nomadic, Christian disciple that travels from town to town with nothing to his name, seeking lodging from would-be good people eager to hear his gospel.  Dobson IS Focus, and he makes millions based on that reputation alone. 

 

So is the good Dr. James Dobson sacrificing his own comfort in order to help those homeless as Jesus commanded him?   No, he is not!  He's "a rich man" riding on a camel heading for the eye of a needle, and to try to defend him otherwise would require something beyond a mere lack of critical thinking skills.  Would you care to defend this champion of intolerance, Chris?  Do we really need all the hate and dissension this evangelist generates through his anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-equal rights for all, anti-Harry Potter (and any other non-Xian magical fantasy fiction), anti-any other religion but Christianity, and other such rhetoric?

 

Do you really think the massive financial holdings of these Christian organizations is what your Jesus had in mind?  Would he think it just and righteous for Christians to build all these magalithic corporate ministry buildings and churches where the congregations may sit in plush air-conditioned comforts on Sunday mornings, with the best stage lighting, the best speaker systems, and all along while people all over the world, even right down the street in their own cities, lack even the most basic necessities such as clothing, food, clean water to drink, shelter, and medicine?

 

I will be discussing this demand to "sell everything you have" and "give to the poor" in another response.  I noticed that you had chastised me for "taking it out of context" in a separate post (favorite words from Christians when confronted with inconvenient or troubling passages in the Bible), but I will take you to task on this and other issues of the like, and we shall see who is the one "taking passages out of context."

 

 

An Honest Study of Evolutionary Biology? 

 

CHRIS:
I am going to step away from the point/counterpoint format for a bit to address a few other issues.    I actually began to mark and make notes on incorrect observations and conclusions but it became so overwhelming it was obvious that the only way that you can support your viewpoints is to misquote, misinterpret, misread and misrepresent.   AND In the 2 emails that I have sent, where evidence IS unarguable you either call me a liar or ignore it.

 

BRUCE:

Yeah, right!  First of all, if you are going to make assertions (accusations), Chris, then you had better provide the evidence in hand rather than just snipping off at the mouth.  I have not "ignored" anything you have posted, but the same cannot be said of yourself, since you have already stepped-off the transcript format and started picking-and-choosing what you will or will not respond to.

 

And I don't recall ever calling you a "liar."  I have used the term "disingenuous" in regard to the numerous misstatements and misrepresentations you have applied to evolution.  You have demonstrated, by your own comments, that you simply do not understand what is meant by evolution (you did it again in this very email!), and therefore it is clear that you have learned your "science" through the rose-colored glasses of Christian dogma, and HAVE NOT studied the material with any intent towards understanding what is meant by evolution, but with a jaundiced eye toward defending your faith against the perceived threat you have been sold by evangelists who see their sacred dogmas eroding away, and with it their control over the flocks. 

 

If I am mistaken (and I doubt that I am) then perhaps you could start by listing all the books you have actually read on evolution that are not written from a theistic perspective and that do not present with an agenda to discredit the findings of our natural sciences in general and evolutionary biology in particular.  Here, let me help you:

 

Probability vs. Possibility

 

CHRIS:
Some of your conclusions from your observations aren't  even related to the observation; take your 52-card example.   The analogy to the tornado in the junkyard is incorrect.  The  correct analogy would be to not get all 52 cards to line up but whether you can take each individual symbol (heart, diamond, spade, club) on every card in a deck of cards, throw them into a pile and have them WITHOUT human intervention end up creating a deck on their own.  The issue here is not PROBABILITY but POSSIBILITY and there is a difference.   You can only have a PROBABILITY (other than zero) if POSSIBILITY exists so you must establish POSSIBILITY first.  Even if you do inerrantly look at PROBABILITY, you can claim IMPOSSIBILITY if the chances of PROBABILITY are infinitely low (as they would be if the cards and symbols for some reason could produce a deck themselves without some sort of intervention.  Incidentally, even if the symbols on a deck of cards were to somehow be able to "reorganize" themselves WITHOUT INTERVENTION in an attempt to fulfill their "natural" evolution into a deck of cards, and this (re)arrangement is observed once every second, every 1 trillion years they would only have gone through 1/1^57 variations of total possibilities and THIS assumes no duplication or even the incorporation of face cards.)

 

BRUCE:

First, Chris, if you're going to just cut-and-paste from your Christian apologetic literature I would appreciate it if you would actually quote the source rather than passing it off as your own work.  Second, you obviously didn't bother to read my previous replies since I cut this ruse down before it ever got off the ground!  

 

Because you are looking at everything from a position of complexity at the outset (which is 180 degrees to what we see in the geological record), you arbitrarily rule-out POSSIBILITY through the strict definition that you present--bolstered, evidently, by some "big number" figures that are based on pure speculation.  What are these figures based on?  Since we don't know the process by which organic life came to be, how can you possibly assign a mathematical equation to that process--a process that may itself have gone through millions of tiny steps before emerging into "life" as we know it?

 

You presume up front, for example, that humans had to be the way we are today, designed for some specific purpose (like a 747 is, or a deck of cards is), rather than coming to be in this form, not through some divine blue print for homo sapiens before the fact, but rather after the fact, in lieu of the advantages we had acquired over other species (through mutation and natural selection) that ultimately allowed us to better adapt in the environment we inhabit[ed], and consequently survive where others did not.

 

In short, Chris, you missed one of the most basic concepts of evolution through your assumption that the end result must be at once a GOAL ORIENTED END-PRODUCT, and further that it must be accomplished ALL AT ONCE rather than in incremental and cumulative steps, or cumulative selection as it is called.  You demand a deck of cards that is aligned by suit, but you presume that from the position of a PREFORMED GOAL in advance, when in fact how you need to understand this process in reverse. 

 

Suppose you have a bunch of different species of SINGLE cards meandering around and competing against each other for food and, ultimately, survival.  Over time let's say that some species (through random mutation and natural selection) acquire some advantages over other card species such as by doubling their height by stacking into two cards (like adding vertebrae), one on top of the other, which allows it to reach food higher sources the single tiered cards cannot reach.  As such, this two-card species, in that specific environment, may have a major advantage for survival which it then maintains and continues to reproduce in offspring over countless generations, while most of the other card species do not and many die out.  Now, this doesn't mean that the two-card stack has some goal in mind toward ultimately becoming a 52-card stack with different suits, it has simply acquired a form that gives it an advantage in it's current environment!  It could just as easily turn out that the some cataclysmic event will occur that alters the environment in a way that this dual-stack card species might be at a disadvantage compared to the single-stack species (small animal species over large dinosaurs, for example) and thus it would be the less adaptable species that loses out and goes extinct!  It's not difficult to see how this process could continue over billions of years, and ultimately produce a 52-card deck, separated by suit even, if THAT was what allowed a particular species to better adapt and survive over other species.

 

SIMPLICITY, SIMPLICITY, SIMPLICITY! 

 

But since you brought up this big number game in terms of POSSIBILITY, then we most assuredly can apply those figures to your chosen God!  Why?  Well, for the same reasons you tried to apply them to evolution, an assumption of complexity up front!  This doesn't work against evolution, as we've seen, but it works against your God just fine because, as you admit up front, "He" is and always has been a "complex" God!  Whoops!

 

The Ad Hominem Wars

 

CHRIS:
These correspondences have NOT been a debate of the facts.  Your letters are loaded with incorrect observations, poor conclusions and interestingly enough, low on facts. 

 

BRUCE:

Well, golly, Chris, I hardly know how to respond to that brilliant, comprehensive, rebuttal!  It's amusing, actually, since it is precisely such assertions of truth that you and your fundamentalist pundits make without ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE that is the issue at hand!  It's not science that claims to have all the answers, it's you Chris (i.e., your religious dogma)!  It's you that claims woman came into being as a result of your god forming her out of the rib of a man (a good example of ancient patriarchal nepotism, incidentally).  It is you (again, with "you" being applied generically) who claims that every living creature on the planet is the direct descendant of animals that literally rode on Noah's ark for a year (including dinosaurs), tended by eight people, while the entirety of the Earth was flooded to a water level exceeding that of the highest mountain, and then went on their way to repopulate every part of the planet afterward.   

 

I gave you specific circumstances of conditions that would refute the evolutionary premise of common descent with modification--something all of our natural sciences are in 100 percent agreement (because of empirical evidence)--but I have yet to see you provide any such circumstances in return for what would refute the Christian God in your own mind.  And I predict you will not do so!  Like all fundamentalists, you couldn't care less about empirical evidence in the natural world if said evidence happens to conflict with some sacred religious dogma; you simply assert that the Bible is true (indeed, beyond challenge). 

 

The Creationist's idea of *proof* often rests on nothing more than quoting scripture, assuming as they do that their scripture is "God's Word" and therefore true and infallible, which is not evidence at all but a circular reasoning fallacy.

 

By the way, have you started reading Sagan's A Demon-Haunted World, yet?  

 

 

Objective Evaluation?

 

CHRIS:

If you would like to debate the facts let's as you said OBJECTIVELY evaluate the EMPIRICAL evidence.  Calling me a liar and telling me incorrectly what my motivations are/were doesn't persuade me to your view the least bit.

 

BRUCE:

Yes, let's debate the empirical evidence for YOUR GOD, Chris!  That is the topic under discussion here.  Remember, I wrote the essay that you responded to; an essay that would never have been written were it not for the constant barrage of Christian evangelism that is imposed on society, including on my own fire department, and on me.  I was once "evangelized" by six other Christian firefighters simultaneously in the kitchen of one of our stations--a couple of them got really angry and I was called some colorful names when I kept using their own Bible against them--most Christians just parrot the rhetoric they get from the pulpits, but are actually pretty ignorant of what their Bible actually says).  And in that *first* email from you, you made the following claim:

 

BRUCE:

No doubt you don't see the least problem with making this and other unsupportable claims of "KNOW[ing]"!  You not only assume the existence of a God, but you assume the existence of your chosen God, and further presume to know the mind of said god in that you claim "God knows..."  You also claim to "KNOW" that sooner or later "[I'll] find out", as if you actually know that, which you don't!  Did you "know" of anything before you were born?  No, so it's presumptuous for you to assert that death will be any different.  So don't come to me with your rhetoric about objectivity and empirical evidence, Chris, because you have flatly demonstrated that when it comes to your own religious beliefs, you have none, you just assume the truth you want to be true and then, like a good sheep, you attempt to bring others into your flock (i.e., proselytizing, i.e., evangelizing, i.e., imposing your religion on others with intent).

 

My entire response comes in lieu of what proselytizing Christians, like yourself, have sought to impose on all of humanity, not the reverse!  

 

CHRIS:

It's also quite easy to build ANY position when you call evidence lies.  As a matter of fact, the credibility for everything else you DO state to support a reasonable and logical conclusion goes out the window when evidence against it is called nothing but lies.

 

BRUCE:

Well, again, since you provide no examples I can't really comment. 

 

 

A Lot "at Stake" to Lose?

 

CHRIS: 
I have, though, learned a bit about you and see that you have quite a bit at stake here with your organizations, forums and websites.   It's difficult to evaluate something so objectively when you have so much at stake. 

 

BRUCE:

"[S]o much at stake"?  What have I got at stake, Chris?  I already went through the many stages of turmoil in the process of coming to grips with the harsh reality of my Christian upbringing--a very difficult process considering that "believers" are anything but understanding of such de-conversions, and ultimately the doubter is blamed and ostracised for their "failure" to the community of faith.  Christians are notoriously cruel and insensitive to those who leave the faith, just as they are instructed to be in their own scripture (e.g., 2 Thessalonians 3:14; Titus 3:10; Titus 1:10-16; 1 John 2:18-19, 22, among many others). 

 

But I have no problems whatsoever going back to my former Christian convictions, Chris!  Indeed, I have made the public statement that I am not only open to the evidence for Jesus AT ANY TIME AND ANY WHERE, but I will make it my purpose in life to spread "His" Word to all the world should it occur!  I ask only one thing (as promised by your own scripture), just one single resurrection from the dead.  In fact, Chris, I will gladly accompany you to your church and speak to the "truth of the Christian God" should this one event ever occur.  I will gladly appear with Pat Robertson on the 700 Club.  I will gladly appear on Dobson's radio programs.  I will be a poster child for the Gospel!  I kid you not.  All I need is one single child to be resurrected from the dead, and I'm there!  Do you understand that?  So, Chris, here's your chance to be a "True Christian" and, with Matthew 14:13-14 and Mark 16:17-18 in hand, perform a resurrection of one dead child so that "the father may be glorified through the son" and I may be "saved" and other non-believers may also be saved subsequently through my conversion and evangelizing of the truth of Jesus.  When can we get started?  I'm ready!  Shall I fly out to meet with you or do you want to come here to perform the resurrection?  Shall I hold my breath?  No, probably not a good idea...  

 

My having a website comes not as a personal quest to refute "God" (whatever god of whatever religion)!  My writing is to oppose those people who have proclaimed for themselves a "God-given right" to proselytize and impose their dogma on the world!  My writings thus come in direct RESPONSE to the incessant imposing of Christian rhetoric on society; specifically your attempts to impose on public policy with blatant disregard for the Constitutional provision separating the state from the church: 

So the matter is simple, Chris, if you want to believe in the mythology surrounding Christianity, to the exclusion of all other myths; if believing that gives you comfort and pleasure, great, more power to you!  BUT UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE TO THE TRUTH OF YOUR RELIGION, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS, KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!   Christian proselytizing is worse than wrong, Chris, it is harmful both emotionally and physically, since you attach a nasty threat of pain, suffering and torture as something the person will have levied against them if they "fail" to accept your God--a psychological trauma they would not have otherwise been exposed to had you not taken it upon yourself to proselytize to them in the first place!  Christian proselytizing (like it's equally bloody Muslim counterpart) does nothing but inflict pain and suffering on others--the inevitable cancerous by-product of religious intolerance.

 

The day Christianity, in all of it's thousands of forms, manages to evolve out of it's primitive manifestations of exclusivity and self-serving rhetorical dogma, into something more conducive with tolerance and respect (and many sects are doing just this, much to the chagrin of the fundamentalists), then it will be necessary for people such as myself, humanitarians (who really do care and are sincerely interested in the bettering of human life in the here-and-now), to oppose your intolerant "mission" to convert the world, and with it the dissention, hate and destruction you leave in your wake.

 

Now, before you start jumping to conclusions here, Chris, let me say that this in no way means I think you are a bad person or that you have any intent to do harm--far from it!  To the contrary, I think it more likely that you are (like most people) a very good person who wants to help others; a fact that would be apparent by your (and my own) chosen profession.  What I am saying is that the good that we do has little if anything to do with what religion we profess, if any at all.  It is not being a "Christian" that makes you a good person, you would be good anyway!  Christians are no more moral or ethical or willing to help someone in need than an atheist or a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Muslim.  Because we are all homo sapiens, we are all humanitarians to some extent, and thus we seek to help each other when in need (it's a survival instinct).  We see as "evil" those things that cause harm and pain to us and conversely we see as "good" those things that give us pleasure and safety.  Quite often, in fact, the person will seek to help another in spite of the very religious doctrines s/he may aspire to follow, but selectively ignores for reasons of common sense and a rational discounting of ancient and outdated tribal customs that have no place in modern society.

 

CHRIS:

It's the same way with religion.  Most people will NOT objectively evaluate religion.  Why?  Because they're entire life and lifestyle is at stake here and an HONEST OBJECTIVE look at the facts requires putting all of that on the line.

 

BRUCE:

On this point, Chris, we are in 100 percent agreement!  But your religious convictions give you much more to lose than any atheist, agnostic, freethinker, or humanitarian.  You have an intense emotional attachment to your Christian beliefs (as I had once), but there is no such emotional tags for being a freethinker.  There are no atheist organizations that are going to stop doing business with me if I suddenly become a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Christian--but this happens in the Christian world all the time!  Here in Colorado Springs there is a "Christian Yellow Pages" book that comes out every year for Christians that only want to do business with other Christians.  I won't lose my wife or friends if I suddenly start believing again, but if you became an atheist, Chris, you most assuredly would lose many friendships and associations you have acquired through the church (I guarantee).  You may even lose your marriage if your wife is of the born-again super-evangelical variety.     

 

I know many ministers and former ministers from various sects of Christianity.  Some of these, like Dan Barker and Charles Templeton are very out-spoken, but others are not--they're in the closet, out of fear and financial necessity.  In fact, I know two ministers that have been in the ministry for many years (both 25+ years as ordained ministers) but are no longer believers, yet they continue to deliver sermons and maintain their positions.  Both of them feel bad about this ethically and want to get out, but because of other factors (e.g., shunning by family and friends, probable divorce, and having nothing to fall back on for financial stability--all very real concerns), they can't and feel trapped.  There are many like them out there, and I find it interesting that Christians can't distinguish any difference!

 

 

How about the "Fact" of the Hebrew and/or Christian God?

CHRIS: 
If you would like to debate a fact, pick a fact and let's debate it.

 

BRUCE:

That's precisely what I do!  This is also precisely why I require a transcript format, since it forces both parties to reply to *every point* rather than just picking-and-choosing what s/he thinks s/he can answer, while silently sweeping all the embarrassing or inconvenient problems under the carpet.  Creationists are especially adept at this--they play the either/or game in which they begin their arguments by assuming only two possibilities, either evolution/or creation--as if that even remotely covers the possibilities.  They then proceed from that starting assumption and seek to keep the focus of discussion on evolution rather than presenting the positive evidence for their Biblical creation story.  If they can discredit evolution then, by default, they claim that Biblical creation has been proven, which is ludicrous.

 

So, Chris, since you (i.e., your religion) are the one that claims I am subject to your god (whether I like it or not), and as such I am "sinful" and "deserving" of eternal pain and suffering in the Christian hell if I fail to accept your God and your religion, and that I came to be this way as a result of a literal Adam and Eve who ate a piece of seedless fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that grew in the center of a literal Garden of Eden, then I would like to see the supporting evidence to that end!  I want to see the FACTS on which you base your entire faith (Original sin)--the FACT of the Hebrew God purported to have "created the heavens and the earth," and subsequently flooded the earth, killing every living thing save for eight people along with two (or seven) of each animal, as reported in the Book of Genesis.

 

You presume yourself to be "honest" and "objective," so let's see it!

 

And, Chris, in the event you selectively try to reduce any of these biblical stories to be allegorical, then I will be demanding you support your reasoning for determining one to be allegorical and another to be literally true.

 

CHRIS:

Incidentally, congratulations on your chess accomplishments.  They are quite remarkable.

 

BRUCE:

Thank you.  I don't have time for traveling to tournaments any more, but I play a lot of correspondence chess.  It's not as fun as over-the-board tournament games, but it's still enjoyable.  Just one more thing on my plate. 

 

 

---

Part IV

---