A Friendly Discussion

Through several emails, the following was formed. I hadn't spent much time discussing my thoughts on the subject, least of all with someone who did not agree with me. There are things I noticed, when looking it over. I later found that I had sought to test the strength of my views.

Michael - "Hey Chad,

I have for the past few months been entertained by blogs, various readings and countless youtube videos about religion, atheism, and anything else relative.

So I'm inviting you, someone with a perspective different than my own while also someone who I regard as an open minded critical thinker, to take part in a friendly discussion about religion and the existence of God.

My position is agonistic-atheism and, if I'm not mistaken, your position is theism. If I have labelled your position inaccurately, please correctly state your position."

Chad - "I consider myself to be an intelligent educated man. Your naming of me as a theist is somewhat vague, I am a Christian, and while I am most definitely not a scholar of theological matters, I find your proposition of a friendly discussion to be rather intriguing. Hopefully everyone who either takes part in the conversation, or follows along with us, will take something positive away with them when all is said and done.

I can't promise to have all the answers, but I can and will try to provide as much accurate and adequate information as I can lay hands on. As this is your idea, and not to mention your space, I now leave the floor open to you so we can begin. "

Mike - "Okay. Based on my growing understanding, Christianity is a Bronze Age myth that evolved into a tool of control and has altered and changed to suit the needs of the time in order to maintain authority. Over time, it seems that there has been a change of Christianity's validity of being completely factual to being otherwise, but still seems to maintain a claim of there being a supernatural force. In effect, it is now being popularized as being a collection of stories where its message is of value, and not its questionable content. A clear example of its shifting ability to become whatever it needs to do to maintain existence and influence, is this change which appears to be a result of its failed attack on the evolutionary theory.

1. What was it that you believed was proof enough for you to believe in the Christian god?
2. Should that proof change, would you still believe?
3. If the message of Christianity is important and not its validity, isn't that an admittance of there not being a Christian god? And why if then, should people carry on believing?"

Chad - "Wow, 'friendly discussion' indeed... I think we may need to discuss what the ultimate goal is here, are you trying to gain understanding and/or insight into the Christian perspective as it applies to me? Or are you trying to validate your own perspective via attempting to discredit opposing views?

To respond: Yes, throughout history there are those who have attempted to use Christianity as a means to control others. You will find with even the basest research that this is the case with any thought or ideal held by a group of people.

This in itself doesn't invalidate Christianity, otherwise things like 'Freedom' would be invalid as well, since the concept of freedom has been used to control people just as often if not more than Christianity. Though come to think of it, freedom in itself may be a poor comparison, as nobody is truly 100% free. Maybe free will would fit better.

I firmly believe the Bible is in fact a work of complete fact, and have the wonderful science of archaeology to thank for proving the facts of the Bible time and time again.

Yes there are those who claim to be Christians, that rather than stand by their beliefs, give in to societal pressure and go on about how the Bible is just a bunch of stories put together to steer us in the right direction. These people are more than likely from a Christian background, who have fallen away and want to assuage their conscience by trying to make the beliefs of their parents fit their own views.
The majority of real Christians hold to the truth of the Bible as the Word of God, unfortunately we tend to be less vocal about it in the public eye as the general public tends to label anyone who speaks about Christ as truth to be a wackjob.

To answer your numbered questions:
1. The thing that made me first believe in the message of Christ and the 'Christian God' as you put it, was the fact that all of creation is just a little to neat and tidy to be the result of pure chance. Even modern science can't begin to figure out the purely infinitesimal probabilities required for us to exist, yet here we are.

2. Honestly if science were suddenly able to figure it all out, I believe it would just reinforce my belief.

3. Your third question is rather a moot point, if the message of Christianity were invalid, it would inherently have no meaning. You assume that the validity of the message has been disproved, when it has not.

Let me ask you 3 questions in direct response to your own.
1. What was it that you believed was proof enough for you to discount the existence of the Christian God?
2. Should that proof change, would you believe?
3. If the message of Christianity is important yet you firmly deny it's validity why do you feel the need for this discussion?"

Mike - "Great reply!

You posed a question to start and if I answer your numbered questions first, the answer should be clear.

1. I can't recall ever having discounted the existence of any god.
2. Absolutely.
3. Curiosity for one, and likely there are other reasons I or we, will discover. As I had mentioned in my initial email, "I have for the past few months been entertained by blogs, various readings and countless youtube videos about religion, atheism, and anything else relative." I think your question pushes for more information. (thinking . . .) It is a very controversial topic, and I have been enthralled by it. Just ask my (Christian) roommate Paul. I could join the rabble on youtube, but it isn't as enjoyable.

I can agree that control via religion does not invalidate the religion.

Where you stated "the Bible is in fact a work of complete fact, and have the wonderful science of archaeology to thank for proving the facts of the Bible time and time again". It reminds me of a youtube blogger who stated the same thing. Can you give me a link or an example? I asked that blogger for more information and instead waited 5 months for him to approve my comment as well as a tacky bible address and quote as a response. >:[

I don't agree that Christians who claim that the bible is a collection of stories built for moral direction are lesser in their belief than those who claim it all to be true. A Christian priest was interviewed and I watched the video on youtube. His interview was his response to Bill Mahers "Religulous" movie, where he was attempting to diffuse Bill Mahers documentary by stating that the 'message' of the bible is god's word, and that the bible is not full of factual events. He went on to talk about one particular author of the bible as an example, backing his statements by claim that research had been conducted by Christian scholars.

I'm not sure where or by what way the Christian bible states the age of the world, but when you state that the bible is complete fact, are you implying that the world is around 6000 years old? From what I see, archaeology claims that the world is far older than 6000 years. How can the wonderful science of archaeology be regarded as means of supporting the Christian bible if it is horrendously wrong on the age of the world? 65,000,000 and 6,000 are not close numbers."

- - -

A continueing post between Chad and I will be made after subsequent communication is made on the topic furthering the discussion for as long as it entertains us both.

Indirectly to my discussion with Chad (but still in a wide range ballpark), I watched Ben Stein's EXPELLED "No Intelligence Allowed", and will post about it after I catch some Zs. G'night.

Photo: Taken in Beijing 2007 in a tightly packed shopping mall of hundreds of tiny 12' x 8' stores. This photo seems to be describing Astroboy, as it shows the name, but the actual description is describing someone called 'Atom'. I fail at recalling the entire story of the Astroboy cartoon. The image was displayed on the exterior of a store where businesses commonly showed their business names. This business in particular sold clothing, and nothing that related to Astroboy. Sort of interesting, sort of mundane. /shrug