Hide and seek losers go to Hell

 In this post we will be exploring the following reasons people give for being an atheist:

Reason 8: Child abuse (Polled 21 votes)

Reason 9: Religion is not natural, it is learned (Polled 20 votes)

Reason 10: I was not allowed to think freely (Polled 15 votes)

Reason 11: If God existed He wouldn’t hide (Polled 9 votes)

Reason 12: The lack of intelligence was unbearable (Polled 8 votes)

Reason 13: The very idea of Hell is immoral (Polled 7 votes) 

Reason 14: I asked for a sign and was not given one (Polled 3 votes)

Reason 15: Extreme hide and seek, losers go to hell (Polled 3 votes)

Reason 16:  The division of the church (Polled 3 votes)

Reason 17: Too many gods (Polled 2 votes)

Reason 18: The religion turned smart people into idiots (Polled 2 votes) 

Reason 19: Your religion is based on where you were born (Polled 2 votes) 

Reason 20: The religion was based on fear (Polled 1 Vote)

Reason 21: Heaven sounds terrible (Polled 1 Vote)

Reasons that did not receive votes but I have heard them before: 

Reason 22: It was my parent’s/guardian's religion, not mine (Polled 0 votes)

Reason 23: God expects too much (Polled 0 votes) 

For a supposed being so invested in forming a relationship with humanity, God couldn’t seem to do worse to make that supposed reality evident. Reading documents that God supposedly produced, either directly or indirectly, one might be led to expect to witness overt acts of God on the regular, or at the very least some effort, on behalf of God, to form a relationship with each person. Especially if a relationship is essential to every person’s deliverance from a future ripe with eternal suffering. Otherwise, it seems at best that God doesn’t care and at worst that He wants us all to suffer eternally. 

Let’s say we can manage to get past the lack of effort on God’s side and assume that, for whatever reason, the burden of effort is meant to fall solely, or at least at first, on the shoulders of each individual. Well, I guess we better start searching for God then, but there are yet more issues. 

There are some 4,300 religions in the world (according to www.theregister.com ) and it would take over a lifetime to vet them all. 

Let’s say we can get past that and by the works of the Holy Spirit we are somehow led to Christianity. We are now faced with between 30k to 40k different denominations of Christianity (depending on the resource). Many of the denominations are divided because of interpretation differences that cause different denominations to worry for the salvation of the others. Meanwhile, most of the denominations claim to be led by the Holy Spirit and so claim they are right and the others are wrong. 

Let’s say somehow you manage to find a denomination that you feel is true to the essentials of Christianity. You are now likely faced with a God who is claimed to be infinite, thereby the nature of God is unfathomable to your limited human brain. Furthermore, God is claimed to be the essence of goodness, therefore your understanding of the nature of God will always be flawed to some extent because you are cursed by sin to not always be able to distinguish good from bad in every situation. 

Just by considering these things, it becomes evident that should correctness in an understanding of God be important in any way, such as being important to not being thrown into Hell, then we are all likely doomed regardless of what we do or do not believe. 

This raises two important questions that threaten the value of hoping for the existence of a benevolent God.

First, why would a benevolent God make it important for us to have specific information about it when it is nearly impossible for us to get said information? 

Second, why wouldn’t a benevolent God make its existence and nature abundantly clear to each person, especially if such information is so important? 

As for the first question, which lies at the root of several reasons people give for being an atheist, we need to consider another question first, namely, does the religion in question require correctness in one’s understanding of God? A strong argument can be made that correctness in an understanding of God is not necessary so far as Christianity is concerned. 

Christianity is based on a story wherein God comes unto humanity in the flesh, and the religious leaders cling so tightly to their limited and flawed ideas of who God ought to be that they do not recognize their own God and so have Him killed for blasphemy. Meanwhile the sinners and less religious are more than happy to let go of their ideas of who God ought to be and accept Him for who He is. God, in turn, blesses those who were humble enough to let go of their flawed understanding, the sinners and less religious, and condemns those who clung to their flawed understandings of God, the well educated religious leaders. 

If salvation were a matter of having a correct, or at least mostly correct, understanding of God, God would have blessed the religious leaders and condemned the others, but that is not what happens. What happened instead would seem to suggest that salvation must be a matter of having humility enough to acknowledge that your understanding is limited and flawed so that you can receive correction and have the opportunity to accept God for who He is. 

This is not universalism, for not everyone will accept God over the idol of their flawed understanding. Additionally, many may receive correction but reject God even still. However, it does open the door to salvation for all people; people with a completely wrong understanding of God, people with no understanding of God, people without sufficient information to even believe a God exists at all. All of these people have an opportunity to accept God for who He is via their humility. 

Therefore, being born in the right place, being born to the right family, being born with an innate belief in God’s existence, finding the correct religion, finding the correct denomination, or the reception of a clear sign of God’s existence, all are rendered unnecessary. Additionally, the forced indoctrination of children, restrictions on free-thinking, restrictions on skepticism, restrictions on doubt, or restriction on accepted scientific findings, these too are all unnecessary. 

Where salvation is a matter of having intellectual humility, there is the freedom to be wrong. Where there is the freedom to be wrong, there is no fear of damnation. Where there is no fear of damnation, people enter a relationship with God because they choose to, and not because they feel forced to against any desire for the contrary. 

Some would counter saying salvation is just a matter of accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior, however, a complete and faultless understanding of Jesus is just as unachievable, especially if Jesus is God incarnate. Which understanding of Jesus do you have to accept? Does it count if someone’s concept of Jesus is not God? What if their concept of Jesus resembles Hitler?

Should salvation be a matter of accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior, it must be through humility enough to let go of limited and faulty understandings so that you can accept Jesus for who He is, just as in the story of the gospels.

As for the second question, apart from the lack of necessity for God to make His existence obvious for the present (as explained above), I speculate a few possible reasons for God's potential inactivity. 

First, God might have been so active in the past because He wanted to equip humanity to be able to partake in their redemption. 

Second, He might have been so active because He wanted to keep the humans who were willing to work with Him alive and willing. 

Jesus would have come to finish the job; to finish equipping humanity with everything we need to partake in our redemption. Furthermore, eventually the humans willing to work with God no longer faced threats of being completely wiped out. 

So once God no longer needed to equip humanity or prevent humanity from wiping out any hope of its redemption, His intervention was no longer as necessary.

Third, as mentioned before, by not making His existence clear to everyone, choosing to follow Him becomes more a matter of preference than a feeling of obligation. It would seem that God would rather us choose to follow Him out of our desire rather than a feeling of obligation (lest God just make His existence obvious to everyone). 

Fourth, the Bible focuses only on those moments in human history when God was supposedly active. So when we read the Bible, it feels like God is super active, but there are hundreds of years between many of the stories. 

Finally, there is my case. If there is a God, I’m not sure I am meant to know for certain. Otherwise, I would have never felt the need to go on this journey and write this document which may prove helpful to others as they struggle to make decisions about their beliefs. I think I may be as uncertain as I am for the likes of them. Perhaps others are in the same boat.

I am not afraid of not knowing. As I’ve said before, should there be a God, we are all doomed to die with flawed understandings of it. The God we will all meet after death, should there be a God at all, will be different from what anyone expects. 

Those who will not enter Heaven will likely see a God they do not recognize and believe Him to be some force of evil. They will mistake Heaven for Hell and so go looking for Heaven elsewhere in a world under the sole authority of humanity. That world will be Hell, and the suffering therein will be purely a product of humanities selfishness, lack of foresight, and well-intended atrocities, as God grants them their heart's true desire, a world without it, a being that could help humanity navigate these flaws and shortcomings, in it.

As for those who enter Heaven, they will bring forth the potential of creation and worship God through exploration, inventions, and the ways they use their authority to service creation. 

Scientific research will no longer be hindered by corporate greed nor will it come at the cost of the environment. It will flourish and bring life in ways we could never imagine now. 

Humanity will explore the endless wonders of the stars and go on discovering the limitless wonders of God's creation for eternity.

In the next post, we will be taking a look at the flaws and eyesores of the Holy Bible and the effects they have on the worth of hope for the existence of God.

Next Post: The holey book

Previous Post: The imaginary God

Questions for my readers:

What are your thoughts on the premise that humans are not equipped to acquire a complete understanding of God? 

What are your thoughts on the premise that, should God be the essence of all goodness, humans, in their limitations and corruption, are incapable of a faultless understanding of God?

What are your thoughts on the assertion, based on the previous premises, that correctness cannot be a factor in salvation lest humanity be doomed?

What are your thoughts on my suggestion that salvation may be more a matter of having humility enough to receive correction than a matter of believing the right things about God? 

What are your thoughts on the notion that salvation based on accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour also requires a certain amount of correctness in understanding?

What are your thoughts about my speculations as to why God may be less active, or otherwise less evident, in our modern times?

What are your thoughts on my take on the nature of Hell?

What are your thoughts on my take on the nature of Heaven? 

The imaginary God

 In this post we will be exploring the following reasons people give for being an atheist:

Reason 1: There is no scientific evidence for God (Polled 56 votes)

Reason 2: The religion was inconsistent with reality (Polled 46 votes)

Reason 3: Real miracles don’t happen (Polled 12 votes) 

Reason 4: I couldn’t find a good reason to believe in God (Polled 11 votes)

Reason 5: Animals don’t talk (Polled 6 votes)

Reason 6: Reality is not dependent on any God (Polled 4 votes)

Reason 7: Science disproves God’s existence (Polled 2 votes)

Everything you know about the nature of the universe, all of your knowledge, exists as patterns on your brain that have developed via the input of senses. 

Unfortunately, these senses are vulnerable to being faulty or manipulated. Should they all be faulty and or manipulated, you would have no way of knowing for certain if anything you are experiencing is real. Even the five people who you ask to verify your senses could be a manifestation of your faulty or manipulated senses. 

So where does that leave us? What you are left with is that the only thing you can be even remotely certain of is that you exist. This is called Solipsism. 

Why then should we believe anything at all?

Personally, since my senses seem consistent, I can manage to pull from them some semblance of my existence potentially being meaningful, and I innately value the potential meaningfulness of my existence. 

Even should my senses start to become somewhat inconsistent, for example, should I get a brain tumor that causes me to hallucinate, so long as I can account for the defect enough to ignore it, I can manage a meaningful existence. 

So we can manage to get past our lack of certainty in reality by deriving valuable meaning from the consistency of the patterns in our brain. So naturally, any information we manage to gather through consistent observations of our universe is immensely valuable. 

Though there is an issue. Namely, the reality we observe suggests that, at some point, the universe will essentially cease to exist. Thus our existence will ultimately be meaningless making the meaning we pull from our observations paradoxical.

How tragic that everything in our observed reality points to the ultimate meaninglessness of it all. 

One may be tempted to wonder if there exists something beyond what we have observed which can save us from this seemingly inevitable fate? However, the moment we choose to believe in such a thing lacking observations, we will have rejected a piece of knowledge made meaningful through the only thing we have, consistent observation, and, in doing so, we will have rejected the value of consistent observation itself. If we choose to reject one consistent observation then why believe any consistent observation at all?

I agree with this sentiment. I choose to accept the reality I observe. That reality being that I will die and the universe will evaporate into oblivion, and any meaningful existence is to be had in the time I am privileged to be alive. I cannot accept God as a part of the reality I observe, for I have not observed God at all, let alone with any amount of consistency, thus I cannot assert to know that He exists. 

However, such a matter does not discard God’s existence from the table of possibilities. It merely categorizes the existence of God as a hypothesis and nothing more. 

Theories require some matter of consistent observable evidence and the best evidence we have is records of claims which cannot be replicated without God’s collaboration. Such collaboration, should there be any, would seem to have been withheld from public observation; restricting concrete evidence to chosen individuals. The testimony of individuals, which cannot be replicated with consistency by everyone, is not viable evidence for classification as a theory.

Therefore, God’s existence, while possible, lacks any compelling evidence which would demand belief on behalf of anyone who desires for their perception of a consistent reality to maintain meaning and value. 

Hope, on the other hand, one can find hope in the possibility of the hypothesis of God’s existence without compromising the value and meaning of consistent observations; so long as God’s existence is never asserted as anything more than a hypothesis, hope is not intellectually compromising. 

So, where my observations tell me that the meaningfulness of my life is subjectively temporary, I can combat the paradox through hope in the possibility of the existence of a benevolent God.

Likewise, I can hope for the possibility of miraculous events, a miracle hypothesis, without compromising the reality I observe.

In conclusion, our existence is meaningful because we can seem to gain knowledge of reality through consistent observations. To reject the reality we observe in favor of something we have not observed is to undermine the meaningfulness of our existence. However, where meaningful existence is threatened by what we observe, further meaning can be gleaned through hope in the hypothetical. So long as those things hoped for are never held in the place of scientific theories and laws, and so long as they do not compel you into willful ignorance, they do not compromise the meaning one gleans from that which is consistently observable.

The question we are then left with is whether or not God is worth hoping for. In the next post, we will dive into the issue of God’s neglect and the effect that has on the worth of hope for the existence of God.

Next Post: Hide and seek losers go to Hell

Previous Post: Introduction

Questions for my readers: 

What are your thoughts about the assertion that humans are incapable of certainty? 

What are your thoughts about the reason I give for why we choose to believe our senses?

What are your thoughts about the idea that if we reject the reality we can observe with consistency in favor of something we cannot, we are undermining the meaningfulness of our existence? 

What are your thoughts about the notion that one can hope for that which remains unobserved without undermining the meaningfulness of our existence?

50 Reasons people give for being an atheist

Introduction

Approximately nine years ago, an atheist respectfully made me aware of some highly hypocritical expectations of mine.

I had approached him with the expectation that he would consider rejecting his position as an atheist in favor of Christianity. Somehow I was surprised when he requested that I also consider rejecting my position as a Christian in favor of atheism.

This simple exchange made me realize that I was asking Him to takes steps towards considering Christianity that I, as a person raised in the steeps of Christianity, had never taken. I had no idea what the journey from atheist to Christian would be like. 

When I tried to imagine how I might have become a Christian had I started as an atheist, I realized that, with my reluctance to consider worldviews outside of my own, I might have never become a Christian. In fact, with the mindset I had at the time, should Christianity be false, I would never come to discover that reality either.

I was taught to believe that my position as a Christian was the correct one by means of faith. Furthermore, to question my correctness would be to have little faith. So naturally, I was hesitant to consider atheism and question my Christianity. 

Eventually, I came to understand faith differently. I believed that truth would triumph over lies when both were placed under scrutiny. Therefore, to fear pitting my Christianity against the criticisms of atheists would be a greater lack of faith in the truth of my beliefs. So I began the journey to consider the criticisms of atheists. A journey that was not so one-sided as I had thought it might be.

This blog series exists as a record of the way this journey has shaped my present position. My intention for this series is not to convince anyone to agree with my position. After all, one of the things I have learned is that my position is both based on my limited and flawed understandings. My intention for this series is to open myself up to criticisms from both sides so that I can discover the limits and flaws of my understanding. Furthermore, so that I can garner assurance from both sides that I have given each a fair shake so to speak.

Should this blog happen to help anyone identify which side they prefer, regardless of the side they choose, I am happy I might have helped you in your journey. 

This series is the more condensed, less redundant, up to date version of another version that exists on this blog.

Please read on and leave your thoughts in the comments, and follow for updates as I continue this journey.

Next post: The Imaginary God

False Teachers

As my wife and I continue the enriching journey of spiritual rediscovery, we are finding that our beliefs are frequently changing and growing. Oftentimes these changes are exciting and comforting as they enlighten our understanding of the human condition and the hope we can have in spite of our world’s bleak fate. Other times these changes are scary and uncomfortable as they shift us away from some beliefs that we once thought of as highly important. 

It is these ladder changes that lead to a recent conversation with my wife. She expressed a fear of hers. She feared that we might lead people away from the truth by unwittingly teaching falsehoods. I could relate having wrestled with this fear various times in the past. Though interestingly, I no longer felt that same fear, and I knew why. 

There are two things I know for certain about my understanding of God. First, seeing that what is limited cannot fully comprehend what is unlimited, my understanding is incomplete. Second, seeing that God is goodness and my sin keeps me from knowing good from bad in every situation, my understanding is flawed. Furthermore, unless anyone should be without limit or be morally perfect, I assume that these two things are true about everyone’s understanding of God. 

The thing about an incomplete understanding is that you cannot know in what capacity your understanding is incomplete; same goes for a flawed understanding. Therefore, you can never be certain of the extent of the limits and flaws corrupting any lesson taught by a human. Furthermore, you cannot account for the effect of a student’s own limits and flaws on interpreting the message. In other words, there is no teaching about God without corruption through limited and flawed understanding. 

What then separates a false teacher from a righteous one? On these premises you could make a valid argument that there is no difference and then fully embrace agnosticism. Personally, I find little to no hope in doing that. What hope is there in a belief in God who is closed to relationship with His creation, not permitting an extent of Himself to be known and not correcting the misunderstandings of those who will accept correction? 

As many atheists like to ask, “What is the difference between a disengaged God and no God at all?” In asking this it is assumed that there is no good answer. I don’t have one, so I’m not about to argue with the point. 

There is, on the other hand, a hope to be found in an engaged God, and it is in such a God that I value hope for. What then separates a false teacher from righteous ones? Here are the traits I believe qualify a false teacher:

• Someone who teaches what they believe to be false as though they believed it to be true.

• Deceivers

• Someone who is willfully ignorant, refusing to question the validity of their beliefs; they do not recognize the limits and faults of their understanding and do not seek correction.

• Idolaters of limited and faulty understanding.

How this relates to me personally. I have been trusted as a Sunday school teacher in the Wesleyan church yet I have come to hold beliefs contrary to the beliefs of the Wesleyan church. For those who may be concerned by this, be assured, I recognize that Sunday school in this case is meant to be a time to teach/learn about the Wesleyan beliefs, not a time to teach my personal beliefs. 

I have no issue teaching the Wesleyan beliefs so long as I have the freedom to make known when I disagree, of course without going into details about my personal beliefs in class. Should I teach on a Wesleyan belief that I don’t necessarily believe, I will teach saying, “Though I personally disagree with the Wesleyan church on this point, traditionally in the Wesleyan church it is believed that…” meanwhile reserving my own opinion for time not dedicated to the study of the Wesleyan beliefs.

If anyone would like to suggest a different approach to how I should handle my teaching situation I would be happy to discuss it. Thank you all for your contributions. 

Systemic Racism

The term “systemic racism” has caused a lot of controversy as of late, and honestly I was not sure what to do with it for a while. However, after much research and conversations with my incredible wife, this is the understanding I have come to hold. I want to share it as a point of discussion. Perhaps it is flawed or can be improved. So please feel free to contribute to the conversation. 

There are two kinds of systemic racism in my opinion. 

There are systems produced by racists to target people of color. For example, red lining, a system built to intentionally target black people to prevent them from being able to get home loans and government subsidies. I think that most people can agree that this is a racist system.

However there is another type of systemic racism. One that Is less understood and thus is causing the conflict. The best way my wife and I can describe it is using an analogy she came up with. Namely, just as a system which produces hamburgers is a hamburger system, so too is a system which produces racism a racist system. 

The United States has done a good job removing the fist kind of systemic racism; red lining among other things is now illegal. However the effects of those systems have made black people disproportionately susceptible to impoverished situations, which brings them up against other systems that are rigged against poor people; systems which hurt movement between income brackets. 

These systems may not have been built to target black people, however, combined with the aftermath of past systemic racism, they have helped to make the face of poverty a black face. 

Someone near and dear to me once said that they are more wary of black people, not because they are racist, but because it is just factual that black people are more proportionately impoverished and thus more likely to do something desperate. 

Though this person does not consider themselves to be racist, because they don’t believe black people are inferior racially, just more financially unfortunate, they still exhibit racist tendencies. Others will look at the disproportionate amount of people of color in poverty and draw implicit or explicit racist conclusions of superiority. 

These tendencies manifest in implicit bias’, people with ethnic sounding names not getting job call backs, people of color not being trusted, people of color being assumed to be unsafe, (feel free to add to the list in the comments) and so on. 

Therefore, because past systemic racism has made people of color disproportionately affected by other systems of inequity, making the face of poverty a black face, thereby producing racism in the population at large. These systems are systemically racist and we need to acknowledge our bias’, and work together to dismantle them, eliminating the racism that has infected our world.

So let's discuss solutions to these issues in the comments.

The Legitimate Points of Rhett McLaghlin

On Monday 2/3/2020, Rhett and Link released the most recent podcast episode in a series where they break down their spiritual journeys. I listened to it and would highly recommend anyone do the same. Though make sure you start with the first episode entitled “Our Lost Years” (you can find a link at the bottom of this post). Fair warning, this series of podcasts may shake your beliefs, but if you intend to make an informed decision about God then you owe it to yourself, and anyone you try to share the Gospel with, to listen to this. Yesterday, today is 2/4/2020, was Rhett’s story and Next Monday is Link’s story, which I look forward to. 

I’m going to be straight with you all, my story is a lot like Rhett’s. I’ve asked the same questions and suffered through the same crises. I relate to Rhett’s story a lot, and in yesterday’s episode, Rhett presented the most respectful, rational, honest, and valid list of reasons I have ever heard to not be a Christian. I agree with him on every point, and yet, there are a few key differences between his story and mine that are why I remain a Chistian. No, I am not better than him because of this. My reasons are no more or less valid than his. They are just different. Whether my reasons for remaining a Christian are better than his reasons for leaving is a matter up for each person to decide for themselves, but this blog post is not about that. This blog post is going to be less a criticism of Rhett’s story and more of a criticism of modern Christianity in light of the very legitimate criticisms Rhett has brought to the table. 

Let me start by posing this question to all of my Christian readers. Is it possible for a limited and flawed human being, to have a complete and flawless understanding of an unlimited and flawless God? I suspect that most would be inclined to answer “no”, if not, I’m not sure anything I have to say will mean anything to you. If you answered “no”, then that would mean that you recognize a difference between God as you understand Him and God as He actually is. This means that there will come a time when you stand before God and find that He is not exactly who you expected Him to be. 

You may be more correct than others were, but you will still be faced with the fact that you were wrong to some extent. I have no way of knowing how this will be resolved, but I imagine God will know whether you truly desire Him as your Lord or if you prefer the idol of your limited and faulty understanding.

Let me pose you another question. What then makes you any different then the non-Christians who will find themselves standing before a God they do not know? If your answer is that you accepted Jesus and your Lord and Savior and they didn’t, read my first question again but this time replace the word God with the name Jesus. He remains the only way to life, the only truth, but suddenly humanity is on a more level playing field; there is truly not one who is fully correct and fully faultless, whether you are a Chistian or not.

These questions reveal a lot. However, I want to focus on the point that there is no one with a complete and faultless understanding of God; you and I, and everyone else, is wrong about God to some extent, unless there is no God, in which case only the atheists are right. Pair this with my first blog post in the “Exploring 50 reasons to be an atheist” series, my “The Value of Meaning” post, and every point Rhett makes, and suddenly it becomes clear that certainty in anything is not a luxury allotted to human beings. 

Therefore, let us stop requiring Christians to assert that they are 100% certain in what they believe. Jesus, did not require 100% certainty of any of His disciples prior to entering a relationship with them. In fact, Jesus seemed less concerned with the certainty of his disciples and more concerned with their confidence. Furthermore, He was well aware that neither certainty nor confidence are a binary thing but each exists on a spectrum, hence His regular referral to “little faith” or mustard seed size faith; faith being synonymous with confidence, as it is the confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11:1).

It is not a sin nor is it wrong in any way to have little faith/confidence. So let us stop acting like it is. From personal experience, I’m not even sure “big” faith is something we are all meant to have. Lately I’ve gotten the feeling that the main reason God has not been obvious with me about His existence is because of the burden He has placed on my heart for all of the people who wrestle with the fact that they lack certainty. If I never had to wrestle with lacking solid evidence then I might not have been able to truly hear and understand where the atheists and agnostics are coming from. 

Much like Rhett, I have exchanged my attempts to be certain for my desire to have hope. However, unlike Rhett, in spite of all of the Holy Bible’s flaws, I still find that its narrative, brings a more appealing Hope than I have found anywhere else. Granted, my take on the Holy Bible is not widely agreed upon, as you will learn should you follow my blog. There are many understandings of Christianity that present a hope that I do not find appealing, some even, like some mentioned by Rhett, that I find appalling. So I cannot blame people for rejecting Christianity. Furthermore, I still have yet to address the 475 contradictions in the Bible.This blog is mutually my effort to seek a greater Hope than what I have, and an effort to offer the hope I have to anyone who needs it. So we will see how my stance changes as I take that journey. 

As you can imagine, researching 475 contradictions takes a lot of time and effort, and presently I can only give what little freetime I have toward conducting it. If you have found my blog to be valuable, please consider buying me more time to work on this by supporting me on Patreon (follow the link at the top of the page). If things start picking up I may even be able to start offering additional rewards to those who choose to support me. Regardless of if you can give or not, thank you for supporting me by reading, sharing, and providing pushback/feedback. 

The Earbiscuts Youtube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYCgz-MiNE4

EarBiscuts on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3j9nu2qpJrUxEXp5qMudM7 

Pointless Hot Topic Issues: Debates that will only ever be a waste of time

Once upon a debate, I came to the realization that debating certain popular topics was often a pointless endeavor. I have known this for some time but it was not until recently that I finally developed an effective way of explaining why debating these topics is just a waste of everyone’s time.

I had just gotten in touch with an atheist to address a question he had asked broadly to theists. We had a pleasant conversation which lead to him asking for my thoughts on another post of his. 

The post merely asked if humans are moral by nature or if our morality is to be attributed to religion. He made the claim that if it is natural, then that would mean religions are falsely atributting natural moral progress to their religious influence.

The trouble with asking, “which is correct” with regards to this question of ethical development, is that both positions are completely valid with respect to their fundamental worldview. 

If God does not exist then all moral development can be attributed to human development. 

Furthermore, if God does exist then, speaking specifically from the Christian worldview, perfect ethics has its roots in the ethics defined by God in the time before humanity's rebellion.

So what we have is a debate between two positions where the validity of each position is based upon what position you take on a related topic; namely whether or not you take the position of God existing. Even worse, the validity of which position you take regarding the related topic is rooted in the position you take in yet another related topic; namely is God’s existence possible. 

The resulting debate is an unproductive tennis match between two people who think they are winning over their opponent when in reality neither agrees upon how the game is supposed to be played in the first place. 

Therefore, if someone takes a different position than you on a topic, do not debate them on the matter unless you can first both agree on all of the same determining points. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time, or worse, deafening the ears of your opponent to any sensible thing you may have to say in the future.

This same principle applies to just about every hot topic issue.

If God does not exist, then evolution is a given with regards to explaining how life began. 

If God does exist, then evolution is not necessary to explain how life began, though it may or may not still be an active part of the how biological life works. 

If God does not exist then the ethics of abortion are a matter of personal opinion or some manner of evolutionary ethical progress.

If God does exist, and if He dictates that unborn life is of equal value to that of the mother’s life, then abortion may be considered on par with murder. 

If God does not exist, then the ethics of LGBTQ topics are a matter of personal opinion or some manner of evolutionary ethical progress. 

If God does exist, and if He dictates that the LGBTQ movement is harmful to humanity, then the LGBTQ moevment should probably be opposed. 

If God does not exist, then the Holy Bible is full of crazy impossible myths, and should never be taken seriously. 

If God does exist, then the Holy Bible is full of very possible events that could be a part of our history and essential to how we prepare for the future. 

If God does not exist, whether global warming is a hoax or not depends on how you interpret the evidence and scientific findings. 

If God does exist, whether global warming is a hoax or not still depends on how you interpret the evidence and scientific findings. Please reserve church pulpits for topics pertaining to God and salvation so as not to drive people away from God with unrelated opinions. Also, God’s promise not to flood the whole earth again does not protect us from human caused flooding, nor would global warming result in the “whole” earth being flooded.

If the evidence for global warming is true, then global warming is a serious issue that we should take action to prevent. 

If the evidence for global warming has been manipulated, then the consequences of abusing the environment may not be as dire as claims suggest. Regardless, taking care of our environment improves the quality of life for people present and people in the future. So we ought to take care of the environment as a way to love our neighbors. The fact that the world is going to end someday does not mean we shouldn’t bother doing good by others.  

Both sides of each above topic is completely valid with respect to the position taken on the determining topics (the determining topic in this case being the existence of God). Unless you first agree with someone on all root points preceding a topic, do not waste your time and hurt your rapport by debating it.