Especially for Christians

Although the following was written by an ex-Christian, his words are primarily directed TO Christians. (Actually, he wrote more than this, but I selected a portion of his post that I felt was especially relevant.)

My reason for re-posting his message is because I’m hoping some of my Christian readers/followers will look it over and share your thoughts and comments. While I feel pretty certain many of you will disagree with some (or all) of what he wrote, I would really like to know why you disagree.

What has he said that you feel is wrong? Where is he mistaken? Would you be willing to share your thoughts/opinions?

Note to Non-Christian/Atheist Readers:

PLEASE do not post any thoughts or comments. I don’t want to start a war of words. I honestly would like to hear the believer’s side related to what this blogger has written — and I want them to feel safe when doing so. If I don’t get any comments at all, then so be it. 

Thank you for your understanding.

I do not call myself an atheist, though I am not convinced by any stories of God. They all lack evidence and therefore fail, in my opinion. I guess I am technically an atheist by definition, but I prefer to just go by Ben. I think it suits me better. So rather than respond to all of the posts about what an atheist is or is not, I thought I would try to correct some misconceptions here. 


First and foremost, atheists do not enjoy “living in sin.” That is not a misunderstanding. It is a lie. Atheists are not without morals just because they lack faith. Atheism is not a group that condones murder, rape, incest, violence, theft, or dishonesty. They are not without compassion for their fellow man. Atheists are just people like anyone else. Living in sin? What does that even mean? Not following the Bible? Not believing in Jesus? Not buying into the story? Is that what they mean? I already said that atheists do not enjoy “living in sin.” So if you take out all of the bad things humans can do to other humans, all that is left is humans’ views and practices regarding God. Since atheists are unconvinced of God’s existence, this is irrelevant. You can’t “sin” against God if he is not there. I do not personally know any atheist who lives their life constantly rejoicing in their rejection of God. It’s really a non-issue and they simply focus on their own lives. That’s it.

Secondly, atheists do not see evidence of God and reject it in order to live lives of debauchery. There is no credible evidence of the existence of God, Jesus or any of the Bible characters. There is no evidence that prayer works. Actual studies on intercessory prayers (praying on behalf of others) showed that prayer has no detectable effect on the outcome of those being prayed over. Here are some statistics from some studies done.

The “evidence” provided by believers, such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the fine-tuning argument, having a conscience, the argument of design, ontological arguments and any other argument you can think of, has nothing resembling concrete proof of anything. It’s all speculation and conjecture. The fact that there is a debate over the existence of a personal God is clear enough evidence that one does not exist. A personal God would not be hidden, and yet we cannot see one, hear one, feel one, communicate with one or sense one in any way. If one exists, it is most certainly existing in a state of constant hiding.

Atheists are not “shaking their fists at God.” They simply remain unconvinced. If atheists believed in God and believed in the wrath and punishments of God, they would not “shake their fists” at him. They would follow. There is one thing that would convince every last unbeliever. There is one thing that would make us hit our knees in prayer. There is one thing that would do so many things, but we are sadly missing that one thing: Evidence. There simply is none. Things of a supernatural nature Unexplained phenomena is not evidence of God or the divine realm. Just because we can’t explain by our current understanding the reasoning behind some events that occur, that doesn’t mean we can insert God as an explanation.

“If not God, then who or what?” That question, if you do not know the answer, should always have this response: “I don’t know.” If you don’t know then you don’t know. There is no shame in that. But to fill in the blanks with God is to be dishonest. “God must have done it because I can’t think of any other reason for it happening. If science can’t explain it, then God can.” This dangerous “god-of-the-gaps” way of thinking holds us back from finding out what really happened. We can be open to the idea that God may exist, but we can’t jump to that conclusion just because we really want to believe it.

So Christian reader, what are your thoughts? Does anything “Ben” has written make sense to you? Or are you in complete disagreement? And if so, why?

Image by congerdesign from Pixabay

12 thoughts on “Especially for Christians

  1. (wow – your invitation has let my genie out of the bottle – sorry!)

    Nan, I no longer regard myself as a Christian (so perhaps these thoughts aren’t valid), but I do have a real relationship with “something” I believe connects us all (so perhaps I am?).

    Almost all of what Ben says I agree with now. Never used to. Never thought I would. My own journey has been one of hearing and seeing “the greatest of these” taught – but then become just another bunch of words rather than a reality. Words embroidered with rules and “the manual”. A bible that answers every question – and thus is its own evidence. A bible that can be taught as harshly and devoid of love as any “bad teaching”. A bible that is essential for a Christian to maintain the beliefs of a Christian.

    For me “the greatest of these” has slowly become “the greatest”. And with that transition – “the rest” becomes less relevant to my daily living. The bible is an important part of my journey from there to here – but recently becoming “bible-blind” (not bible dismissive) makes “the greatest of these” so much easier to become and be. No longer having to defend or attack what you and I “believe”.

    I am is now the (very short) piece I live by. I am … what?

    Not what I believe … not what I don’t believe … not what I do … not what I don’t do … But what “I am”. For me that leads to Love without condition … living in the moment … the only place we meet each other and where Love can connect … and allow each to be their own “I am” … In that place labels become irrelevant (and fear of being wrong evaporates). And that I think is the teaching of the bible – perhaps the reason for all sacred texts. To become I am, to find love without condition, to experience moments we might call “eternity”, to connect in the moment in love with each other.

    And all of that I think we are born with – that we already are. And yet we have that taught out of us by all elements of every society: religion, secular education, popular culture, history, all the labels we live by, all the masks we feel we must live behind, all the laws that become personal preferences to adopt or reject, all the binary “right or wrong” we have established as the only way to think.

    And as for atheists who are as fundamental and cruel as religious fundamentalists – they may be the minority – but I still see them lauded and applauded for their “courage”. Hard-wired in their “correctness” of “evidence” that tramples any perceived “weakness” of “belief” in a believer. And that is cruel and unnecessary.

    Because the bible (like films, songs, books, poetry, relationships, mentors, moments ,,,) contains sublime wisdom. And (like films, songs,,,) also a lot of imagery and tons of “on message” fluff. I love “sublime wisdom” from any direction and any media. It is a pragmatic and applicable route to gentle kindness-openness – of being in the moment with each other. Because if we cannot do that – then this planet and we in it really are stuffed!

    >>> One final thought – love without condition is dismissed as “soft and squishy” – as “not enough”. But love without condition is as hard as nails and of unshakeable ownership. For it applies not just to how you can expect me to treat you – but how I can expect you to treat me as well. And if you are unkind in order to uphold your beliefs in order to be seen to be right – then there is no difference in the label you claim as validation: you are unkind and cannot love without condition. And that does not connect us – that divides us.

    And THAT has no purpose or value to me or you or this planet that I can see.

    Liked by 4 people

    • I think I understand and I respect you for having the courage to reason your way to where you say you are today. If the is one thing we all surely share it’s our morality and to be ok with the possibility that our time on earth is limited I believe should contribute to a shared sense of empathy for the human condition.

      As to the notion of conditional love. Love with conditions is not love at all. It’s fallacious reasoning. The condition makes love a manipulation in favor of one person over another therefore not love at all. I believe a more healthy relationship is have respect and epiphany for our common lot in this life. Love is a much deeper personal relationship with the object of that emotion. We need to always be open to the possibility that our relationships with others will deepen but that’s all.

      Thanks for sharing. Peace out.

      Liked by 2 people

      • What a gorgeous distinction! Just to explain – my use of “unconditional” is entirely as you say – and my response to the (so often) assumed “give and get back” physical attraction transaction we have made “love”. Call it “god”,”love” or “respect and epiphany” – if it comes without “conditions” that works for me! 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Hi, Ben, how are you? I think evidence that is convincing to one person may not be to another.

    For me, the fine-tuning argument is very compelling, and I think almost irrefutable. It doesn’t show the existence of the Christian God, but I think it does indicate very strongly toward a mind behind the origin of the cosmos.

    My observation is that people become atheists for a variety of reasons., just as people might become Christians for many reasons. We are complex. I think, either way, it is deeper than objective evidence. There are emotional/social reasons as well. For me, it also involved spiritual longing and an intuitive knowing that there is something or someone greater than myself behind it all, as well as evidence.

    For many de converts, based on conversation through the years, I think it is as much about intellectual and personal freedom. They did not feel that they had this as believers but felt in a way suppressed.

    I honestly don’t think most people become atheists simply because they are interested in leading immoral lives.

    These folks might be out there, but I don’t know anyone like this.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Some of you have probably noticed that your comments are disappearing.

    PLEASE respect the request indicated in my post.

    This particular post is not for “discussions” between believers and non-believers.

    Thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I think a distinction has to be made between the God postulated by religions, and the Creator (or creative entity, if you will) behind the formation of the universe. As an ex-Christian turned deist over a period of years, it has taken a long time to overcome less-than-credible religious indoctrination and accept that the God of religion is entirely an invention of fallible (at best) human beings.

    Only the gullible and the intractable could accept religion’s fantasy of a paternalistic, all-loving, all-caring God. To make belief a choice between that (non-existent) God and atheism is absurd. The choice is between an impersonal, amoral, detached Creator, agnosticism, and atheism (in that order, personally speaking).

    Of course, in the final analysis, whatever is, is — it doesn’t matter what we believe. I am a deist simply because I can’t conceive of creation without an ever-extant Being which, for whatever reason, created time and that which exists in time.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. I may respond in more depth later, but right now I just want to say:

    I am singularly unimpressed with the vast majority of ‘Apologetics’ arguments. I also do not hold with ‘I cannot explain this phenomena. Therefore God must exist.’ To me, such an argument suggests a … well, a great gap between my understanding of God (and the world) and that of the person who makes that argument. God is not a ‘stop-gap’ measure.

    Liked by 1 person

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.