The Universe Tree

This is my attempt to show that, concluding our universe was brought into its current form by the will of an all powerful super-being, is entirely unjustified. Simply conceiving of a natural process that could have brought this universe into existence is to offer a more likely alternative to meaningless supernatural explanations that can’t by their nature be understood.

It’s called “The Universe Tree”

We can make no claim that this is the only universe. Certainly this universe is the only one we currently can perceive. On Earth and throughout the cosmos we never find just one of anything that occurs naturally; so it is at least plausible that our universe is one of many.

Please envision in your mind a “universe tree.” like an apple, peach, or cherry tree, a universe creating tree bears fruit. Each piece of fruit is a universe. A piece of fruit can grow, and it can out-live its creator. It does not continue needing the creator after its creation. The universe tree, like any other, bears fruit without thinking about intent. Trees have no brain to think with, but can reproduce, and do so according to well understood methods. The organism that started out as fruit becomes a tree itself. Perhaps our universe is a descendant of other universes and the big bang observations are characteristics of the natural reproductive and/or birthing processes of universes. Maybe with processes that are similar to cross pollination, when two universes are in close enough proximity to each other, a kind of fertilization can occur that can lead to one or more new universes being created. In this way the creation of universes may be a natural evolutionary process leading to more and more evolved universes brought about by random mutations over many generations.

Based on the observations we have about the nature of reality, which is more likely to exist, a universe that came about from natural reproductive processes that can potentially be understood, or an all powerful creator that can create universes and do anything else as well as continue to exist forever? The first of these requires far fewer assumptions.

Some additional considerations are as follows. Thanks to the amazingly detailed pictures of our universe from the Hubble telescope we can now see for ourselves exactly how stars and planets form from accretion disks through entirely natural processes. There are many examples of all stages of star and planet formation, and anyone who can do a Google search for the term “accretion disks” can see them for themselves. With this understanding as to where stars and planets actually come from, supernatural causation is now ruled out at least as the most probable explanation, in favor of natural causation for our sun and the earth. No god was needed to create any of the planets we see currently coalescing together naturally right now. Assuming our one little planet and star were created magically to look exactly like all the naturally forming planets and stars we see, seems more than a little unlikely when compared to the idea that our planet actually formed just like the rest.

We also understand how entire galaxies coalesce and take shape and how they interact with each other when they co-mingle.

As the planets and stars go, so does the rest of the universe. The majority of leading cosmologists and astrophysicists tell us that everything we can see going back to the earliest moments of our universe’s inflation into this current state, was naturally occurring and is aligned with the current understanding of the physics in our universe.

Steven Hawking (an atheist in spite of what you may have heard), and Neil deGrasse Tyson, among others have convincingly explained that there is no need for a god nor evidence of a god having been involved in anything since the “Planck time” (the farthest moment back in time we can describe via mathematical models) roughly 14 billion years ago. The Planck time is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to get across a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the “quantum of time”, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10 to power -43 in seconds.

That is to say that we can measure back to the moment that the universe was 10 to power -43 in seconds old. The math that describes all this also perfectly predicts, describes, and is also confirmed by, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, now found throughout the universe.

we now know to a high certainty that there is no need for a god to create all the celestial bodies found in this universe. All the things so far found in our universe appeared to form as a result of the causation of natural physical laws affecting matter, and not by any deities.

So, deities have never been observed to create anything, and everything we can find in our universe is naturally occurring. It is therefore more likely that the universe itself is naturally occurring than created by a deity.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of god is commonly reduced to something referred to as the “first cause argument” which claims that a god was source of the inflation event described above. It is often stated that everything has a cause, and if you go back to the first cause, that must be god.

The fallacy here is pointed out by the problem of infinite regress. If you believe something as complicated as a whole universe can’t come about by natural means and there is a creator who by definition must be even more powerful and complex than the universe, then where did this super being come from? and whatever your answer, how can you possibly know it to be true? Seeing as the science tells us the the laws of physics break down at the Planck time, and there may not even be time before the inflation (commonly called the “big bang”). We simply don’t know if there was any space and time at all for a creator to inhabit and use to create. Speaking of a time before time even existed may actually be nonsensical. Making claims about what happened before is nothing but meaningless gibberish, bullshit speculation, and certainly cannot be a proof that god existed before the universe did. The only honest answer is we just can’t know about that right now and we may never be able to understand it.

Another common misconception held by believers is that modern science says that “all this came from nothing” or that we somehow believe that something must have come from nothing. This is not true at all. Having recently discovered the work of theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss “A Universe From Nothing,” I understand where the misconception comes from. The fact is that what he describes is so hard to comprehend that I had to watch his lecture several times just to understand the basic premises. In short, I will butcher it now by massively oversimplifying it to make a point. At a quantum level certain particles can actually pop into existence. Now that may seem like saying something came from nothing, but when we talk about quantum physics, scientists actually mean something different by the term nothing. At the quantum level, the particles don’t have to originate from within the fabric of space time. We don’t know where they come from but it could be from outside the universe and not just from nothing. It’s simply that we don’t know where they come from, but if you understand the work of Lawrence Krauss you will understand how from just these particles we can discern a mechanism for building all the atoms of matter in the entire universe. Hence the now commonly misunderstood title “A Universe From Nothing.”

I for one certainly do not think that something can come from nothing as we understand it colloquially, but we know that some things come from other things all the time. The Big Bang model is only a description of the inflation of all the matter and space in our universe into its current form. It makes no claim as to where the matter came from. It could be that the matter has always existed in some form or another, expanding and contracting in cycles. Matter may have come into existence through processes described by Lawrence Krauss over previous generations of universe cycling.

Anybody who says “if you think the big bang is true then you think something came from nothing” demonstrates they don’t actually understand the subject of Big Bang Cosmology enough to speak on it with any authority.


intelligent design: How do we know some super powerful entity didn’t plant our particular universe tree in his universe garden? We don’t? But…

http://faithaway.com/intelligent-design/

Tee Shirts Coming Soon!

Check out our new Tee Shirts!

This is a great way to support this site. Our goal is to entirely fund this website though the sale of tee shirts that cause people to question faith, and lead people to faithaway.com and hopefully out of their faith based beliefs.

Morality from God? I don’t think so…

Why do we not pass down unfinished prison terms to the children of prisoners who die while serving their sentence? Why is it not okay to punish the child for the transgressions of a parent? The reason is the recognition that we all are individuals and no person, even offspring, are responsible for the actions or debts of another.

Consider the concept of “Original Sin” and the “Fall of Man.”

Why do people think that one mistake by one man long ago is a good justification to punish all of his offspring for all eternity?

For those that tell us the genesis story is merely a fable or parable, that it is not to be taken literally… and/or perhaps who recognize that the story is actually an adaptation of earlier mythos and not even related to Jewish tradition consider the following. Without a literal true “fall of man,” because of committing the original sin, there is no reason for Jesus to sacrifice himself, as there is nothing for humanity to be forgiven for.

——————————————

How is it right that if I do wrong to any another person or group, I only need to be forgiven by some third party (god or Jesus) who was not affected by my actions? If I hurt Fred, does Tom get to forgive me? If Fred is still pissed at me would the fact that I’m forgiven by Tom help Fred in any way?
Obviously, I can’t forgive your transgressions against someone else.

If God exists and forgives me but Fred doesn’t, Fred sees no benefit. If God can only forgive me for transgressions against him (God) then my real social obligation is to seek to make things right with Fred. If I steal from Fred, I owe Fred the restitution, not a third party.

The whole concept of Jesus dying for our sins, presupposes, it is okay for a God to punish someone eternally for transgressions they did not commit and that it is okay for Jesus to forgive you for that sin through an act of his own personal sacrifice.

In light of bronze age societal moral development, this concept might fly, but it breaks down when looked at from a perspective of modern morality.

—————————————————-

How can we come to the conclusion that god is good in terms of morality? If we accept that our own moral compass is broken from the start and cannot be trusted, how do we determine and make the necessarily moral judgment call that god is a good moral being to be obeyed.

Should one accept the morality of another, over their own personal morality when they conflict?
If you believe that indiscriminately slaughtering innocent women, children, and babies is wrong under all possible circumstances at any time, no matter who tells you to do it, but you also believe your moral compass is broken, because that’s what your religious belief tells you, you can be convinced that god wants you to kill those you consider innocent. You can justify this as following orders and freely admitting that you can’t understand god’s “mysterious ways,” but are willing to accept the morality of another over your own without justification because you freely admit you can’t understand that justification anyway.

The morality that we find in the bible corresponds perfectly with the time in which the bible stories were generated. Social morality has continued to evolve over the millennia, so that today our society finds many things that were justified behavior in stone age, bronze age, and iron age cultures, are not tolerated in modern western societies. Slavery, stoning people to death for disobedience, killing gays or nonbelievers, holding generations of family members responsible for crimes of someone who came before or for their unpaid debts, are all examples of outdated morality.

Why, if the bible is inspired by god, would he not teach a superior morality than what anyone could so easily find in that ancient society as well as many other cultures from that time in history? Clearly an all-knowing god would have at least the moral understanding that we humans now have achieved over time. After all we’re not gods but we figured it out in spite of his teachings or lack thereof.

The idea that it is okay for parents to kill their unruly children may be okay with bible literalists but modern society has passed laws against it anyway, in spite of what god was reported to have said. If you think morality comes from god then you are blind to the obvious conflict that assertion creates with other assertions of his being all-knowing, or all-loving.

It happened to me personally and I believe it.

Common claims: “it happened to me and I believe it.” or perhaps “God spoke directly to me.”

Do you care about whether other people believe it too? If not, great then I don’t believe it happened exactly as you claimed.

This is exactly the same response one would give if you heard a person making a causal claim you know cannot be confirmed as true, and which conflicts with your understanding of reality? You must admit you would dismiss some peoples claims as not credible or you admit to being gullible and therefore have less credibility.

If in fact you do care that people believe your claim about the cause of what happened to you being divine, you must have something that would be convincing to others in support of your claim, the claim is not enough by itself.

If what you claim is supporting evidence cannot be verified or the conditions not reproducible, then one of the most important tenants of modern scientific method for understanding what is true is violated. (reproducibility)

If there are any alternate explanations for a given event, then simply claiming “it wasn’t any of those” is not valid support for one possible cause especially when unknown unlisted but sufficient causes may exist.

The very nature of a claim like this goes against another tenant of the scientific method which is that for one thing to be evidence of another it must be exclusively concordant (thank you Aron Ra) with that result. It must be shown if A is true, then B is also always true, and that if B is True it can only be because of A. If you can’t show this is the case then you don’t have valid evidence of causation.

In any case where an alternate explanation including a possibly unknown one, can be conceived of, you violate the exclusive concordance required for any explanation to be valid evidence.

This is a concept we all understand from the courtroom model. Defense attorneys can present an alternate explanation for the same set of facts which can lead to a jury having a reasonable doubt as to the truth of one theory of a crime over another.

We must first understand why claiming “it happened to me and I believe it” is being intellectually dishonest because it ignores others’ reasonable doubts as well as your own. This is another form of lying to ourselves.

People who are deliberately obtuse on this issue will continue to use these kinds of arguments because they have no choice, as long as there is no credible, reproducible, reliably predictable, or detectable evidence that is exclusively concordant with the existence of a god.

Does Jesus Really Reveal Himself To All Of Us?

Do you believe that god reveals himself to everyone through Jesus Christ at some point in their life? Would you say that is true with the caveat that not everyone will recognize or properly interpret the nature of the revelation, but it is actually Jesus and not Allah, or Krishna or any other deity?

Understanding that Allah clearly says “I have no son” and that according to traditional Muslim teachings, Jesus was a prophet but Mohammed was the last prophet, means that there can be no reconciliation that messages from Allah to followers of Islam are actually coming from Jesus.

If you believe that god has revealed himself to everyone through Jesus Christ then we should expect to find at least some cultures who developed Christianity independently of invasion or cultural exposure to Christianity from outside sources.

Yet what we find is Christianity developed once in one place and it took a long time to spread and develop and become adopted often with changes to incorporate aspects of various cultures.

There is not one example of an indigenous society that without first being exposed to Christianity developed it independently. So clearly the belief that god reveals himself to everyone through Jesus is just not accurate.

Continuing to hold an inaccurate belief is a well understood psychological defense mechanism to avoid coming to an uncomfortable conclusion that other beliefs that rest on this one are now on even worse footing.

No, the U.S. is NOT a Christian Nation!

Have you heard the claim that the US was founded on Christian values and is therefore a Christian nation?
Freedom of religion is guaranteed in our constitution, and effectively and necessarily means that when it comes to religious or spiritual beliefs of any kind, that you are free to maintain any belief you choose, and conversely you are free to reject any of the many religious and spiritual beliefs that others hold. You are not required to accept other peoples religious beliefs as true.
That fact completely negates any claim that this country was founded on Christianity, but let’s continue…
We are the first country in history to have such a document which is specifically guarantying equal rights for people of all faiths. This document specifically guarantees human rights over the rights of religions or religious organizations to create laws under which people live in this country. This document says that God’s law doesn’t trump the laws of man in the United States.
Before the United States all countries of the western world were ruled in conjunction with their religious leadership. There have been many “Christian Nations” before us and being a nation of Christian believers does nothing to set us apart from any other country that came before us. What does in fact make us distinctly different is our RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!!!
Our freedom to say as we think, our freedom to gather together in groups (right to free assembly), our freedom from oppression, and our freedom to elect our own leaders.
The genius of this document, unlike the bible, is it was designed to be changed.
Over a period of time the document has evolved to specify the freedoms and rights of various groups that historically had been oppressed in religious western Christian led societies, including women and people of various ethnicities, and people who have alternate religious beliefs. Today with respect to human rights, our colloquial definition of the word“man,” as used in the constitution, now includes all humans and not just white male land owners.
While I have no trouble believing that religious people who regularly practice self deception would also try to deceive others in support of their belief in god, it baffles me just how many people have started to promote this complete bullshit when there is a huge amount of historical documentation showing just how disingenuous this claim is. It reflects very poorly on the current state of the education system in this country that one of the most important features of our own history is being misrepresented and people are uncritically accepting it and disseminating it.
What sets this country apart from others in history is that it was founded on the ideals of preserving the rights of man without deference to a god. When all the other countries in Europe were steeped in superstition and religiosity and stagnation for a thousand years it was new thinking, critical thinking, that led to the age of enlightenment and ultimately allowed for a new system of government to be conceived without a basis in religion.
The following links and excerpts should be sufficient to demonstrate where the founding fathers of this country were coming from in terms of religion.
“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
—John Adams
Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs. In his widely read The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, the principal American exponent of Deism, called Christianity “a fable.” Paine, the protégé of Benjamin Franklin, denied “that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by…speech,…language, or…vision.” Postulating a distant deity whom he called “Nature’s God” (a term also used in the Declaration of Independence)
First Amendment
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Our founding fathers explicitly and clearly excluded any reference to “God” or “the Almighty” or any euphemism for a higher power in the Constitution. Not one time is the word “god” mentioned in our founding document.
Jefferson promoted tolerance above all and said earlier that his statute for religious freedom in Virginia was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammeden, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” He specifically wished to avoid the dominance of a single religion.
Declaration of independence (1776):
Articles of Confederation (1777):
Throughout the entire document, in all 13 articles, the only reference to anything remotely relating to a god is a term used one time, “Great Governor of the World,” and even then only in the context of general introduction, like “Ladies and gentlemen, members of the court….” Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this document did indeed seek to create a type of government in the form of a confederation of independent states. The authors gave no power or authority to religion. And this document is our first glimpse into the separation of church and state, because just as the Articles of Confederation give no authority to religion in civil matters, so too does the document deny any authority of government in matters of faith.
U.S. Constitution (1787):
This one is easy, because the Constitution of the United States of America makes zero reference to a god or Christianity. (but for the common use of the date)
The only reference to religion, found in Article VI, is a negative one: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” And of course we have the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Federalist Papers (1787-88)
While Thomas Jefferson was the genius behind the Declaration of Independence, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (publishing under the pseudonym “Publius”) were the brains providing the intellectual foundation of our Constitution.
As with the Constitution, at no time is a god ever mentioned in the Federalist Papers. At no time is Christianity ever mentioned. Religion is only discussed in the context of keeping matters of faith separate from concerns of governance, and of keeping religion free from government interference.
The founding fathers could not be clearer on this point: God has no role in government; Christianity has no role in government. They make this point explicitly, repeatedly, in multiple founding documents. so no, we are not a Christian nation.
George Washington:
Another consideration is an evaluation of the participation of a Founder in the ordinances or sacraments of his church. Most had no choice about being baptized as children, but as adults they did have a choice about participating in communion or (if Episcopalian or Roman Catholic) in confirmation. And few Founders who were Deists would have participated in either rite. George Washington’s refusal to receive communion in his adult life indicated Deistic belief to many of his pastors and peers.
One should consider what friends, family, and, above all, clergy said about a Founder’s religious faith. That Washington’s pastors in Philadelphia clearly viewed him as significantly influenced by Deism says more about Washington’s faith than do the opposite views of later writers or the cloudy memories of a few Revolutionary veterans who avowed Washington’s orthodoxy decades after his death.
———————–
Here, another source regarding George Washington is quite informative.
1. George Washington. The father of our country was nominally an Anglican but seemed more at home with Deism. The language of the Deists sounds odd to today’s ears because it’s a theological system of thought that has fallen out of favor. Deists believed in God but didn’t necessarily see him as active in human affairs. The god of the Deists was a god of first cause. He set things in motion and then stepped back.
Washington often employed Deistic terms. His god was a “supreme architect” of the universe. Washington saw religion as necessary for good moral behavior but didn’t necessarily accept all Christian dogma. He seemed to have a special gripe against communion and would usually leave services before it was offered.
Washington was widely tolerant of other beliefs. He is the author of one of the great classics of religious liberty – the letter to Touro Synagogue (1790). In this letter, Washington assured America’s Jews that they would enjoy complete religious liberty in America; not mere toleration in an officially “Christian” nation. He outlines a vision of a multi-faith society where all are free.
“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation,” wrote Washington. “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.”
Stories of Washington’s deep religiosity, such as tales of him praying in the snow at Valley Forge, can be ignored. They are pious legends invented after his death.
————————
2. John Adams.
The man who followed Washington in office was a Unitarian, although he was raised a Congregationalist and never officially left that church. Adams rejected belief in the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, core concepts of Christian dogma. In his personal writings, Adams makes it clear that he considered some Christian dogma to be incomprehensible.
In February 1756, Adams wrote in his diary about a discussion he had had with a man named Major Greene. Greene was a devout Christian who sought to persuade Adams to adopt conservative Christian views. The two argued over the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity. Questioned on the matter of Jesus’ divinity, Greene fell back on an old standby: some matters of theology are too complex and mysterious for we puny humans to understand.
Adams was not impressed. In his diary he wrote, “Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”
As president, Adams signed the famous Treaty of Tripoli, which boldly stated, “[T]he government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion….”

Another famous quote “Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity”

— John Adams

In its original context…

“Major Greene this evening fell into some conversation with me about the Divinity and satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the argument he advanced was, “that a mere creature or finite being could not make satisfaction to infinite justice for any crimes,” and that “these things are very mysterious.” Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

— John Adams
(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President

http://libertytree.ca/quotes/John.Adams.Quote.3631

————————
3. Thomas Jefferson.
It’s almost impossible to define Jefferson’s subtle religious views in a few words. As he once put it, “I am a sect by myself, as far as I know.” But one thing is clear: His skepticism of traditional Christianity is well established. Our third president did not believe in the Trinity, the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection, original sin and other core Christian doctrines. He was hostile to many conservative Christian clerics, whom he believed had perverted the teachings of that faith.
Jefferson once famously observed to Adams, “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
Although not an orthodox Christian, Jefferson admired Jesus as a moral teacher. In one of his most unusual acts, Jefferson edited the New Testament, cutting away the stories of miracles and divinity and leaving behind a very human Jesus, whose teachings Jefferson found “sublime.” This “Jefferson Bible” is a remarkable document – and it would ensure his political defeat today. (Imagine the TV commercials the Religious Right would run: Thomas Jefferson hates Jesus! He mutilates Bibles!)
Jefferson was confident that a coolly rational form of religion would take root in the fertile intellectual soil of America. He once predicted that just about everyone would become Unitarian. (Despite his many talents, the man was no prophet.)
Jefferson took political stands that would infuriate today’s Religious Right and ensure that they would work to defeat him. He refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer and fasting, saying that such religious duties were no part of the chief executive’s job. His assertion that the First Amendment erects a “wall of separation between church and state” still rankles the Religious Right today.
———————–
4. James Madison.
Jefferson’s close ally would be similarly unelectable today. Madison is perhaps the most enigmatic of all the founders when it comes to religion. To this day, scholars still debate his religious views.
Nominally Anglican, Madison, some of his biographers believe, was really a Deist. He went through a period of enthusiasm for Christianity as a young man, but this seems to have faded. Unlike many of today’s politicians, who eagerly wear religion on their sleeves and brag about the ways their faith will guide their policy decisions, Madison was notoriously reluctant to talk publicly about his religious beliefs.
Madison was perhaps the strictest church-state separationist among the founders, taking stands that make the ACLU look like a bunch of pikers. He opposed government-paid chaplains in Congress and in the military. As president, Madison rejected a proposed census because it involved counting people by profession. For the government to count the clergy, Madison said, would violate the First Amendment.
Madison, who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, also opposed government-issued prayer proclamations. He issued a few during the War of 1812 at the insistence of Congress but later concluded that his actions had been unconstitutional. As president, he vetoed legislation granting federal land to a church and a plan to have a church in Washington care for the poor through a largely symbolic charter. In both cases, he cited the First Amendment.
One can hear the commercials now: “James Madison is an anti-religious fanatic. He even opposes prayer proclamations during time of war.”
————————
5. Thomas Paine.
Paine never held elective office, but he played an important role as a pamphleteer whose stirring words helped rally Americans to independence. Washington ordered that Paine’s pamphlet “The American Crisis” be read aloud to the Continental Army as a morale booster on Dec. 23, 1776. “Common Sense” was similarly popular with the people. These seminal documents were crucial to winning over the public to the side of independence.
So Paine’s a hero, right? He was also a radical Deist whose later work, The Age of Reason, still infuriates fundamentalists. In the tome, Paine attacked institutionalized religion and all of the major tenets of Christianity. He rejected prophecies and miracles and called on readers to embrace reason. The Bible, Paine asserted, can in no way be infallible. He called the god of the Old Testament “wicked” and the entire Bible “the pretended word of God.” (There go the Red States!)
What can we learn from this? Americans have the right to reject candidates for any reason, including their religious beliefs. But they ought to think twice before tossing someone aside just because he or she is skeptical of orthodox Christianity. After all, that description includes some of our nation’s greatest leaders.
———————————
What the founding fathers of the United States of America have said that contradicts the claim that this nation is founded on the principles of Christianity or as a Christian nation.
John Adams
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
– The Treaty of Tripoli article 11, dated 1797
This was unanimously ratified by the US Congress, at the time, for the purpose of clearly stating the official position of the founding members of the government.
Thomas Jefferson
“The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this three headed beast like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who claim they serve him. They are always of two classes, fools and hypocrites.”
Also Thomas Jefferson writing to John Adams…
“It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus) I am a materialist”
Ben Franklin – expressing a deist view.
“I cannot conceive otherwise that he the infinite father expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that he is infinitely above it”

You Think Jesus Changed Your Life?

“My life actually changed once I accepted Jesus into my heart.”

hopefully we can agree that accepting Jesus into ones heart means having a change of behavior for the positive.

Trying to live a life that one thinks Jesus would approve of and avoiding behavior one thinks Jesus or god would frown upon.

This may not be the only thing that is meant by the term; but it must be understood that at least in part, that accepting Jesus into one’s heart at a minimum should reflect in a person changing behavior. At a minimum it must be conceded that accepting Jesus is itself a behavior, and if you didn’t do it before but now you do, you have changed your behavior.

It is at least reasonable to conclude that other changes in behavior would likely follow from the desire to stop destructive behavior and start living a life in accordance with the wishes of a divine being.

Living as a productive member of society should and indeed does, have beneficial consequences. Every single day many of us decide to work harder, or to give a shit more, or try to love more deeply. Some of us decide to learn more and more about the world we live in and reach to achieve higher levels of education, or skills development, or artistic achievement. All of these and many other behaviors that people do can be shown to vastly improve their lives.

Most people would agree that when we behave respectfully toward other people, they are more likely to respond in kind, and the opposite is also true.

Non believers and believers both agree that a drastic change from predominantly negative behavior to primarily positive behavior will be rewarded with positivity.

For non believers, it is our ability to empathize that makes it is possible for a person to change their behavior and by extension change their situation.

Recognizing that is even a possibility in direct contradiction to what most believers would claim “Jesus is the reason for our inspiration to change our behavior even when we don’t recognize it” because if the believer admits that it is possible for a person to change their situation themselves via a change in behavior without god, then we are left with the dilemma of never being able to tell when someone was responsible for their own life improvements compared to when god is the one behind their improvements. If there are two or more possibilities then the least complicated answer, in this case that people can help themselves and sometimes do, becomes the most plausible. The recognition that people sometimes attribute success to Jesus, or Allah, or a native American spiritual guides, or Oden, or Zues, even though it is possible they did it all themselves or with help from other people working toward the same goal, nullifies the results of their assessment.

A life that is changed for the better is a result, but it does not prove it’s cause. Results can only be proof of causation when you can prove there is only one possible cause.

Simply claiming “My life actually changed once I accepted Jesus into my heart.” is not convincing to anyone who understands the basics of creating logical arguments, but this the statement still holds water with many believers. No matter what you believe, the tendency to believe, is certainly part of the problem, however, The very nature of this claim is that it is about feelings and emotions, not logic. This kind of claim has great emotional appeal as it reaffirms belief for anyone who accepts it as true.

This is another example of the argument “I feel it, so it must be true.” If you or someone you know ever felt like someone was being honest only later to find out they were lying, should know that feeling like something is true is not proof it is.

One other rarely mentioned option for someone who claimed “My life actually changed once I accepted Jesus into my heart,” is they could be lying. I challenge you all to honestly consider some possible reasons that one might lie about a religious claim like this.

So in the end we are left with a claim that requires us to accept a broken logical chain, requires us to accept magical thinking about a super being that you can communicate with telepathically or verbally, that no one else can confirm even spoke a single word, when we have no credibly reproducible evidence that is even possible. Beyond that we are forced to accept that this being provides meaningful guidance in spite of how people all over the world report receiving divine messages that are in direct contradiction with each other.

People who are willing to ignore these obvious logical breakdowns and allow their emotions to affect their decision making at a greater level than logic, are far more willing to accept a claim like that. This kind of claim is not testable, and cannot be confirmed, so by definition, if you accept it you are being gullible because it makes you feel good by re-affirming a preexisting (and unsupported) belief that there is some supernatural element to reality.