Back to the main page

QUESTION #1 From Lew Berman Subject : Strange Promises to Ancient Israelites In Exodus 34:24, it is promised that the land of Israel would not be attacked while the Israelite males went to the Temple during the 3 pilgrimage festivals. Also, in Leviticus 25:21, a guarantee is given regarding the sabbatical year, during which the land in Israel was to lie fallow. The guarantee is that in the year preceding the sabbatical ,i.e. 7th year, the land would yield enough produce to provide food for th 6th,7th and 8th years. If Judaism was a fabricated religion, why would the auhtor(s) of the Torah have written such promises? Could they really have failed to see that they would be making it very easy for their fabricated religion to be proven a farce? I don't understand why inventors of any belief system would do something of that nature. I'd be most interested in hearing from you. Thank you very much and all the best. Thank you Lew for your question. You are looking at these prophecies retroactively, as if the writers were attempting to "build a religion". But this perspective is only possible in retrospect. Although it may be true in some respect, I never heard of the idea that the Jewish religion was fabricated in any way. Like most religions, it came about by memetic evolution - that is to say, ideas which were transmitted from generation to generation, changing according to the cultural environment of the times. As for making prophecies, prophecy-mongering was and still remains a way of attaining a high status, if one is successful. The great number of failed prophecies in the Bible shows that the ancient Jews thought the same. Some examples : Jerusalem was supposed to be held by the Jews forever (Is. 33:20, Is. 52:1), the end of the world would come within a generation of Jesus' passing (Matt 24:32-34), and the people that were not defeated by the Jews despite God's promise (compare Joshua 3:9-11 with Joshua 15:63). As for your premise that failed prophecies would reveal a religion as "a farce", well, that is simply not demonstrated by history. Many cults recuperate perfectly from major failed prophecies : just look at the Jehovah's Witnesses and their numerous failed "end-of-the-world" prophecies. The years 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925 and 1975 are all behind us, the world did not end, and the JWs are still as strong as ever. I hope this answered your question. No follow-up.

QUESTION #2 From MRD Subject : What if you're wrong What if you're wrong? What if, after you die, you Do stand before not a god, but The God, Jesus Christ? What if everything in the Bible is true? Have you read it, or are you just going from what you have heard from those who call themselves Christians? In answer to your first question, I would have to ask you likewise : what if you're wrong, and wasting your life on a horrible, absurd lie ? What if nothing in the Bible is true and you are judging other people on the basis of primitive tribal myths written and re-written thousands of years ago, not the word of an omniscient god ? I'm not afraid of being wrong. Being an atheist does not make me lose any rationality, time or money. On the contrary, it has given me a clear understanding of purpose and spirituality in my life. What about you ? As for reading the Bible, yes, I have read the Bible twice and continue to examine passages from all books. But I do not rationalize everything that clashes with obvious moral facts, such as genocide, murder, anti-science beliefs, faith and terror tactics. So while I do read the Bible, I read it with eyes open ! I hope this answered your question. MRD has subsequently tried to contact me again, but unfortunately his or her email address does not seem to be functional, so an agreement as regards to follow-up questions could not be reached.

QUESTION #3 From matt kestner Subject : "WHAT DO YOU SEE" i have repeatedly gone over the concept of reality,truth,lies,time,grid points,fate,numerology,predictions,alchemy,phobia's,history,illusion,geometry,biblical events,and typo's of "ordinary" life.....so i come to a akward and invalid question,WHAT DO YOU SEE ONCE YOU STEP BACK FROM THE COMPLEXITY OF KNOWLEDGE? ~warning-the question above does test the existence of all "living" beings of both high and low knowledge~ The vastness and beauty of existence. Thank you for the bizarre question ! No follow-up.

QUESTION #4 From Richard Leonard Subject : "Ask an Atheist" question I'm an agnostic myself, but I'm also very interested in quantum physics. My question is this: why do so many atheists--Richard Dawkins the most notable example--reject the possibility of supranormal or paranormal phenomena such as precognition or telepathy or even intradimensional travel (i.e., UFO's), which could conceivably be explained in the future in terms of some advanced, esoteric--but strictly materialistic--principle, as if those concepts are synonymous with concepts like faith healing or miracles which invoke deities, angels, demons, or other "spiritual" entities or principles? Yours in doubt, Timber Richard B. Leonard Duke Clinical Research Institute That's a rather pointed question. I can't really speak for atheists in general, or Richard Dawkins. The obvious answer seems to me that they reject both on the same footing because they are skeptics, and skeptics see most extraordinary claims on the same footing- as assertions which require extraordinary evidence. I imagine that to a skeptic, your premise- that there is a difference between paranormal explanations and supernatural explanations- would be rejected, as both require a massive denial of the laws of nature. I am not a skeptic, but I wager that would be their basic explanation. Thank you for the question. Follow-up: Francois: Thank you for your reply, and I understand your perspective. Am I wrong in inferring from your reply that you draw a distinction between an atheist and a skeptic? I would take issue with the skeptic's view as you characterize it in two ways: one, that claims of deities, heavens, or the like do--as you point out--require "faith" and a rejection of the laws of nature, since they assume a realm of existence in which entropy does not exist and the law of conservation of energy does not apply, but conceiving some advanced technology which would operate on a deeper, more highly-developed understanding of physical laws does not; and two, that the science of a hundred, or two hundred, or a thousand years in the future might achieve an understanding and mastery of physical laws that would be as incredible to us as our mundane reality of cell phones, desktop computers, and space travel would be to the most enlightened and educated scholar of the Middle Ages, and would not rely on some sort of supernatural assistance. Advanced experimental physics has already raised questions that can't be explained by our current science, such as how separate and distinct subatomic particles can seem to transmit information between them instantaneously, in defiance of our assumption that nothing--not even information--can travel at supraluminal speeds. I think it's safe to assume that science has many more surprises in store for us. Richard Of course there is a distinction between an atheist and a skeptic. Atheism and agnosticism are ontological positions, and skepticism is an epistemic attitude (at least, in the common sense, which is what we are talking about here). An atheist can be a non-skeptic, and a skeptic can be a religious believer, the latter simply by virtue of neglecting the issue of extraordinary religious claims, which many in fact do (either because it contradicts their beliefs or because they are cowards). Atheists do tend to be skeptics because skepticism leads more easily to atheism, and vice-versa, but this is not an absolute. All my answers, by necessity, only reflect my position, not that of all atheists- after all, it's called "Ask AN Atheist," not "Ask Atheists"- but this is especially true here. As for your main point, I would say that it is all well and good for you to invoke unknown, future discoveries, but that unless such discoveries become known and present, we have to make do with the evidence we have now. And from our perspective, any break from natural law is extraordinary, whether we qualify it as "paranormal" or "supernatural." I think the great majority of skeptics would agree with me on that point. James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge, for instance, does not judge claims as acceptable or not on the basis of their explanation, but merely on the basis of whether they break natural law or not. You can claim that your powers come from psi, chi, reiki, angels, "Jesus," or Mithra- it does not matter a whit, as long as you make a clear and testable claim. However, I diverge from the skeptics on one point. A skeptic would argue that you are correct in saying that a "paranormal" claim could be proven true, while I wouldn't. Chalk me up as one of those "nasty cynics" that skeptics sometimes take potshots against in order to portray themselves as "open-minded." I say an open mind just opens space for your brain to fall out. So it probably won't surprise you to learn that I really appreciate the work of people like Richard Dawkins.