Skip to main content

The annoying why question

By Unborn Again Christian ~

When you stop learning, stop listening, stop looking and asking questions, always new questions, then it is time to die — Lillian Smith

I have seen countless creationist-evolutionist debates and there are two questions that creationists always ask, and are conspicuously smug about:
  1. Why are we here? 
  2. What caused the big bang?
 I have seen creationists feeling really proud of themselves for asking these two questions. They go on to claim that these are the two questions that religion can answer; god caused the big bang (something out of nothing) and we are here to serve an eternal purpose and fulfill a divine plan that god has in store for us. It is relatively easy to tackle the second question especially with all the brilliant research in theoretical physics and cosmology spearheaded by Lawrence Krauss, among others. The discovery of M-theory revealed that in a multiverse, big bangs keep happening all the time and are not really special events. Science is constantly shedding light on more and more supernatural mysteries.

The first question on the other hand is one that tempts me to get into arguments with creationists. Richard Dawkins was asked this question on a tv show once. He destroyed the questioner by saying that just because we can frame grammatically correct sentences in the English language it does not mean that every question we ask makes sense. This is akin to asking a question like what is the colour of jealousy?. We are products of natural processes and that is why we question. I would like to go on to say that this is one of those cases where a why question and a how question have exactly equal answers. Why are we here- because of natural processes; how are we here- because of natural processes.

Although this response sounds really logical, provided one can think clearly without preconceptions, the creationists do not buy it. In a desperate attempt to prove that god and his plan for us are special, they hold on to the why we are here question and provide god’s perfect plan as the answer. What I realized is that the easiest way to deal with godbots is to turn the question right back at them. Why did god create us? Or more specifically, why did god need to create us? The omniscient, omnipresent, almighty god with whom nothing is impossible was perfectly fine in heaven. He was being ministered to by angels and everything was perfect. Why would he, knowing that things would get messed up later, want to create mankind? Was he bored? Was he lonely? If yes then that suddenly takes away the special characteristics attributed to him. And why would god need to create something that burps, defecates, perspires, masturbates, flatulates and blow its nose? If god wanted to be praised and worshipped in spirit and in truth, he would not have created mankind at all. He would have just sat there in heaven, chilling out.

Try this response the next time you get the annoying why question.


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

Why I left the Canadian Reformed Church

By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Christian Church. My parents were Dutch immigrants to Canada in 1951. They had come from two slightly differing factions of the same Reformed faith in the Netherlands . Arriving unmarried in Canada they joined the slightly more conservative of the factions. It was a small group at first. Being far from Holland and strangers in a new country these young families found a strong bonding point in their church. Deutsch: Heidelberger Katechismus, Druck 1563 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I was born in 1955 the third of eventually 9 children. We lived in a small southern Ontario farming community of Fergus. Being young conservative and industrious the community of immigrants prospered. While they did mix and work in the community almost all of the social bonding was within the church group. Being of the first generation born here we had a foot in two