I’m Daniel Florien. I was an evangelical Christian for over a decade, completely convinced that God was real and Jesus was alive today. I attended Bible college and worked at a Christian organization for many years. I have “led people to Christ.” I have left tracts in bathrooms. I have knocked on hundreds of doors asking people to repent and believe in Jesus.
I was wrong.
Now I don’t believe in a personal God or that Jesus was born of a virgin, worked miracles, and rose from the dead. I don’t believe in heaven or hell, angels or demons, holy books or prophecy. I don’t believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago, or that God intelligently designed every species.
I now consider myself an atheist and a skeptic.
Here’s an interview about my former beliefs.
What changed your mind?
It took many years for me to realize I was wrong. Here are a few reasons I changed my mind:
- I read widely outside of evangelical Christianity with an open mind. Just reading isn’t good enough — without an open mind, everything confirms your own beliefs. I decided truth was more important than my current beliefs. I was warned this was dangerous. It was indeed.
- I studied science with an open mind. I came to believe in an old earth, then finally evolution. This was a long process of removing layer after layer of propaganda.
- I looked for evidence for many of the claims I believed and realized that there was no reputable evidence at all. I could believe Jesus was resurrected, or that Moses parted the Red Sea, but there was no evidence outside oral stories recorded by unknown biased authors many decades (or, as with Moses, many centuries) after the fact.
- I researched the history and authorship of the Bible from a secular perspective. After I realized the messy history of the Bible, and saw all the contradictions and absurdities, I could not believe in inspiration much less infallibility, and any faith I still had crashed down.
- I learned to think critically and, with much trepidation, finally applied it to my own religion. After years of struggling, I finally accepted I was in a cult called evangelical Christianity.
- I asked hard questions and got tired of the final answers being “it’s a mystery,” which really meant, “it doesn’t make any sense to me either, but that’s what the Bible says.”
- I learned about probability. Things I thought could not happen without divine intervention ended up being within the laws of probability. Coincidence really exists.
Haven’t you just become an atheistic fundamentalist?
I hope not. I am open to new evidence and to being convinced differently. I have been wrong many times in the past, and I am sure I will be wrong in the future.
I want to believe the truth, no matter the consequences to my current beliefs.
If the earth can be shown to really be 6,000 years old, I would believe. If it could be proven that Jesus rose from the dead or was born of a virgin, I would believe. If it could be shown that God exists and he is involved in the lives of men, I would believe. If it could be shown that God is actually compassionate by letting people be killed, raped, and starved, then I would believe.
My own experience of religion fundamentalists is they are not truly open to new evidence or considering things differently. I am, which is how I got out of religious fundamentalism.
But you have as much faith as a believer!
I think this overextends the definition of faith so that it becomes meaningless.
I do not believe in unicorns, ghosts, leprechauns, dragons, tooth-fairies, and many other things. But I don’t have “faith” that these things don’t exist, anymore than a Christian has “faith” to not believe in Baal or Osiris or Santa Claus.
Whatever. Obviously you weren’t really a true Christian. So there!
There is no simple way around this objection, because it can’t be proven one way or another. But rest assured I loved Jesus, prayed to him every night, read the Bible every day (and cover to cover), studied for the ministry, went door knocking, led people to Jesus, led bible studies, and more. I was convicted of sin and repented often.
If I wasn’t a true Christian, how do you know you are?
But again, this doesn’t matter. Even if you were right, so what? So God tricked me into thinking I was elect, then manipulated my mind so I wouldn’t believe anymore. Therefore, God exists?
I wonder if you’d mind looking over a site I just found, “http://www.doesgodexist.org/”. I think some sort of debate between you and it’s author would be quite interesting. I’m also curious as to why you would decide to become an atheist as a result of there not being any obvious physical evidence of God’s existence, have you found convincing evidence to the contrary?
Hey dipsh&t, you tried this once before. If you can’t respond there, you’ve no business bringing your crap elsewhere, you dishonest prick.
There is nothing even remotely debatable about “doesgodexist”. The entire site is a mind-sewage processing plant. Can we get a srvr munkeh to ban this prick for advertising another website, since that really seems to be the only function of the Zephan account?
“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.”
Zephan. Study logic and reasoning. There is no way to prove a negative.
Actually science, philosophy, and mathematical theorists all say there is no way to prove a POSITIVE. That you can only DISPROVE what’s not true. Then you create the most accurate hypothesis of the truth given the evidence at hand. These closest you can come to proof of truth, is the lack of proof to the contrary.
That said, as a nuclear engineer and lifelong student of the sciences, I fully believe God works through science, not against it. And I’ve never found real evidence to the contrary either in the secular or non-secular world.
I believe your mother was impregnated by a holy donkey, and gave birth to you, a half-ass “student of the sciences”. I’ve never found real evidence to the contrary, so it’s true.
Also, you’re a practicing necrophiliac, and child rapist.
Or would you say that your entire post is bullshit?
You’re not an Engineer if you’re a “student of science”, Engineers apply mathematics to development, it has very little to do with science at all. If you can’t even truthfully describe yourself without over-exaggerating it to make yourself sound clever, how can we believe anything you say about god to be anything other than over-exaggeration of an old myth created to teach children the difference between right and wrong using stories rather than instruction?
remember atheist is a T he is T as if two say see jesus now, or help the blind or double crossed. atheist is also… A T(cross) heist, or stolen glory . also The leap of faith implies doubt,fear and uncertainty , imp is a demon and lies are untruths and knowledge reveals .. know– ledge and no resides in know and it’s sooo..easy to get across. try to find wisdom …not left out and truth …A cross –r–u–a cross of two crosses joined together? hope this helps if you can understand iT.
Yeah..iT would be easier To undersTand if iT made any sense.
Trying to play english word games with latin words can only result in gibberish. I hope this helps (if you can understand iT).
I have a nearly identical story with one fundamental difference: I still hold to the teachings of Jesus. Not the miracle stories. Not what was taught by Paul, or Peter, or any other person and then attributed to Jesus. Just his words. That is, the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus. Suffice it to say that my “Bible” is probably less than 10 pages. And if I were to boil that down even further, it would consist of only 5 commandments. Very similar to Leo Tolstoy, if you’ve ever read any of his works.
Best of luck to you in your continued search for knowledge and truth.
First, my authority for this post. PhD, Biomathematics, highly successful career as a professional ecologist. Current expertise, applied epistemology, including scientific method, especially the Bayesian approach.
Second, the problem is naive theology. Theology, for over 1000 years, was known as the queen of the sciences. Epistemologically, theology is the “queen,” because it must work through extensive disinformation. The devil deceives, blinds, confuses; God “hides a matter,” or even deludes. Self deception is rampant.
After 50 years of working at this, here is what I have found to be closest to the truth.
1. Read the scriptures under scholarly discipline, and they emerge as a “Contact,” document, in the sense of Carl Sagan’s book by that name. They give directions for face to face interviews with God, providing words that “proceed from the mouth of God.” Other scriptural topics pose questions to ask God in these interviews, or provide a back up confirmation and clarification of what one hears Him say. They specifically forbid using them as “the word of God” or any source of faith or doctrine or information.”The letter kills” they say of themselves.
2. Christianity is indeed a cult. Scripturally, Yeshua (Jesus) warned that Christians would come, saying that He is the Christ, but lying (in half truths) about everything. Ask God about that, in your interview with Him, if you are interested in the truth.
3. Science and faith are synonyms. “The evidence of things not seen,” is basic, Bayesian science. “The substance of things hoped for” is applied, Bayesian, Lakatosian science.
4. Honest science (most is not) has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that biblical theology is true. This is easily shown, as long as one strictly avoids hypocrisy, both in science and in biblical theology. Do not trust any PhD scientist not well versed in philosophy. They are certifiable liars, just as all Christians.
5. God is there, and will help with the epistemology, if humbly asked. Otherwise, you will eventually know the truth, but it will be too late to do anything about it.
6. It all depends on what you choose, not what you think. Free will trumps all. Choose (Say so!) to be decisive, to live, to fear God, and there is hope. Otherwise, have as much fun as you can, for as long as you can, before your (21 gram?) soul falls into hell and the lake of fire (a black hole?)
7. You can’t play the game if you don’t know the rules.
Theology is not a science, and you are not a scientist. “Honest science” has long since torn the Bible’s version of history to shreds. Take your dodgy confirmation bias and move along.
Have any views on dogmatic opinions?
One or two. Have any opinions on giant hypocritical douche-canoes?
And your view of dogmatic opinions is?
No, hypocritical douche canoes have never before crossed MY mind. What got you thinking about them? (You probably don’t want to hear the theological hypothesis.)
Oh I do … dogmatic opinions are often held by people who describe themselves as scientists but are actually the class thickie. The second is the type of person who makes an appeal to authority and then claims that you shouldn’t trust real scientists. I mean what sort of dick would do that?
You don’t need authority to post here, but why do people keep posting these on the “About” page.
Theology is not science, and the more thorough your understanding of theology is, the more reason you have to disbelieve it. Technically, theology is supposed to include making empirical observations about the world so as to better understand the image of god. But let’s not pretend theologians ever actually do that (or that theological criteria for judging these observations is even remotely compatible with the scientific method).
1) They apparently give wrong instructions for face to face interviews with god. I’ve followed the instructions in the bible. Despite this, god never showed up.
2) Can’t really disagree with this one.
3) Not only not synonyms. Science and faith are literally opposites. If your definition of science is “belief without evidence”, you are not talking about science. If your definition of faith is not that, you are not talking about faith.
4) No. It has not. Most of biblical theology occurs outside reality where science can’t really confirm or deny anything. At every point where biblical theology intersects with observable reality, the bible has been shown to be untrue.
5) Pascal’s wager assumes (a) an omniscient god who won’t know if you’re lying to him about your faith, (b) that we should be such cowards as to turn from truth out of fear of punishment, and (c) that there is only one possible god and the odds of his existence or nonexistence are each 50%.
6) Choose what you can while you can. Of course it is your choice. But it would be such a tragic waste to throw away the only life you know you have, to make a voice in your head happy. But of course it is your choice.
7) That you can make up rules does not obligate anyone to play by rules of your choosing.
1. I am interested to know which rules for getting an interview with God you applied unsuccessfully.
2. In Malachi, God invites us to prove Him with an experiment. In what way is this not science? Was it science when Thomas asked to put His hands in the wounds of Yeshua, to prove it was really Him?
3. The earliest definition I know for gaith is the one given. Do you know of an earlier? If not, what right do you have to force your personal definition of faith (a dogmatic opinion?) on others? In taxonomy, sound scholarship gets the earliest name for a species. Faith is the earliest name I know for the process of using evidence to appraise things we cannot directly “see” or sense in any way. What today we call science.
4. Over one thousand studies based on the hypothesis that theology is based on real or substantive beings and forces have been conducted that produce statistically significant results confirming predictions from the theological hypothesis. There are a few rejections, but meta analyses and replications all confirm. So, what’s your problem?
5. Nothing you posted about Pascal’s wager is consistent with my understanding of it. And nothing you posted elsewhere leads me to think you are doing anything but rationalizing. In any case, like Pascal, choosing to bet on believing in God has cost me very little, and the by-products of the many personal experiments I have run, which I got to keep, have made my life good beyond any hope or dream I ever had when young.
Protip: If it can’t be sensed or at least measured, if there’s not even a theoretical way to test its existence – Then it either doesn’t exist or it’s utterly irrelevant because it doesn’t interract with our universe.
‘Then…it’s utterly irrelevant because it doesn’t interact with our universe’.
Until you discover the kingdom was within you all along. Luke 17:21. This revelation creates an INternal UPheaval, greatly ‘expands’ you from within where previously one had been ‘contracted’ and bound, now he/she is free to peer longingly into that which is beyond sense, immeasurable and it is ‘marvelous in our eyes’.
To address as earlier question, I posted here to address Daniel Florien, who posted this, above:
“I hope not. I am open to new evidence and to being convinced differently. I have been wrong many times in the past, and I am sure I will be wrong in the future.
I want to believe the truth, no matter the consequences to my current beliefs.”
So far, I see no evidence this applies to you as well.
And, I guess you missed the memo on quantum mechanics.
If you had any actual evidance that Malachi, Thomas and Yeshua are anything other then charecters in a work of fiction then this would have any point in it, as it stand now it is as scientific as discussing the design of the bathrooms on the millennium falcon.
No we don’t, science is about evidence, if you can’t sense it (with your own senses or by using instruments) either directly or indirectly through it’s effects on other things than you can’t just get away with claiming it exist because you have faith.
Cite one.
You clearly don’t understand Pascal’s wager. You can’t really decide to believe you can only decide to preform the rituals of belief, this mean that the wager has any point only if god can’t tell the difference between true faith and just show, which mean he isn’t all knowing, or he doesn’t really care as long as you do enough groveling, which make him an as*hole. The other point is that Pascal only consider two possibilities, no gods or the christian god and ignore the possibility that one of the thousands of other gods believed by people throughout history is the real one. This make the wager more complicated, let’s assume for now that profession of faith will be accepted as faith. If there is no gods and you chose not to believe you lose nothing, if you chose to believe you may have lost the chance to sleep late on sunday morning or have a bacon cheesburger. If there is a god and you chose the correct one you will go to whatever heaven you get in that religion but which will be worse not believing in any god or betting on the wrong one? Since most religions describe petty and jelous gods I would say that you have a better chance as an atheist compared to someone who worshiped the wrong god. This make the odds a lot harder to calculate then in the original version.
Evidence from unverifiable personal experience are less the useless.
What you don’t know about science is a lot. Not surprising, since Diogenes warned us that honest men (or women) are few and far between. Your chances of finding an honest science teacher were slim. But, read R.A.R. Tricker “The Assesment of Scientific Speculation” to get started repairing your education. Might want to read Pascal, as well, since hearsay reports,… well, enough said.
Earliest report scientifically confirming biblical theology is MacDougal’s study weighing souls, But I would start, if I were you, with Frank Loehr’s “The Power of Prayer on Plants.” Then move on to theomatics, and bible codes research. Just remember, if the hypothesis is true, there will be a lot of philosophically unsound explaining away (ad hoc criticisms, mostly from atheists) of these studies. Science works through replications, studiously avoided by crooked atheists.
Bible codes? You’re arguing for Bible codes? And you’re claiming to be a scientist? You’re an idiot, and a liar. Well done. I, on the other hand, and well trained in critiquing scientific studies (everybody involved in medicine in the UK is, we need to be able to see past drug reps’ spin). So I will read MacDougal. And I will read Loehr. And I will be back.
Loehr:
It’s difficult to find a full copy of Franklin Loehr’s book online, all I’ve found is a digest of it, but I can see some very obvious issues from the outset: He himself is a biased researcher. This in itself is not a deal-breaker, but I couldn’t find details of where he got the 156 volunteers to test his hypothesis. Now, I’m speculating at this point, but given that Loehr was a minister (and a self-professed “medium”), and given that he was practising in 1950s America, I’m guessing they came from his flock. Even if they didn’t, what was the chance that they were all free from confirmation bias? If their biases were all different, it wouldn’t be so much of a problem, but the strong likelihood is that they were all biased towards finding out that Christian prayer worked.
The second obvious issue is that the method isn’t described well at all. Were all the seedlings in the same place? By that I mean: Were control and experimental groups in exactly the same physical conditions as each other? Were they planted at the same time of year? Were the seeds properly randomised before planting? How were the seedlings measured? How was internal consistency ensured between researchers? Were they all trained to do the same things the same way? This stuff matters if you’re trying to produce decent evidence.
The next problem I have is that the book apparently presents no data. It’s a five chapter narrative on how to pray – it’s not scientific writing in any sense of the word. And it contains no data.
You talk about science working through replication, but then presenting as evidence an “experiment” which no reader has even the slightest hope of being able to replicate, because there are no details recorded. Really, if you want to use this book as evidence for your position, you should not be surprised that people dismiss it.
Tricker:
Was published as a critique on science in 1965 and is therefore utterly irrelevant to science as it is currently practised. No further reading or critique is required.
MacDougal:
Oh boy was this guy a whackjob! Poisoning dogs to try to prove the existence of souls?! Dayum! Anyway, to cases: All MacDougal did was produce data that suggests that humans lose an average mass of 21 grams immediately post mortem. To discover this, he allegedly used industrial scales which were supposedly accurate to the gram, yet unaffected by the movement of the patient in the bed. In 1901. Right. And you wonder why most impartial observers cock an eyebrow and call bullshit? Well, if that’s not enough, we’ll go back to your earlier statement about science working through replications: People have replicated MacDougal’s work, several times, and they’ve never noted any loss of mass post-mortem. Even assuming for a second one actually believed MacDougal’s data were accurate (which I really don’t), he still hasn’t proved the existence of a soul – He’s simply proved that a body decreases in mass by an average of 21 grams within moments of death.
You are mixing two different things (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s out of ignorance) models and evidence. Statistical models are great tools but just because you can model something doesn’t mean you proved it is true. You can design a mathematical model to give any outcome you want, this is why you need to be very careful in how you use them when doing research. While the initial values you insert into your model are necessarily partially arbitrary that’s not the same as saying you can just make them up and you then have to test the prediction of the model against the observed reality and modify it when necessary. If we use the bunny cartoon from the other tread as an example, if I was to build a model the initial probability assigned to the hypothesis: puzzle picture=duck, based on previous observation that the picture formed by puzzles are usually identical to the picture on the box, will be very high. However at this point you clearly take girl-bunny’s side in assuming that your model is correct and you don’t have to actually run the experiment. Boy-bunny on the other hand do what proper scientists do and run the experiment, when he find a piece of the picture that don’t fit (bit with trees) he have to revise the model and reduce the probability that the picture is of a duck, the value of the new probability will be based on, for example, how often does the picture on the box is cropped so it doesn’t show the edges of the puzzle picture, he will also have to add another parameter to the model to indicate the probability that the picture is not of a duck but of a pond and maybe another for the probability that it’s a forest, as the experiment progress the probability for each outcome can be adjusted based on the new results. The same go for Pascal’s wager, the traditional version have two possible outcomes, no god or jesus each with a 50% probability while the version I presented has more complicated model that contain additional parameters, you have not answered why do you think these other parameters (gods) can be considered negligible for the purpose of statistically modeling the outcome of faith vs no faith as well as as whether you think that true faith and just hedging you bets by going through the motions are equivalent i this case.
Custador has already addressed your references so I won’t bother but I think it’s interesting that you had to go to a power of prayer study from the 50′s and conveniently ignore the modern ones that were conducted using a scientifically sound methodology and ubiquitously failed to show any significant effect of prayer.
Okay I guess we’re doing this on the “About” page. You know we do have a forum here for exactly this sort of thing (click on “Forum” at the top of the page).
1)
“I am interested to know which rules for getting an interview with God you applied unsuccessfully.”
See 1st Kings 18:21-40.
2)
“In Malachi, God invites us to prove Him with an experiment.”
No. He does not. I’ve read Malachi. ‘I will bless you if you serve me and curse you if you don’t serve me’ is not an experiment.
“Was it science when Thomas asked to put His hands in the wounds of Yeshua, to prove it was really Him?”
Sort of. That one is an actual experiment. And when Thomas said “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” He was expressing a basic principle of skepticism. He wanted to believe. But he wanted the thing he believed to be true. This is the closest thing to science that appears anywhere in the bible. When he insisted on seeing the wounds before he could take someone’s word that the man he had just witnessed the death of was still alive, he was applying a scientific perspective.
That’s why Jesus immediately reprimanded him. For trying to be a scientist (this is where the term ‘doubting Thomas’ comes from).
Was it science when Jesus said, “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”? That kind of sounds like literally the opposite of science.
3)
“The earliest definition I know for gaith is the one given.”
I was using your definition of faith. Paul’s definition. The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (in other words “belief without evidence). But upon seeing your second post it appears you are using a correct definition of faith and an incorrect definition of science. That is probably where the confusion lies. I’m not trying to impose my personal definition of faith on you. But we’re also not going to be using your personal definition of science.
4)
“Over one thousand studies based on the hypothesis that theology is based on real or substantive beings and forces have been conducted that produce statistically significant results confirming predictions from the theological hypothesis.”
I realize it’s a hard distinction for many to make, but formulating guesses about what’s happening in heaven and then cherry picking observations from actual scientists to shore up your theoretical model of god is not the same thing as testing a hypothesis.
5)
“Nothing you posted about Pascal’s wager is consistent with my understanding of it.”
Then you misunderstood Pascal or you misunderstood me.
Pascal’s wager refers to an argument for faking belief in god based on a cost benefit analysis of belief/disbelief that was found in Blaise Pascal’s study after his death in 1662. It is (whether you realized this or not) the same argument you were presenting with “God is there, and will help with the epistemology, if humbly asked. Otherwise, you will eventually know the truth, but it will be too late to do anything about it”. It has already been explained many times by many people (including myself) why Pascal’s wager is an unsound bet.
The basic concept of the wager is this:
You can’t know in this life whether there is a god or not. But because christianity promises a reward for belief and a punishment for disbelief, you are forced to make a choice. If you choose to believe in god and you are wrong, nothing happens. If you choose to disbelieve and you are right, again nothing happens. You gain nothing, you lose nothing. Atheists and christians share the same eternal fate in a godless universe. But if you believe in god and you are right, you gain everything. The promised reward being eternal it is by definition infinite, and thus outweighs any possible cost in this life. Likewise if you call no god, and the coin comes up god, you lose everything. Hell being equally infinite to heaven it trumps any earthly gain from disbelief. Therefore if you don’t believe in god, you should pretend you do just to cover the spread.
There are many problems with this argument, in any of its insidious forms. I’m just gonna address the most obvious and important ones here (but if you follow that link I addressed the wager in a little more depth and with some helpful pie charts that I can’t reproduce in this comment).
Wouldn’t god see right through this disingenuous ass covering? I mean you’re basically just hedging your bets to try to trick god into letting you into heaven. He’s omniscient, but he’s not gonna notice you’re lying to him? How does that work? And how does one choose to believe something they do not find credible?
What about other gods, or other heavens? Or other hells? Pascal does not include them in his calculations. If Pascal’s wager applies, then it applies to many religions besides christianity. If the coin comes up Allah, atheists and christians are equally f*cked.
The odds of any god existing to begin with are probably less than 50/50. But Pascal assumes that if there are two possibilities then they must both be equally probable. However, this is not always the case. Anything can be supposed to exist, and that does not automatically give it a 50% chance of existing.
Keep in mind that what Pascal has given us is not an argument for the existence of god. He as much as says that arguing for the actual existence of god is pointless, impossible, and not what christians are supposed to do. The wager is an argument for faking belief in the existence of god, based on a cost benefit analysis. It is an accountant’s proof. An attempt to allay one’s risk. Weighing the potential profits against the potential losses is a good way to make some decisions, but it is not a good way to examine epistemological claims. In the real wager, gain and loss mean nothing. What you want means nothing. What you are afraid of means nothing. Either X is true or X is not true. Schrödinger’s cat only works as a thought exercise. In reality, the cat is alive until it is dead (spoiler alert: it’s dead, you forgot to put holes in the box).
After telling us we have no reason to think X is true, Pascal tells us we should profess to believe in X even if we don’t because of the promised rewards. What kind of god would reward such flagrant hypocrisy? Only one who is unable to see through Pascal’s disguise or one who approves of it because he cares more what about what you claim to believe than what you believe (and why would an eternal omnipotent entity care whether people believe in him anyway). To profess belief in something you know to be untrue is the height of dishonesty, and any entity worth calling god would surely see through such a thin ruse. What Pascal proposes is that you lie to yourself, lie to everyone around you, and lie to any omniscient gods who might be watching in the hope that you will eventually hypnotize yourself into believing a falsehood.
Unicorns might exist. Unicorns might not exist. No verifiable source has ever photographed, captured, or even seen a unicorn. Would you say that because we have never found a unicorn, it is just as likely that they exist as that they don’t. Of course not. You would not make this assumption because you do not already believe in the existence of unicorns. Thus you have no emotional stake in rationalizing belief in their existence. But Pascal and his followers feel perfectly comfortable making this assumption about the existence of an unobserved god whose nature conflicts with observed reality.
Gods were made up to explain things we now have better explanations for. We no longer need to appeal to a creator to explain our existence. The hypothesis that Zeus is throwing lightning bolts is not equal to electrostatic induction. Modern theories of planetary motion are not just different than the theory that Horus drags the Sun across the sky in a canoe. They are measurably better explanations. When one theist shows me one real piece of evidence for god, or one argument for god’s existence that does not boil down to “we don’t know how this happened so it must be god” we’ll talk about 50/50.
But even if you do assume that the odds for intelligent design are 50/50, there is no a priori reason why yhvh should automatically get the entirety of that 50%. What about Allah? Or Zeus? Or Quetzacoatl? Pascal doesn’t mention them by name, but if we apply his logic then we must assume that every invisible god which has ever been believed in by any sect of humanity has an equal chance of existing or not existing. Logically each of these thousands of gods should be apportioned an equal share of the 50% slice, with a corresponding slice of the opposite 50% being devoted to the possibility that they do not exist.
This does not create a logic error in the atheist half of our little chart. I do not believe in the christian god. I do not believe in Anubis. These are not contradictory statements. It is perfectly within the realm of reason for someone who does not believe in yhvh to also not believe in Anubis.
But if you do believe in yhvh, he will have no other gods before him. His monotheistic existence is contradictory to even the polytheistic existence of Zeus or Shiva. So rather than peacefully sharing a 50% slice like the non-existence probabilities, The mutually exclusive possibilities of Allah, yhvh, jehovah, Ganesh, The Great Spirit, Moloch, Thor and the others, relegate each other to an infinitesimally small percentage.
So, if you start with the generous estimate that there is a 50% chance of some god existing, the judeo-christian god still doesn’t fare well in the pantheon. The addition of a mere three more gods reduces the probability of yhvh’s existence to 12.5%. But what about Angra Mainyu? Or Elkunirsa? Or Danu? Or Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli? The god of Pascal has less than 1/10th of 1% of a possibility of existing when we add in the pantheon of gods who are solidly tied with yhvh at zero evidence.
Do you want to face the judgment of Allah and be cast out of paradise because you didn’t profess the shahadah or make that trip to Mecca to walk in repetitive circles around a big cube? Do you want to get to Valhalla and have to tell Odin you died as an old man in a nursing home without a sword in your hand? Each of these gods has as much evidence for their existence as the christian god. Each of these fates is at least as probable as Revelation 20. And you can’t very well believe every religion that has made claims about where you will spend eternity.
And it’s not as though christianity is the first religion to make afterlife claims either. Zoroastrianism beat christianity to the ideas of heaven and hell by several years. Egyptian, Greek, and Babylonian mythology promise a place for the dead. Plato argued for the immortality of the soul in his dialogues a few hundred years before Jesus. And one of the defining traits of the Pharisees (the already existing order of Judaism that Jesus was trying to overthrow) was their belief in the afterlife.
If you actually accept Pascal’s wager, and follow its logic to its logical conclusion, the best choice is to pick the religion that promises the greatest rewards, or try to appease the deity who threatens the worst punishment. I hear the Buddha offers a pretty sweet retirement plan. And you definitely don’t want to get on C’thulu’s bad side.
Of course Pascal only mentions two possibilities, and assigns them each half of the available pie. The wager does not merely presuppose that christianity is the one true faith. It presupposes that christianity is the one anything faith. It coexists no better with the existence of Muhammed than the existence of Allah.
This is because Blaise Pascal lived in a time and place which was absolutely dominated by christianity. He only mentions two possibilities, because he was only ever confronted by two possibilities. For a frenchman living in the 1600’s (especially one who made such significant contributions to science and math), this sort of bifurcation can be forgiven. For people to still be spouting this ignorant sh*t in the 21st Century, is just plain intellectual laziness.
If you really want to see how good of an argument Pascal makes just try applying this same equation to Santa Claus. After all, what do you have to lose by believing in Santa? He won’t give you any presents unless you believe in him.
I joined a thread in the forum, to continus this, but for now,
1. Try “And you shall seek me, and find me, when you shall search for me with all your heart.”
2. Malachi 3:10 “Bring you all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house, and test me now in this, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” There are thousands of reports of people doing this experiment and getting a confirmation. Know of any testing it and failing?
Also, there is a problem with wanting too much evidence, as Yeshua noted. He told His followers what the test would be, and more importantly, that they needed be about repenting, if they wanted to live. Thomas had not repented of his doubting heart, his need for more evidence than was offered. He ought to have confessed his struggles with the plan as given By Yeshua, as the plan was presented, and “prepared the way of the Lord.” A good talk before the crucifixion was called for. We will see this in further discussions here. People will call for evidence, but secretly in their heart they will already be thinking of ways to twist any evidence that might come up to reject it, so that they don’t have to change their minds. This is not a healthy attitude.
3. I read much of your Wager post, and say that you have been hornswoggled by the religionists. The common sense definition of faith as a subset of evidence is the simplest interpretation, and in my every effort to ask God Himself what he was trying to say with those words, that is what he tells me. In the context of the rest of scriptures, this makes sense. Religionists, trying to defend their dogmatic choice, had to flip the meaning upside down. You should know better than to fall for that. Faith, as intended by the spiritual being known as God, who inspired the bible, is science. Basic science and applied science. Ask Him yourself.
4. It is impossible to cherry pick results with Bayesian H-D Science. That’s the whole point! The only evidence allowed in the calculations are surprising results predicted before they were found.
5. Pascal’s Wager was the claim that if one would, in the hopes of having “faith come,” act as if one believed, it amounted to one doing all they could to believe. It amounts to choosing to believe, and doing what what can to make that choice an honest one. This was a good bet, because, if there truly was a God, he would do a convincing miracle, your fire from heaven sort of thing, to make Himself known. The “my best” (all my heart) actions were not all that costly, and if one died in the midst of the experiment, one’s position before the judgement seat of God would be pretty good. The sort of high integrity position you claim to want. But the fire came down for Pascal. I worry that his notions were so corrupted by the religious stuff, that he quickly backslid into their empty rituals.
But, I admire your thorough study. Given you being suckered into that BS definition of faith, it makes sense.
‘Faith, as intended by the spiritual being known as God, who inspired the bible, is science’.
No, its not. Faith is something God gives, and to each ‘a measure’ (Romans 12:3). Science is measurable, testable, empirical, seen. But faith (by which the spiritual man ‘walks’, 2 Cor 5:7) for that one, is the ‘evidence of things not seen’ Heb 11:1, and testifies to another, unseen reality and spiritual realm, ie the kingdom of God which is much more like a fairy tale for children (Matt 18:3) than an academic, scientific pursuit. And this kingdom can be found within us, Luke 17:21. And that’s not scientific in nature, its…spiritually discerned.
Have +10 internets for saying what I was going to say, albeit in different words.
Faith = schizophrenia. Got it.
Then you misunderstood Pascal.
This for Daniel Florien. Many of the above posts may be viewed as “Your mind on atheism.” I hope you see that you have thrown the baby (the spiritual truth about Yeshua messiah) out with the bathwater (Hypocritical Christian Religion, that Yeshua warned would come to deceive you.
But, some posters are hard-working and may actually, as you claim about yourself, want to know the truth. They want me over on the forum, so I will startor respond to some threads there to counsel with them about how we have learned to know what is true, and what we find out about spiritual hypotheses when we apply those epistemological rules.
Yes I am a Christian and believe in God. No I don’t go to church but I go by way of music. Yes only the Bible is the only book that tells us of Jesus and God. But that does not mean He never was alive. I don’t think the Bible is wrong at all. I don’t think you can do anything to prove me wrong.
I don’t think you’d really listen if we tried.
You know what, that was unfair of me, and i apologize. it’s simply a knee-jerk reaction to people coming in and making challenges. Bop around, read what we have to say, ask questions.
Would a litany of contradictions, and blatant lies/inaccuracies from the bible change your mind?
In a convenient poster graphic form:
http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/102/
I can only tell you why I did my exit from Christianity, I studied eschatology for four years.The return of Christ by biblical account should have happened before the end of the first century.The easiest way is to compare the return to a pregnant woman.Do you know the exact time and day of delivery ? No. Do you have a time frame ? Yes,within ten months. Go outside,look up at the sky and ask yourself,”Do I really believe that Christ will come busting through the clouds one day ?” If you answer yes to that question then just go ahead, scrounge around in your brain and through out any reason,logic or common sense that remains inside of it.
Roger, I´m afraid that there´s no such thing as “biblical account” when it comes to eschatologic events. Jesus was very clear when He said:
“But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day* your Lord is coming. But understand this: if the owner of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an unexpected hour.” (Matthew 24:36-44; Mark 13:32-37)
Except for these parts where Jebus said he’d be returning soon.
Matthew 16:28 “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
Mark 9:1 Then he said to them, “I tell you with certainty, some people standing here will not experience death until they see the kingdom of God arrive with power.”
Luke 9:27 “But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”
But of course, you don’t comprehend its meaning. What is ‘death’ Sunny?
Jese’s like, “brb,” but dude, he never did, and I’m like, “what a tool!” and she’s like, “I know, right?”
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9).
“Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.” (1Corinthians 1:20-25)
According to the Bible (which I believe is the Word of God), God is reachable exclusively through the faith that He gives to some of us. Therefore, I believe (honest) science will not lead human kind to prove His existence (“so that no one may boast”), nor His unexistance, just because that´s not the way He intended to.
I know this is an atheist forum, and I´m here defending Christianity, but if you like to see yourselves as “open-minded” people, try at least to debate this politely with me. I see that a lot of people here has a very high self-concept. Just remember I´m not here to offend you. I just like to debate about this important subject and I´m not afraid to test my faith.
I know you’re not here to offend. But as for faith, there is really nothing to defend. You put your trust in something that can’t be proven, and away you go.
How do you feel about other people who have faith in non-Christian belief systems? Do you feel that they are wrong, or mistaken in their faith? And if you do feel that they are mistaken, on what basis do you make this assessment, since you’ve explicitly rejected the use of evidence as a possible method of determining the truth of a religion?
UrsaMinor, let me put it this way: I believe in divine inspiration and in inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible, to me (and millions of others), is a collection of books written by men, but they didn´t spoke of things nor philosophies of their own heads; they´re all moved by the Spirit of God, and spoke of His Wisdom. As Peter writes in 2Peter 1:20-21 – “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”
Therefore, I believe that what the Bible say is THE TRUTH, because God spoke to us through it. It contains all we need to know to understand our spiritual misery and desperate need of forgiveness and reconciliation with our Maker. In Bible, this is not applicable to some, but to all. Including you. If you believe that or not, that´s another story.
I understand when you say that matters of the faith cannot be proven scientifically. I wrote about that in my first post. But think with me: don´t you just think it´s admirable the fact that, so many centuries after, those who don´t believe couldn´t prove the Bible is consistently wrong (historically, scientifically, theologically) either? You know lots of (truly brilliant) people tried (and are still trying). What kind of wisdom is that that survive through centuries without be proven wrong at all? What other “philosophy” attained the same result through time?
But, just to be clear, those last considerations above are not the basis of (my) faith. That´s not what satisfied my search for the truth. It was the progressive learning (and acceptance) of the Gospels that made me know that men are just creatures made by an living God, who knows more than all of us (human kind) together. It´s easy to understand, but very hard to our deceitful heart to accept it.
I could call “scientific evidence” of God´s existence a lot of things that amaze me: the conception of a child, the perfect harmony of nature (left alone) and its capability of adaptation (when we mess with it), and even the anthropic principle (when you consider the absolute amazing “friendly conditions” to human life on Earth, and nowhere else). About that, read Romans 1:18-21.
With all that in sight (and more) I have to say that anyone that believes in the Bible´s divine inspiration has to believe that those who search other gods are wrong. Try to see that, initially not as presumption, but as what it purely is: coherence with what I believe is THE TRUTH. If I believe that what the Bible says is true, necessarily I have to believe that what contradicts it is wrong. Just because I believe God (who made all things) probably knows more than all mankind together. And He´s been consistently proving to me He´s right as time passes on my life.
As for scientific evidences as a counterpart, honestly, I understand that monkey evolution demand as much as faith as Christianity, but with a lot less to offer in terms of convincing arguments, and I know that´s MY point of view.
If you believe the above assertions to be true, you have done no reading outside of Christian apologist literature, whose goal is to rationalize Christian beliefs, not seek the truth (whatever it happens to be). Many of the points that you make have in fact been demolished by critics over the centuries. Christians simply ignore this. I see you are continuing the tradition.
You may, of course, choose to believe that people of other faiths are wrong. That is your prerogative. But you have advanced no argument as to why this is so, and presented no evidence that it is true. It is interesting to note from an outsider’s perspective such as mine that the Muslims and the Hindus and the Buddhists approach their religions exactly the same way that you do…they are absolutely, utterly convinced that because their particular theologies make sense to them, they must be true. They are just as comfortable with their choices as you are, and every bit as justified as you are in their choices.
Ok. Please enlighten me. Cite one biblical point that had been demolished, and especially, who did it.
OK, we’ll start with an easy one. The Euthyphro Dilemma, as outlined by Plato. Consider this a pre-demolition; it was a serious philosophical problem centuries before the New Testament was even written.
Or we might try the problem of evil, which has been tackled by many authors. You could start with Epicurus’ writing on the subject.
But I’m not going to debate all the evidence with you; if you are seriously interested, go out and read up for yourself. Those two topics will get you started.
You still haven’t given me a reason for believing in your particular religion out of all possible religions, other than “I want to”. Which, again, is certainly your prerogative, but please have the integrity to admit that your choice of religion is arbitrary.
Ursa Minor, I promise to you I´ll search more about the Euthyphro Dilemma and the works of Epicurus.
As for the reasons of my faith in the Christian God, I have two basic explanations.
The first one is purely spiritual: if I believe in God and Jesus Christ, it´s because that was given to me. As I quoted a few posts back, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9). By that I mean that I was given an undeserved gift that allows me to fight against my mind-and-heart natural inclinations (or dispositions) to move away from God and do evil (not the corrupted, largely affected by relativism concept of evil that reigns among men, but evil according the perfect wisdom of God, as stated in the Bible).
The second reason is comparison between the dominant religions of the world (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and, of course, atheism) and its beliefs, and what seemed more credible. But I understand that, on this comparison task, the first reason makes it a little easier to me.
Yes, I thought you would come up with the explanation that “this is what makes sense to me”. It is not a good argument by any means, especially in light of the fact that the majority of religious people on the planet disagree strongly with your assessment, and find other, wildly differing theologies to be more plausible. You are still faced with the task of demonstrating why your choice is the correct one, beyond the observation that it feels right to you personally.
So, you truly cannot come up with a reason or line of evidence that is external to all religions, which anyone can see and examine for themselves, and which clearly points to Christianity as the one true religion? I am assuming that you realize that the Bible cannot be used as evidence for its own truth (or, if you insist that it can, then you must also allow that other holy scriptures such as the Q’uran can be used as evidence for their own truth, and we are back to square one). The only way that you can construct a valid argument is to compare both the Bible and the Q’uran (or any other religious text) against some objective external standard, on whose basis they can be differentiated as true or untrue.
You needn’t read all of Epicurus, by the way, just his thoughts on the problem of evil. I believe they survive only in the works of Lactantius, who critiques them. And there are many other writers who have addressed the same topic, arguing for or against its validity, from Classical times down to the present. It is essential to look at both sides.
The Euthyphro Dilemma is perhaps more central, as it addresses the fundamental basis for good and evil, without which you cannot properly have a discussion of the problem of evil.
Ursa Minor, I do believe the Bible has authority enough to be taken as a proof for itself. If we started comparing the Bible and Q´uran it would be a very long thread, and you are well aware of that. But I´ve done some reading of and on the Q´uran and I´ll eventually start a post on this subject someday.
For now, I think I´ll stop posting here a little, because I have some reading to do. I´m really interested in the Euthyphro Dilemma.
I appreciated the fact that you understood the meaning of my visit around here, and gave me a little more arguments (although I´ll have to check it first) than other posters did. There are some colleagues of you here that shouldn´t be in an atheist forum, but still making basic reading on Christianity.
My goal here was to get consistent arguments (if there is one at all) and test it against pure Christianity. Nowhere better than an atheist forum to do so, don´t you think?
Anyway, thank you for keeping the discussion in a respectful basis. You´ll be hearing (of reading) from me soon.
At last, let me quote Simmias in Plato´s Phaedon, when at some point he says:
“For I dare say that you, Socrates, feel, as I do, how very hard or almost impossible is the attainment of any certainty about questions such as these in the present life. And yet I should deem him a coward who did not prove what is said about them to the uttermost, or whose heart failed him before he had examined them on every side. For he should persevere until he has attained one of two things: either he should discover or learn the truth about them; or, if this is impossible, I would have him take the best and most irrefragable of human notions, and let this be the raft upon which he sails through life-not without risk, as I admit, if he cannot find some word of God which will more surely and safely carry him.”
I believe I found my safe sail.
Unless you are using the word “proof” in a new way, this is an error of reasoning called “petitio principii”, “begging the question”, or “assuming the initial point”. You are assuming that your conclusion is true, and using that to prove that your conclusion is true. It is a circular argument. You can prove anything (or rather, you can prove nothing) that way.
But even if circular reasoning were a valid method of argument, it would not help your case here. It would also apply to using the Q’uran to prove that the Q’uran is true. If you reject this, then you are committing the error of special pleading. I.e., “My method of argument supports my case, but my method of argument does not support any other cases just because I say so.” This is running theme I see in your comments: you will take a general argument that can be used in support of the validity of more than one religion, and assume that it only applies to your own.
I’m not really interested in discussing the content of the Bible vs. the Q’uran at this point, as the actual content of either one is not relevant to my arguments about the problems with using a holy text to prove its own veracity. Certainly you can take passages from them and compare what they say about the world to the way that the world actually works, in order to make a decision about the truth or falsehood of their statements, but you cannot bootstrap a proof without referring to things outside the texts. I don’t think it would be profitable to wade into the details until some more of the basic points of reasoning have been cleared up.
If you are referring to Simmias of Thebes, I find it amusing that you are quoting a pagan philosopher who died several centuries before Christianity was invented. Are you assuming that he was referring to your god, when the thoughts expressed in the passage apply just as well to Allah or Ormazd or Vishnu? The assumption is not warranted.
But enough for now. Do your reading, and then start a thread on the forums when you are ready.
You might want to look up circular reasoning if you can understand it you may realize why most of us don’t take you seriously.
Here I’ll do the hard part for you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=circular+reasoning&l=1
I’m guessing you haven’t read actually read the book yet.
Did you?
“don´t you just think it´s admirable the fact that, so many centuries after, those who don´t believe couldn´t prove the Bible is consistently wrong”
We have proven the bible is wrong. Thomas Paine proved that over two hundred years ago (and if you interpret the bible literally Galileo proved it wrong before that). That those who believe have managed to continue believing for so many centuries despite clear evidence that their beliefs are not true is certainly a monumental act of willful self deception, but I don’t think I’d call it admirable.
‘We have proven the bible is wrong’.
No Nox, the only thing you’ve ‘proven’ is exactly what it declares, that the natural, reason-dominated and worshiping mind of man, apart from the Spirit’s light, can never comprehend it, will always ‘think’ it false & foolish, childish and ‘un-reason-able’ (1st Cor 2:14 & 1 Cor 1:18).
There are two seeds/Seeds in man.
Ok, just explain me what parts of the Bible were proven wrong by Thomas Paine and Galileo.
Galileo proved the Geocentric view of the universe contained in the Bible to be wrong, and spent his remaining life under house arrest because of it.
The Bible does not contain a geocentric view of the universe. If you say that based on the book of Joshua, chapter 10, you were a little rushed in your conclusions.
The mentioned chapter does not say that the sun spins around the earth. The Bible only describes the phenomenom from the human perspective.
If you refer today to the “sunrise” and the “sunset”, could you be accused of defend the geocentrism? I don´t think so.
“Therefore, I believe that what the Bible say is THE TRUTH, …”
… and herein lies the problem – it’s only the truth when you want it be and if it’s obviously wrong then there’s always some reason why it’s really not wrong; you just have to interpret it right.
Why not be honest with yourself and admit that the Bible more points to (all though is not conclusive) that the Sun moves around the Earth. Now if you believe in the Bible being the word of Christian god the reasonable conclusion is that he’s incompenetnt in getting information across; if you don’t the reasonable conclusion is that the Bible was written by men who didn’t didn’t know that the Earth rotates around the sun.
Jabster, God´s intent with the book He sent us to read (The Bible) was not to explain to us every little aspect and detail of His creation. Honesty points to the fact that the Bible does not say which one (the planet or the star) orbits around the other one, and purely because that´s not its objective. The Christian faith is not based on that. The point of all the Bible is to show us (or remember us) that it was God who made all that (and some other important things). It was Him that brought the sun and the earth, and all else, to existence. In this point, the Bible truly makes an statement (about the Author of all). And a pretty bold one, if you ask me.
But the Bible states nothing conclusive about geocentrism or heliocentrism. If you read it as a geocentric document, it´s that because YOU want it to be a geocentric document.
Oh, by the way, I believe the last part of you post is right: the men who wrote the Bible really didn´t know that the earth rotates around the sun.
This detail of God´s creation we discovered (with the help of sciences) only a few centuries later.
The bible is not a geocentric document???
Where does Genesis 1:17 say the Sun is located?
Where does Genesis 1:6 say the firmament is located?
As I said before, the Bible tells the story of creation considering the human perspective, because it was written for humans to read (including those who lived before the invention of the Hubble telescope). If you want to look to the firmament, where the sun is, you have to look up. The same with the moon, the stars, the Halley comet.
Again, what does the Bible say about rotations? Nothing. And why is that? Because it´s irrelevant in the plan of salvation.
Yeah, I get that it was written in an era when humans didn’t really know any better.
The question is, why does god get so much wrong.
Isn’t it amazing that any fundie who show up here is always the one who truly understand what god meant in the buybull and that it always in agreement with the argument he’s making at that particular moment.
Yoav, the understanding of God´s intent with the Holy Scriptures is part of rationally understand the meaning of the book as a whole.
You are also capable of doing that with any other book you read, I assume.
Yep you can do that with any book, even fatasies like The Lord of the Rings and the bible.
The problem being, the actual author of Lord of the Rings existed.
The fact even you people can´t deny is this: nobody can prove merely through reason the existence (or non-existence) of God. Cause that´s the way He wants to. It has to be through faith. And there´s nothing we can do about it, just accept it or not.
Bottom line: It´s a Pascal´s wager, after all. If we Christians are right, you spent your whole lives running after the wind, and will have a lot of time to lament for this (eternity). If we´re wrong, no one loses nothing. Rationally speaking, I prefer to be a Christian.
“Bottom line: It´s a Pascal´s wager, after all.”
You better hope you bet on the right religion then. Because after all you are almost as atheist as I am. You only believe in one more god.
Pascal’s Wager is possibly the worst argument for a specific religion : it’s not a argument for your god but for a god, it makes many unproven assumptions and it doesn’t give a very flattering image of your god.
Wait.
First you said the Bible is inerrant, and now you’re saying you can’t prove god.
So now you’re saying god is deliberately hiding from us and will not show himself.
Stupid Christians like to pretend there’s only one religion in the world.
Your arguments are completely unconvincing to anyone who isn’t already a believer. Is that what you want this to boil down to? You have to believe in order to believe?
Did you just seriously advance the assertion that you know the wishes and motives of a being whose existence you claim can’t be proven or disproven?
I mean, seriously? “God can’t be proven or disproven, but this is what He wants…”
You know the drill Ursa – tricky bit and then it’s not for us to understand god’s plan; want to advance my own argument and magically god agrees me so I must be right.
Seems pretty standard stuff and I couldn’t keep a straight face if I was posting what are basically opposite conclusions in my own posts.
Scroll up Carlos,
We went over Pascal already on this page.
“According to the Bible (which I believe is the Word of God)…”
Why?
“I know this is an atheist forum, and I´m here defending Christianity, but if you like to see yourselves as “open-minded” people, try at least to debate this politely with me.”
Well this depends on what you mean by “open minded.” We will politely listen to what you ahve to say, and if we think you are wrong tell you so in clear terms. If you expect us to suspend rational thought, you will be disappointed.
Awww crap – replied to the wrong post.
Bill, I call “open minded” people who can discuss significant matters with others without turning to personal offenses, even if the other one believes in something completely different.
You know, I started like this my participation on this forum because it´s not unusual to see people who defend Christianity been labeled “simple minded”, “delusional”, “freak”, among other disrespectful adjectives. I think you can be a polite atheist if you want to.
Otherwise, it would be the same if I said: “Those who believe in the Theory of Evolution and that descends from a monkey, raise the tail!”
Oh, by the way, try to forgive my “halfway” english. I´m not from USA and my native language is not english (but portuguese).
No it would just indicate that you were another ignorant fool purposefully ignoring the mountains of modern scientific evidence for evolution to cling ever more tightly to a book of myths and legends of a bronze age people.
Lets be more specific. Cite one scientific proof of Biblical error and explain me why is that. I´m not actually challenging you, I´m just trying to understand your point more clearly.
In Sunny’s absence, please allow me: http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm
Don´t send me links to other sites, please. I prefer direct debate. To that link with a list of possible contradictions in terms of dates and stuff like that, I´ll just send you anohter link:
http://www.amazon.com/Big-Book-Bible-Difficulties-Revelation/dp/0801071585
According to genesis 1 humans were created after the other animals, male and female at the same time. According to genesis 2 man was created first, then the animal and then a woman.
If they were the only people in the world at the time who was Cain concerned that would kill him after he got banished?
Which of the two stories of Jesus birth is true? Was there a census or was there a massacre of babies, did the angel appeared for Mary or Joe, where they living in Bethlehem or Nazareth at the time?
BTW, the forum is probably a better place for this discussion although may I suggest you scan through some of the old treads first and read the answers given to the same questions in the past (many many many times) and maybe try to come up with some new material.
Yes, I would recommend that Carlos start a new thread on the forums if he’s looking for a lengthy discussion. And certainly the points that he is raising have been discussed many times before from various angles; reading those older threads is a good idea.
OK, I´ll do that.
According to Genesis 1, the Earth went through alternating periods of light and darkness referred to as “evening” and “morning” for three days prior to the existence of the Sun
Then you’d be arguing against what you think evolution is, not what evolution actually is. And this is where I get angry at Creationists – They’re so entrenched in their own views that they don’t even bother to find out what the opposite view is before they dismiss it. And yet they still expect to be taken seriously by people who know both sides. It’s maddening!
Do you know both sides?
Well enough to know what I’m arguing against, yes.
Custador, just so you know, I´m not dismissing your arguments. I want to hear (read) them, and discuss them with you in a peaceful way. That´s why I´m adventuring in a atheist forum. Because I still believe atheist people can discuss atheism without enraging themselves against non-atheists.
Some of us can. Do not expect calm, cool politeness from every poster. Atheists are just as temperamentally varied a lot as theists.
First, I note you avoided my question.
Second, you will get polite responses here for the most part unless you act impolite to us, or fail to actaully engage. We see a ton of theists here telling us we are wrong without ever actually answering our questions or having a meaningful conversation. If you take that approach expect rude answers.
Ursa Minor, you accuse me of using circular reasoning and, at the same time, says that you’re atheist because a”circular question”? Cause that’s what the Eutyphro Dilemma is all about. I mean, come on, it’s the same question as: what came first, the egg or the hen?
When I say that faith is the only way to geto to God, I mean the capability of accepting the premise that God is the primary cause of the entire universe (including the moral law engraved in every men’s heart). He is perfect goodness and virtue. He’s eternal, another concept that your so called reason will never be able to determine completely.
Ethics is based on the very nature of God. His nature is relational and benevolent, eternal and free of conflicts. God likes relationships and encourages his creation to enjoy the same kind of relationship. Life is about enjoying relation with other human beings based over the joy of a eternal relationship with God Himself.
Therefore, God does not adhere to exterior, nor to arbitrary ethical constructions, because pure ethics is part of his very own nature. He is the reference to what’s good or evil.
So the answer the Bible gives to your “dilemma” is: things are good (or bad) as long as they are compatible (or incompatible) with God’s nature. He’s the only true ethical reference for mankind. He’s the safe sail I wrote about posts ago.
And, since the very nature of god is derived from man’s interpretation of it, then what is good or bad is subjective to the person making the analysis.
The Eurypthro Dilemma is not exactly circular. If you understand it properly it is more fork shaped. The question is not “chicken or the egg” it is a question of what things are good and why.
Since you’ve unequivocally come down on the “good because they are beloved by the gods” side of it, you may not actually see why this is a dilemma. If that which is good is good only because god calls it good, then god can call anything good and it is (this is completely leaving to one side the question of how you know god’s will) and can arbitrarily change the definition of good anytime he wants.
Under this system, if god called murder good, it would be. If god called rape good, it would be. If god told us to sacrifice our children to him or slaughter neighboring tribes down to the last infant, we would have to call it good. If the entire old testament was crammed to bursting with this sort of commandment, how would you determine which ones are good.
If god said “Of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them.(Deuteronomy 20:16-17)” would that be good because god said it?
If god said “Every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death(Leviticus 20:9)” would that be good because god said it?
If god said “Whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 31:15)” would that be good because god said it?
Good doesn’t mean anything unless it means something.
The Bible say God doesn’t change either. He’s not a human. I’m not worried about sudden changes on God’s part. You’re right when you say that Eutyphro’s Dilemma is not really a dilemma for a Christian.
And don’t forget that God is love, indeed, but He is justice too. But of course you have your own “reasonable” sense of justice, so, you won’t get it anyway.
As Nox observes, you come down on the “good is good and evil is evil because my god said so” side. Let’s try this little thought experiment. Suppose that your god communicated to its worshipers that the rules have changed (and according to the Bible, this has happened before, it is ‘compatible with God’s nature’ to change its mind). From now on, it wants you to steal and eat a live human infant for breakfast every morning, rather than partake in the Eucharist during church services. Under your assumptions, the morality of this horrible commandment can’t be questioned. It is now, by definition, good and righteous behavior for all Christians. And you cannot argue that “my god wouldn’t command such a terrible thing”, because it would not be not terrible if your god did command it.
Are you comfortable with a theology that could not only excuse an act like this, but exalt it as an example of good behavior?
Yes. I get it. You must believe in the Christian God in order to believe the Christian God. But this argument works equally well for Allah, Thor, Amaterasu, Pan, Isis, Vishnu and the Tooth Fairy too. If you deny this, you’re engaging in special pleading again, and we’re back to square one. If you don’t deny it, you’re being honest and admitting that you’ve made an arbitrary choice of deity.
Here’s a suggestion: think about your own arguments before presenting them. Would they convince you if they came from someone arguing for the truth of another religion? If the answer is no, then you’re probably engaging in special pleading. Why would you expect that same argument to convince anyone else that your position is correct?
Other people have already covered the topic of evidence for the nonexistence of hypothetical entities. I don’t think I have anything more to add here.
And besides, you demand evidences of God’s existence all the time. Give me one E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E of God’s non-existence. Let’s turn the tables a little bit. And don’t send me to other posts. Spare me the time and be concise.
You must be more specific, and specify which god. They all have an equal chance of existing.
TrickQuestion,
I tend to think the more specific ones have far less chance of existing.
Carlos,
Evidence that no god whatsoever exists? Who told you that existed? We can give you plenty of evidence that your god was made up by man, and that the bible is wrong about hundreds of things, and that christian doctrine contains such flawed and tortured logic that it couldn’t be true, and that in addition to making scientifically wrong statements the bible disagrees with itself vehemently on nearly every issue it speaks on.
We’ve already given you some evidence of these things and you haven’t actually answered any of it.
But you can’t properly prove the nonexistence of any entity no matter how ridiculous, unneccessary or improbable he may be.
So you recognize that you have no evidence of God’s non-existence. Therefore, I don’t get why you atheists think that your ideas about the origin of things are better than Christianity. You accuse me of having no “reasonable” evidences of His existence, but you say you have no evidence of His non-existence, because it doesn’t exists (the evidence).
As far as I can see, you are not an atheist. You are just an agnostic.
Do I still have to explain to which God I’m referring to?
No, but you might explain why your God is the real one while all the rest are false.
Not a problem but I do have one request from your first … please give me one E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E of each of the other god’s non-existence first. I’m sure you be more than happy to do that won’t you? Of course I would be carefully that any one of these E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E-S can’t be used against your god.
Once you’ve done that I’ll be more than happy to supply E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E against your own brand of god.
Perhaps I’m sticking my neck out only to get it snapped off as a Christian in a very strongly atheist forum, but I’d like to offer my views on this concept of the many religions and many gods and the question of who has the right god. The number of religions that have sprung up over the centuries seem to point to some sort of inherent need for humans to believe in something or someone greater than themselves, and perhaps many religions are worshipping the same God under different names.
To draw an analogy from the natural world, let us think about the sun. As a native English-speaker, I look at the sun and call it the sun. Someone from a Spanish-speaking country would look at that bright thing in the sky and call it “sol,” and a German would name it Sonne, but we’re all talking about the same thing. In the same sense, I would postulate that there are people out there worshipping Allah or Zeus or Quetzalcotl who are really just seeking the same God that I am, just under a different name.
On a side note, I just recently watched a movie called “Everything Is Spiritual” that basically looks at scientific discoveries and how modern understandings of the science behind life can point to a greater Creator. I would be interested to see what any of the large number of atheists in this forum would have to say about the movie and its claims.
Except they’re not worshipping the same God. Hell, the God of the Bible was originally THREE Gods. Lrn2archaeology.
“I would be interested to see what any of the large number of atheists in this forum would have to say about the movie and its claims.”
Without even watching it I know it complete bollocks … oh and let’s be honest here you think other people have the wrong idea about god don’t you not the other way around. I mean what sort of idiot would worship the wrong god?
Science has no comment on a Creator, except that every time somebody makes a claim on behalf of the alleged creator, science eventually proves them wrong.
That concept that “It’s all the same god under different names” makes complete hash of the idea that we can ever know what it wants of us or determine its moral code, because gods of different names demand different things and have different codes of conduct for their followers. How would you ever be able to know what “being a good person” is?
Our brain may have an inherent tendency to believe in something but that doesn’t mean that said something actually exist.
Perhaps I misspoke. It would be more accurate to say that all religions are looking for the same thing, but their picture of who (or what) they are looking for will vary based on cultural, societal, etc influences.
@Jabster: Calling something “complete bollocks” without having actually seen it for yourself is no different than a conservative Christian turning a punk kid away from church because they aren’t “dressed appropriately.” Prejudging something proves only closed-mindedness.
@UrsaMinor: I did not wish to state that “it’s all the same god under different names,” and I will admit that my sun analogy was flawed. My attitude towards treating others coincides closely to Nox’s “enlightened self-interest” (as described here: http://www.patheos.com/forums/unreasonablefaith/topic.php?id=1710&page=2#post-35421), but my motivation stems from a theological foundation (the Golden Rule) as opposed to universal empathy.
If anyone is interested in actually viewing “Everything Is Spiritual” rather than shooting it down out of hand, here’s the link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=77024018179262526
What is this core thing that they are all seeking, and how do you deduce its existence and nature from the many dissimilar theological schools of thought?
The movie you linked to is two hours long, and the first ten minutes of it are nothing but a rehash of the first few verses of Genesis, with which all of us here are already quite familiar. If you think this movie presents some argument that deserves our attention, please post a specific time index, and a brief statement of the point you think it makes.
I believe the core thing is a benevolent Creator, and discerning his/her/its nature and existence is a matter largely of faith. I was raised in the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination, and as I’ve gotten older there are some tenets I have held on to and some I have discarded as I stack them up against the Bible I believe in and the picture of God this Bible and personal experience have painted for me.
Regarding the movie, starting at 15:55 he uses the science of fine-tuning as evidence of a Creator. That segment is about five minutes long. Skip foward to 35:55 and he uses Edwin Abbott’s book “Flatland” as the premise of an analogy for the possibility of experiencing things beyond our understanding as creatures of three dimensions, and it goes for 5-6 minutes.
The god you believe in reflects your personal experience – that’s enough to call bullshit. You have no proof! You have the gooey feelings of what you want to believe to be true, so much that you made it up yourself, loosely based on available literature.
Seriously.
W-I-S-H-F-U-L T-H-I-N-K-I-N-G is how you spell it.
15:55: Bell’s assertions about astronomical fine tuning are simply false. Planetary habitability has much broader tolerances for increased or decreased insolation than he is claiming. He gets the cause of tidal locking completely wrong. He gets the consequences of tidal locking completely wrong. He gets the cause of the Earth’s axial tilt completely wrong. He is using a hypothesis for the origin of the moon that is a century out of date and does not reflect current scientific thinking on the topic. I stopped watching the segment at that point, because he has gotten not one physical fact or scientific theory correct. It may sound convincing to a nontechnical audience, but he does not know what he is talking about.
Kodie, as an answer to that, take a look at the second clip I specified of “Everything Is Spiritual”
35:55: The argument he is giving is a general one; I have no real problems with it. I readily concede the theoretical possibility of higher geometrical dimensions (and intelligent beings therein). I await evidence that such actually exist and interact with our universe. In any case, if it were demonstrated conclusively that they do exist and interact with our universe, it would not necessarily point at Christian theology. It might point at Buddhist, or Hindu, or Shinto, or none of the above. But it’s all hypothetical at this point.
The fine tuning argument is an old one and have several gaping problems. The only way it is in any way meaningful is if you make the prior assumption that the universe exist for the benefit of life, more precisely our kind of life. If you don’t make this presupposition then the argument can be made that the universal constants are what they are and life as we know it evolved to fit to the way the universe is, if the universe was different then either life would not have existed or it would have in a different form that would be fitted to the way the universe was. Also we don’t really know how much freedom do the physical constants have, we can calculate a theoretic universe with different constants but we don’t know enough to say if such universe is actually possible or whether the basic characteristics of how a universe start will always have the constants fall into the same values. So unless you make the unsupported assumption that the universe could have been different (possible) and that human life is the reason for the existence of the universe (far less reasonable), then the so called fine tuning of the universe mean absolutely nothing.
It appears I have some outside reading to do regarding his claims of astronomical fine-tuning; thanks for pointing that out. Regarding the Flatland analogy, you are very correct, and that is the point at which I make the leap of faith. It would also seem to be the point at which we, as a theist and atheist debating, reach an impasse.
Yoav, did you even watch the clip? This is not the classical fine-tuning argument about the values of physical constants; it’s more argument-from-coincidence about the Earth’s axial tilt and distance from the Sun.
But anyway, if you want to use science to prove your point, you have to get the science right. Bell gets things so thoroughly wrong that it’s embarrassing to watch.
Ursa, I admit I skipped the clip once I read fine tuning but the basic argument will still be the same, even if the information in the film was 100% accurate the earth being perfect for life is only an argument for a creator if you make the assumption that the earth is there for the purpose of supporting life.
You’re easily convinced of motivational speakers?
I contend (from a forum thread last winter), the earth is mostly uninhabitable for human life unless we invent gortex. Other animals adapt without clothing.
“Science of fine-tuning?” Bullshit, honey.
We’re intelligent because we evolved and make tools and such.
Pretty much. The Goldilocks Zone is gigantic, and if conditions were different life would be different. There’d probably still be creationists talking about how fine tuned it was though.
I checked out the video, though, the whole thing is how to convince anyone of anything through developing convincing public speaking techniques. “Watch this, it’ll be the one thing you never heard before.” Wait, it’s just some guy with a dry-erase pen.
Having actually been to a Rob Bell dry-eraserthon (which looked like it was the precursor or an earlier version of what ended up being this video), I will say that the guy has a decent amount of public speaking talent. But whenever he brought the science, he botched it. He would be going great about Hebrew poetic parallelism, and then he’d start talking about dimensions and the flow of time somewhat overenthusiastically, as though physics was nothing but a set of mutant powers that Jesus uses to fight evil; totally ruined the effect.
“Calling something “complete bollocks” without having actually seen it for yourself is ….”
That’s because its So Fucking Tiresome.
Every time we turn around there’s some credulous theist telling us if we just read one book, listen to one sermon, read this pamplet, follow this one link it will prove to us there is evidence for a creator only to find out they misspelled the word “bullshit” as “proof”.
This is why I’m asking for specific time indexes, and a summary of the argument that is to be found at that time index. If it is something that I haven’t heard before, I will look at it.
Well, yes. Absolutely every theist that I have discussed the topic with falls back on some version of this: “Despite the fact that my arguments for the existence of God do not point specifically at my God, I choose to believe in my God in particular and not any of the others, for no real reason.” That’s what it boils down to.
Wow, this comment didn’t nest correctly.
Yes but I guessed right didn’t I and it wasn’t exactly a difficult guess to make either. Here’s another guess … you didn’t even begin to understand the science but as it somehow proves your version of god then it must be true. Now of course if the same ‘proof’ had been advanced as ‘proof’ of let’s say the Muslim god then it would have all been ridiculous and made up.
That’s why it’s bollocks and that’s why you got this reception from me … either grow up and actual read about the science ‘facts’ you know or just stay with your fellow god bots and all nod in agreement how you only have to look around you to see there’s a creator and obviously it’s the version of the creator you believe in not a different one … that one’s absurd – am I right?
p.s. I give you 1/10 for not saying evolution is just a theory.
And besides, you demand evidences of God’s existence all the time. Give me one E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E of God’s non-existence. Let’s turn the tables a little bit. And don’t send me to other posts. Spare me the time and be concise.
If someone approached you and said, “You are standing next to an invisible pink unicorn! Isn’t it beautiful?”, how would you set about showing them there is no invisible pink unicorn? Or do you simply accept everyone’s claims of what they say exists?
A person can make a claim about the existence of any old thing. It is incumbent upon the person making the claim to show positive evidence that the thing claimed to exist actually does. It is fundamentally unnecessary (and usually impossible) to demand that a person produce evidence of non-existence.
Its easy, just turn the Light on. Then watch Prov 4:18 take over. Glory!
Thanks for mentioning invisible pink unicorns, El. I was beginning to think that the one I can’t see walking around the garden (and not leaving any footprints in the snow) might not be real (bless her little hooves). Glad that’s sorted out.
So you recognize that you have no evidence of God’s non-existence. Therefore, I don’t get why you atheists think that your ideas about the origin of things are better than Christianity. You accuse me of having no “reasonable” evidences of His existence, but you say you have no evidence of His non-existence, because it doesn’t exists (the evidence).
As far as I can see, you are not an atheist. You are just an agnostic.
Russell’s Teapot has been explained to you in this thread several times, but I’ll rephrase: You can’t prove a negative, and the burden of proof is yours, not ours.
Really, this is such a simple concept:
Prove to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist. By your own process of reasoning, if you can’t prove that, then you have to accept the FSM into your heart and be touched by his Noodley Appendage.
How else can I put this… Imagine this scene:
Agnostic: “Why are we here?”
Believer: “God put us here.”
Agnostic: “Can you give me some evidence for that?”
Believer: “No, but since you can’t prove God didn’t put us here, you have to accept my belief that He did as truth.”
Does that seem like a reasonable conclusion to you? How about this:
Suspect: “How did this man die?”
Police: “You killed him.”
Suspect: “Do you have any evidence of that?”
Police: “No, but since you can’t prove you didn’t do it, you have to accept my belief that you did as fact.”
Do you see the issue here? We are not making a claim that requires evidence, you are. All we are doing is telling you that we don’t believe your claim without evidence.
You don’t have to accept that God exists. What I strongly disagree, however, is that you DO think your thoughts about human existence are better than mine, and that you opinion is better than mine. That is clear.
I have (been given) faith and through it I have the conclusive answers. You have “reasoning” and through it you get nothing. Admit it.
It’s a spiritual matter, and only spiritually you can discern it (1Corinthians 2:10-14). You are incapable of accepting things that the eye can’t see.
What you say to me sounds like this: if you don’t play by my rules, I won’t play. That’s pretty childish.
They’re not his rules or our rules. You’re basically supporting your delusion on the premise that god is real. Prove that god is not a figment of your and others’ imagination, that’s pretty much all we are asking for. So far, you haven’t given proof, just excuses.
Don’t be silly. I accept things like the existence of invisible gases, and ionizing radiation, and radio waves and electrons and molecules and atoms, because although I can’t see any of them, there is solid EVIDENCE for their existence.
I won’t answer for anyone else here, but my thoughts on human existence are definitely better than yours.
You have answers in the way that answers can be right or wrong; yours all happen to be wrong. What we have, through our ‘reasoning’ is basically the entire world around you that isn’t still in 3rd-world poverty and illiteracy. You want to follow the bible? Fine, every piece of technology you’re using was discovered by people who knew the bible had no real answers, so stop using them.
“You can’t believe the lie unless you believe it first” <— EXACTLY what you're saying here.
You’re incapable of requiring proof of things you cannot see that just happen to appear in your bible.
What you post sounds like this: “if you don’t believe in god, you’re stupid, even though I have nothing of any substance whatsoever to present to you, and you have to believe what I say because then you can believe what I say ‘cuz then you’ll believe jesus is real!”
If you’re being stupid, and someone doesn’t care to debate you anymore, it’s because you’re being stupid, not because they’re being childish. Almost every regular here could wipe the floor with you in logic, reasoning, science, and the book you’re trying to push on us. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that your pathetic posts are anything more than fodder for anyone that cares to debate, vent, or flex their intellect, while crushing everything you’ve said until you sound like a whiny, pathetic, intellectually vacant, uneducated buffoon.
Certainly our basis for forming our opinions is better than yours. Personal revelation is a crappy basis for nuanced opinion or for the humble realization that your opinion may in fact be less than flawless.
You fittingly illustrate this by saying “I have the conclusive answers.” How incredibly arrogant is that? Not to mention the potential harm such a way of thinking can cause.
I tend to give less wight to the opinions of people who claim they can’t possibly be wrong.
Admit what? That you’re indoctrinated into sincerely believing that you must be right, despite having no reason to believe it but your brainwashing? My thoughts about human existence ARE better than yours, because what I think is based on the best available evidence and are subject to change as better information becomes available – Yours are based on the particular brand of bronze-age mythology that your parents chose to indoctrinate you with, and you will rationalise those beliefs when they are clearly wrong, or simply ignore the evidence (as you have done several times in this thread). “Childish” in my view is blindly following what you were taught about something for which there are no supporting facts whatsoever. Don’t you get it? Religion exists to control the population. Why do you think old churches look like castles? Peasants were supposed to be awed by them and associate God with the nobility. And frankly, if you don’t like the way we play, please feel free to leave, with no hard feelings from me.
About the castles, the association of God with nobility, and even Crusades and the Holy Inquisition, it all comes from the same source: the corrupted heart of a few men who had access to the biblical texts in the past (like the Vulgata) and gave their own distorted interpretations of it (like purgatory, indulgence, etc.) to peasants who couldn´t read it for themselves. As a result, they used the people to fulfill their own will for money, power and sexual favors. This is what papism is all about since the very beggining of it. Therefore, I agree that the Bible was misused several times to control some populations (and it still is here and there).
But thanks to God and to some of His valuable servants of the past, today you can find a copy of the Bible in almost every language. Now we can read the Word of God for ourselves and take our own conclusions.
I strongly recommend you to.
So you recognize that you have no evidence of The Invisible Pink Unicorn’s non-existence. Therefore, I don’t get why you theists think that your ideas about the origin of things are better than Invisible Pink Unicornism. You accuse me of having no “reasonable” evidence of Her existence, but you say you have no evidence of Her non-existence, because it doesn’t exist (the evidence).
Are the weaknesses in your argument a little more apparent to you when it is reversed?
I don´t know about pink unicorns. But you can find a lot of extra-biblical material on the existence of Jesus Christ and the veracity of the facts narrated on the Gospels.
If I were you, I wouldn´t lose my time trying to see pink unicorns. Pot and excessive alcohol could kill you.
A gentle reminder: snide remarks are stepping outside the bounds of the civil discourse that you requested.
There’s plenty of historical evidence for the existence of Muhammed and the Buddha, too. Does that constitute evidence for the correctness of their respective theologies?
I´m just answering to an argument that was posted here. I´m not the one who brought the “pink unicorn” argument up. If Elemenope had mentioned Muhammed or Buddha, like you did, it would sound a little more serious of his part and I wouldn´t have to post the message that bothered you. At least not in that terms.
Don’t be disingenuous, Carlos. You were not just “answering the point”, you were offering a deliberate insult.
He’s using John C agreeing with him as his permission to make weak and unfunny jokes.
Didn’t we just gone over thata few days ago?
Bullshit. Christians repeat that lie over and over avain, and not one of them can produce the evidence that they so confidently proclaim exists. Why don’t you try now, see if you can do better. In your own time.
NOX, you’re running in circles. You’re wrong to say the Bible contradicts itself. You say other people already proved this and that, but you can’t cite no conclusive proof.
1) PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
2) EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
3) MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
4) MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
5) JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
6) GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
7) 1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
8) PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
1CO 1:19: “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
9) ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
10) ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
11) LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Hares do not chew cud, nor do they have cloven hoofs.
12) PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
13) GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
14) GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
15) ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
16) GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Snakes do not eat dust.
17) ECC 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
JOB 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasuries of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasuries of the hail,
You’d think God would know about the cycle of precipitation, wouldn’t you?
18) Genesis 1:
Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
Genesis 2:
Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam’s rib)
It took me ten seconds on Google to find those, and a lot more besides. I can post more, but really I don’t see the point: I’ve already disproven your assertion of Biblical innerancy.
“1) PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.”
You jump off a high building, the law of gravity will take care of you. You might say, “God is love,” all the way down, but you’re still going to get splattered when you hit the bottom! You break the law of gravity, and it breaks you! You may love your little child, but if he puts his finger up on that hot burner on the gas stove or the electric stove, he’s going to get burned!
Fire burns. Gravity kills. Water drowns. And you can say, “God is love, God is love, God is love,” until you’re blue in the face. But water will still drown you, fire will burn you, and gravity will kill you, and sin will damn you no matter how much you say about a loving God.
God just set up life that way. He set up the rules. He set up the laws by which we are to live. And if we break those laws, they break us, and we pay the consequences.
But even after breaking His law so many times, if you truly repent and search for His forgiveness, He will have mercy on you.
God is love, indeed. But God is justice too.
Your defense might be applicable if god were being quoted as saying “there will be natural consequences if you don’t follow my laws”. What he is quite clearly saying in the passage in question is “I will punish you and your children if you don’t do what I say”.
You tried this same answer when I pointed out god commanding genocide in the bible. Just calling god just doesn’t address that his book portrays him as so unjust.
Ask Lot about justice.
Carlos, you said:
Do you know what means “cite no conclusive proof” if you won’t read where we’re getting our information? You’re close-headed and demanding of special treatment.
Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli…
But I’m not really interested in debating the inerrancy point until the Bible has been shown to be something more than just another book written by humans.
“You say other people already proved this and that, but you can’t cite no conclusive proof.”
I gave Thomas Paine credit because he proved the bible wrong in 1794.
But I do my own arguing. And I cited conclusive proof of that myself a little more recently.
As you’ve expressed your distaste for links and I prefer not to post another giant block of text on Daniel’s about page if I can avoid it, I’m just going to start with 3 simple ones.
What were Jesus’ last words on the cross?
Are we saved by faith or works?
Who discovered the empty tomb?
Ok, so I will start believing the void exploded. Happy now?
Not really. Nobody would expect you to just change your mind to go with the crowd, but to really think over the case of your position of faith and see where it’s faulty. I mean, suppose there’s an evidence of god you believe in, which you haven’t convinced us of nor supplied the evidence of, and you just go and say “to heck with it, I’m too lazy to support my own position or to change according to the facts presented to me.”
Damn, I’ve missed you Kodie!
I suppose it won’t do any good to point out that you already do believe in something that exists without a prior cause, i.e., your god. Or that there are nontheistic, scientific cosmological arguments that do not posit a universe exploding from nothing. Yes, you will undoubtedly argue that a deity is necessary to kick-start the process (solely on the basis that you personally cannot conceive otherwise), but there are a lot of gods that could be stuffed into that gap. Frankly, Hindu theology (the Days and Nights of Brahma concept) is more consistent with the observed state of the universe than the Genesis account.
But I’d like to return to the fact that you are unwilling to engage the topic that more people believe in non-Christian theology than Christian theology, that they believe in their own theologies just as firmly as you do in yours, for the same reasons that you do, and that your arguments for why your particular religion is the only true one also support the truth of other religions if the name of the deity or the holy book is changed. You have never addressed the question of why anyone else’s fervent conviction about their own theology is any less valid than yours as a basis for deciding religious truth. And until you resolve this issue, your position is untenable.
Ursa Minor, I´ll give you an answer on that issue (why there are so many different religions in the world) from the Christian perspective, OK?
First of all, the Bible say mankind was made to a specific purpose: to worship and to glorify God. After the Fall of Man, man turned his back to God and started to worship idols they made, in the form of things that could be found in nature.
The fact is every man is a worshipper, because it´s inherent to human nature. Corrupted by sin, men deny the existence and the sovereignty of God to worship all kinds of different “idols”, like images made of metal, wood, or stone; animals; trees; astronomical objects; other people; money; status; philosophies; and so on.
Now you ask me why I believe Christianity is right and other religions are wrong. At that point, you have to answer me first if you admit the possibility that, in spite of existing religions, that there is a true “spiritual dimension” of some kind, so to speak.
Okay, here, take your candy.
I believe that there is a right spirituality. I won’t tell you which one i believe. I admit the possibility that one exists.
Your turn.
Certainly. I admit there is a possibility that there is a “true spiritual dimension”. I don’t believe that I have ever argued that this is impossible. You will, of course, admit the possibility that there isn’t one? If you don’t, then no further discussion is necessary, and we can stop wasting our time.
No. There is, observably, a very strong tendency to worship (which is probably why we have so many religions), but it’s not universal, and the urge to worship doesn’t point in any particular direction (or the world’s religions wouldn’t be so different from each other). I’m not a worshiper. I know lots of other people who aren’t.
That’s like arguing that every man is right-handed, because it’s inherent to human nature. Sure, most people are right-handed, but the argument denies the very real existence of more than half a billion left-handed people. There is observably a very strong tendency for humans to be right-handed, but it is not universal.
Well, he’s saying, absent a god (turning away from the god Carlos says is real), humans tend to worship other things like money or status, etc., illustrative of a natural human tendency to worship. I’d say that “worship” would be the wrong word to describe that tendency, but also that worshiping non-deities or alternate deities is not an exclusive property of non-Christians. How many Christians read their horoscope? How many Christians are wealthy and live in large homes and drive status automobiles?
Brace for: “those aren’t ‘real’ Christians.”
He’s already made the No True Scotsman argument in response to another poster.
I didn´t say the idols of people are always a deity.
And, oh yes, to live in a large house or drive a status automobile does not mean that the individual makes these things, or money, as his god. You have to look how a person lives first to make that affirmation.
Just like Jesus said: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.”
This is not applicable only for false prophets, but to everyone.
I know people who lives in modest conditions and has money and status as their god (and pursue those things with all their might, whatever it takes). You can see the fruits people bears by their lives, not by their words.
You’re wandering away from the subject. Let me narrow it to one specific question so that you don’t get distracted again:
On what basis could an observer who had no prior knowledge of any religion choose between Christianity and Hinduism and determine which, if either of them, is correct?
It´s certainly not making random google searches and getting conclusions from that.
In order to know a religion, anyone has to read about it, investigate it, analyze it, meditate about it.
When it comes to Christianity, I told a million times now, and John C agreed with me, the Bible says that the natural, reason-dominated and worshiping mind of man, apart from the Spirit’s light, can never comprehend it, will always ‘think’ it false & foolish, childish and ‘un-reason-able’ (1st Cor 2:14 & 1 Cor 1:18).
In other terms: you can´t find God by yourself. He is the one who takes the first step towards man.
But those who search Him will never be cast away:
“Then Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’ They said to him, ‘Sir, give us this bread always.’
Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.’” (John 6:32-40)
If you are referring to Custador’s wall-of-text of Bible quotes, please refer your complaints to him. He does not speak for me. Personally, I think that arguing back and forth whether or the Bible is consistent with itself is a pointless exercise until it is established that the Bible is anything more than an ordinary book. Go ahead and pursue this line of argument with other posters if you wish, and please refrain from complaining to me about their statements in the future.
As for the rest of your post, it doesn’t address my question. An observer who knows nothing of any religion has an abundant choice of holy writings to consider, and no a priori reason to select the Christian bible as the correct one.
Arbitrary assertion. This is a specific point of Christian theology. We are trying to establish whether there is evidence that Christianity theology is correct. You cannot argue that Christian theology is true because it agrees with itself. It should not be necessary to point out to you that a similarly vacuous argument can be made by judging the Q’uran by its own standards, or the Hindu religious writings by theirs.
And you have never answered the question of whether you accept the possibility that there is no “true spiritual realm”. I suspect that you don’t, and that’s where our approaches are fundamentally different. I’m a skeptic; that means I look at all possible sides, and make my assessments as to which one is more likely to be correct based on evidence. Many people obviously believe that there is a spiritual realm, therefore the possibility should be examined seriously. If I were to deny categorically that there might be a true spiritual realm and refused to consider any evidence for it, I would run the risk of coming to an incorrect conclusion, to my own detriment. The same is true of anyone who takes it as an axiom that there must be a spiritual realm and refuses to consider the possibility that there is not.
Ursa, let´s put it this way: just as you, I always considered the possibility that there were no “spiritual world” at all. But then I started to check all evidences (and here´s the tricky part of our language difference: “evidence” in portuguese (indício) means something different than the word “proof” (prova)). And A LOT of evidences (indícios) pointed to an intelligent design of the world and the possibility of a non-existing spiritual Creator became dimming in my head. In my first post I said that the conception of a child, with all its wonderful details, the amazing uniqueness of earth´s “life friendly” conditions in a apparently hostile universe, the harmony of nature, the human capability of thinking, the moral law inside of us, all those things considered together, initially pointed me something really big was there. To the point that, today, it´s not an issue for me anymore that there is a ENOURMOUS chance of God´s existence. Just look real closely to each phenomenom I said above and, maybe, you´ll understand.
And then came the second questioning: “Why did the Deity made all that is? What are we doing here? Why we´re apparently alone in the universe?” and so on. Before all existing religions, my option for Christianity was extensive comparison, what seemed more credible, and … again … we´re entering the spiritual realm of FAITH. My premise that the Christian God is real and sent the Bible to mankind comes exclusively from FAITH. Something that´s given by God Himself. And according to the Bible, that´s how it is for every believer.
It wasn´t a 5 minute choice. It took me 30 years of my life to become a Christian. Maybe too much, maybe too little, I don´t know.
There is no language problem here. “Evidence” does not mean “proof” in English either.
Leaving aside for the moment whether or not the items on your list as evidence for a creator are actually evidence (and just off the top of my head, among them I see one undefined term, one unproven assumption, and the fallacies of argument from ignorance, argument from improbability, and argument from incredulity), you still haven’t begun to justify your own particular choice of a Creator. Even if every item on your list did point towards a creator, none of it would point specifically to the Christian version. Assuming that you are correct in your interpretations, then by your own reasoning Allah and Brahma are still in the running, and no more or less likely to be the Creator than Yahweh. Your leap from “there must be a creator god” to “the Christian Bible is correct” is entirely unjustified.
First you cite a reasoning process by which you arrived at a conclusion, and then you reverse yourself and say that one must simply have faith. Faith makes reason and evidence irrelevant, so why invoke evidence and reason in the first place?
And again, one can have faith in absolutely any theology.
Again, you have utterly failed to advance any evidence that your particular choice of Creator theologies is correct.
Just because humans seem to have a tendency to believe doesn’t make what they believe in true. You could try to get every single one of us to “admit” it’s “possible” for some spiritual entity to be real, but that wouldn’t confirm that anything you want to believe in is true, or anything that a lot of people believe together is true, or anything more than a form of insanity and wishful thinking.
OK, so you admit that there´s a spiritual dimension of some kind. Do you believe this “spiritual world”, if it do exists, has anything to do with the physical world and the way it is? And that probably the “spiritual beings” do not ignore our human existence?
No. I admit that there is a possibility that there is one. That is a very different thing.
Skipped right over me, Carlos!
I’ll be happy when you admit that the Bible contains errors and contradictions, to be honest. I want you to look at what I have (by your own request) put in front of you, and admit that it’s there instead of ignoring it.
I guess I shouldn’t hold my breath on this one. Oh well! Perhaps we have at least planted a seed of critical thought that may one day grow.
We’re commenting on the About page now?
What took us so long? Way to explore different facets of the site and not be contained to sections like “home” and “forum” where discussion traditionally takes place.
I would like to complain that the math question on the “contact” tab is too easy. No trig? No polynomials? No word problems?
It was suggested at least twice that the debate here be moved to the forums, but that seems to have lost its momentum.
I look at it this way. Anybody who views this comment thread on the About tab is going to get a good taste of what they’re in for on this site. And if Daniel decides that he doesn’t like the mess, he can always use his powers of administrator-fu to delete it all.
Huh. Upon reading the comments, except walls of text, I can’t read walls of text, I have to say you’ve got something. This ongoing commentary offers a glimpse of what nested comments can do for you, how to follow a multi-layered discussion, and some of the most common arguments, techniques, and rebuttals employed around these parts. The fact that it’s a spontaneous argument of everything and nothing is even better than if someone had attempted to describe what goes on here. It looks like chaos, but only when you don’t understand what you’re seeing.
Carlos, go outside and look up at the clouds and ask yourself,”Do I reeeeeeally believe that one day that Jesus is going to come busting through the sky,riding on a cloud with trumpets blazing?” I just don’t have the ability to do all the mental gymnastics to twist the scripture around to believe that. In order to come to your conclusions,I only need to rid my brain of three basic things…..logic,common sense and reason.
Oh,one more thing Carlos,about being “saved” through grace.Do you believe that you can lose your grace? If not,I can take you down another biblical rabbit hole aside from eschatology.One thing I have learned as a FACT Carlos,Christians can barely agree on anything,much less the gift of salvation.When I went to church,most arguments were never between atheists and Christians,it was between Christians. They demonize each other in a heartbeat.
Doesn’t matter. Carlos is right and all the other Christians are wrong. He knows through his faith. It’s as simple as that.
Roger, I believe what the Bible say in Philippians 1:6 “I am confident of this, that the one who began a good work among you will bring it to completion by the day of Jesus Christ.” As long as my faith is not my work, but the work of the Holy Spirit, I´m not afraid to lose grace.
I agree that there´s some dissension between Christians about a lot of different topics on Christianity. But I believe that there the most important topics are unanimous between true Christians, such as the divine nature of Jesus Christ, His physical existence in this world, His expiatory death in the cross, His ascension to heavens; His second coming (let´s forget the “biblical account” some people do for now, OK?), the reality of sin and our need of repentance and forgiveness through faith in Jesus Christ.
Just don´t forget that the fact anyone speaks “in the name of Jesus” and uses all kind of “gospelish” terms doesn´t mean he is a true Christian. That´s why Jesus said: “‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord”, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?” Then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.”
Matthew 7:21-23
Carlos, I can’t help noticing that you seem to have done the usual theist trick of vanishing for a day when faced with an argument you couldn’t counter and then coming back and pretending not to have seen. So I’m going to ask you again (and I’ll keep asking until you answer):
Now that I have explicitly listed some of them (as you asked), will you now accept that the Bible contains errors and contradictions?
Custador, I´m not ignoring your long post about the supposed “contradictions” of the Bible. It´s just that, to offer an answer to all of that, I have to use a little more time than a “10 second google search”. That´s not how deep I do my researches on any subject. So, please, be patient, OK?
So I should expect a standard issue torrent of AiG bullshit then?
Maybe you should just pick one and start with that.
Since Custador gave you chapter and verse for each, you could start your research by simply looking up the passages in question and seeing if they actually are wrong or in conflict with each other.
Ok then. Lets see:
“16) GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Snakes do not eat dust.”
When somebody tells you to “hit the road”, do you go searching for a hammer or you´ll just use your hands to hit it?
One down. Next, please.
So i assume you have proof that that particular phrasing was a simple colloquialism, rather than be taken literally, or is that just your own assumption?
I sense that another battle over hermeneutics is about to break out. Count me out of this one.
Carlos,
Since we seem to be going in circles here, I’d just like to go back to your original post and see if we can clear up some of this confusion.
If you already believe there is no real evidence for god, and that god only reveals himself to those he has chosen to give the predisposition to seeing him, why do you believe christianity is something that can be defended?
Because all Christians received a commissioning from Jesus Christ to spread the His teachings to all nations (Matthew 28:16-20).
Besides, those who belong to Christ are scattered all around the world, and we don´t know who they are.”I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:14-16)
We know them when they hear and believe. “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.” (Romans 10:17)
Yes we’ve all heard the Great Commission. I know why you are trying to preach the gospel. I’m a little unclear on why you think we haven’t already heard of Jesus, but maybe that’s just the language barrier.
The question is, if you only believe in god because you hear god’s voice in your head, why do you expect anyone to believe without hearing it. We have only your word to go on, and you have no trouble doubting the word of Muhammed on the same basis we doubt yours. According to what you believe, none of us can ever have access to any actual reason to think anything you’re saying here is true.
Keeping in mind that many of us here are ex-christians. We had the ‘gift of faith’. We’ve heard the gospel preached. Repeatedly. If you read the top of this page you’ll see Daniel Florian’s explanation of why he went from belief to disbelief. And the reasons for many of us are quite similar. We’ve already shown you that many of us are familiar with christianity, and you continue to assume the problem is that we’ve never heard of Jesus.
I did believe. I was raised christian. I spent years believing the same things you are saying here. I accepted Jesus as my lord and savior. I was baptized. I memorized bible verses. I preached to atheists on the internet and told them they were going to hell. At one point I was training to go into full time christian ministry. I had the mindset of someone who wants to see god. And I can still sympathize with people’s reasons for holding that delusion. But I didn’t lose my faith. I discovered that the thing I had faith in was not true. I have actually read the gospel you’re trying to preach. I already know why it isn’t true. And I had to spend years overcoming the brainwashing that my faith imposed on me.
None of this is new.
The problem is not what we don’t know about your religion. It is what we do know about your religion.
The question is not why are you trying to get converts. The question is why do you think you’re going to get converts.
I have a ninety year old mother that is living out the rest of her miserable life in a nursing home.She lead a “wonderful” Christian life worried if she would say or do anything that might doom her to hell.She was taught that way of belief by “holiness” preachers.And of course they backed their teachings up with scripture.I have learned how Christians play their games…they magnify all the scriptures that seem to agree with their belief,and minimize those scripture that seem to contradict their way of believing.In other words,they tailor the bible to justify the way they believe.Oh,ALL of them can testify to the fact that they are right because of the way they “feel”.
Carlos,let me give you the bad news,there is nothing,and I mean NOTHING in the bible that is cut and dried.I hear all the time as to how GODS word is infallible and true….Bullshit.The bible is ambiguous and confusing. Any supposed FACT that you can quote me can be counter argued and torn to shreds by anyone that has the ability to read the bible.Oh,and by the way,what makes you think that you wont change your mind about things in a few years.The smartest atheist started out seeking the holy life and studying the bible,only to do an about face later on.
I do find interesting that almost all atheists use strong terms to fight the Bible, saying it is “torn to shreds” when counter argued, “demolished” by scientific evidences… That´s pretty emotional for people who stands for “indestructible” reasoning.
And then you come with arguments like “geocentric view of the Universe”, Eutyphro Dillemma, The Age of Reason, snakes don´t eat dust, etc., like that were real evidences of Bible errancy. Jibber-jabber. Just as you people say that I want to see evidences in Bible because I´m brainwashed and stuff, I say that you see “demolishing” where it doesn´t exist. I read other threads in this forum. It´s always the same (and I guess you see Christians the same way).
I didn´t come here to try to convert anybody, but to seek for some atheistic arguments to confront them with my faith. Let´s just call it an “exercise” for future apologetics. What I truly found: solid evidences for the veracity of the Scriptures on the blind Godlessness of man. Anyway, I appreciated the attention you people gave me. But I´ve had it for now.
As said:
“Psalm 14
Denunciation of Godlessness
To the leader. Of David.
1 Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is no one who does good.
2 The Lord looks down from heaven on humankind
to see if there are any who are wise,
who seek after God.
3 They have all gone astray, they are all alike perverse;
there is no one who does good,
no, not one. ”
Merry Christmas to all. I´m sorry for the fact that you people don´t have nothing to celebrate at this time of the year, though.
How are errors in the bible not evidence of biblical errancy?
You choose to come to an atheist blog and “engage” (for want of a better word) with us. Nobody forces you to be here, and personally I think your constant superiority and determination to not read what is put in front of you stinks. So in that spirit, take this as warning one: The next time you put that kind of passive-aggressive bullshit in a post, I will delete it. You’re trolling, plain and simple. And don’t give me any of that hand-wringing, “I’m sorry if you interpreted my offensive crap as offensive crap” nonsense, either.
And while you’re up on your high-horse feeling superior about your reason for the season, you might like to remember why you celebrate Christ’s birthday at this time of year in the first place – The entire festival is stolen wholesale from earlier, pagan, midwinter rites. It’s got sweet F-A to do with when (if) Christ was actually born.
It’s not like nobody’s ever seen sanctimonious illogic from a theist before. I think leaving it up is a public service.
Carlos and Jason have pursued pretty much the same strategy on separate threads (although Carlos is by far the more well-spoken of the two about it): quote the Bible, offer a general argument that validates ALL religions if you accept it, deny that your argument validates any religion but your own, ignore verifiable facts presented to you, dodge, evade, quote the Bible again. It’s practically a choreographed routine.
I agree with Ursa. Leave mindless comments as a testament to the intellectual quality of the persons who made them. Show the willful inanity and lack of arguments rather than hide it away.
That’s a typical Christian leap to a completely illogical conclusion: “They do not celebrate Christ’s birth, therefore they have nothing to celebrate.”
But don’t feel sorry for us; everybody has things to celebrate, atheists included. It may not fit into your world-view, but that’s the way it is.
What do you mean, nothing to celebrate? Just because we don’t happen to subscribe to your tradition doesn’t mean we don’t have things to celebrate. And the peoples of northern and western Europe were celebrating at this time of year long before Christianity spread to Europe.
Carlos doesn’t realize that his statements are the product of a meme.Nothing original in any of them.He simply regurgitates what he has heard from others of the same mindset. Besides,when the the Rapture comes,we will be rid of him…..nyuk nyuk.
Anyone who stands for the biblical truth will always say the same things. The Bible tells us eternal truths. By definition, it won´t change ever.
There are many people that distort Biblical teachings to satisfy personal purposes, and in that field you´ll find plenty of original stuff. But that won´t be Christianity anymore.
It’s ok by god when you do it your way.
Ah, so you would be a True Scotsman, I take it?
You claim the Bible won’t ever change: Explain then, if you will, why it has changed. A lot. Really. The oldest known Bible (the Codex Sinaiticus) is most certainly NOT the King James Version. Or the New International Version. In fact, that Bible’s come in “versions” at all should be a bit of a clue that your first paragraph is wrong. Think about it.
Does any version (or translation) of the Bible you mentioned describes different Gods, a different Moses, a different Jesus, or different teachings about how to get salvation?
Though, if you recur to the Deuterocanonical books, that´s another story. We can talk about it too.
I can’t help noticing that you’re ignoring the fact that your original point was completely wrong by pretending that you never said it. You specifically said that the Bible is eternal and unalterable – IT IS NOT. I have proven it is not. Now you’re pretending that’s not what you meant, and are suggesting that the core message of the Bible has never changed. And you’re wrong about that, too. The oldest known Bible doesn’t even have the same books in it as modern Bibles. Hell, not all modern Bibles share the same books. The OT (which is at least fairly consistent between versions) mentions Gods (plural) several times. BibleGod didn’t even start out as one deity, it’s an amalgamation of three. And routes to salvation – Am I really going to have to ask a Christian whether he’s saved by faith or through works and deeds? Are you honestly unaware of that argument?
Google the Hebrew university bible project. They have been methodically comparing the different version of the hebrew bible (and I mean methodically, the project is now over 50 years old and they just finished and published the third book). There are some interesting finds including prophecies being retroactively added to older books.
I know it have been mentioned several times already but I’ll give it one more try, I’ll even write in fundie allcaps for you.
THE FORUM IS A MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THIS DISCUSSION.
Like for example the guys who wrote and rewrote the bible. Or people who say things like…
“Thou Shalt Not Kill”
-Exodus 20:13
“Thou Shalt Kill”
-Exodus 21:15-17, Exodus 22:18, Exodus 31:14-15, Exodus 32:26-29, Leviticus 20, Leviticus 21:9, Leviticus 24:13-16, Numbers 1:51, Numbers 15:32-36, Numbers 31:17-18, Numbers 33:50-56, Deuteronomy 7:1-2, Deuteronomy 13:5-9, Deuteronomy 13:15-16, Deuteronomy 17:3-5, Deuteronomy 17:12, Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:13-25, Joshua 6:20-24, Judges 7:23-25, Judges 11:29-40, Judges 16:24-30, 1st Samuel 15:1-33, 1st Samuel 17:19-57, 1st Samuel 18:25-27, 2nd Chronicles 15:12-13…
…wait a second. Didn’t we already do this in this thread? Carlos right? You still haven’t answered my question from two weeks ago (or anyone’s question ever).
How are errors in the bible not evidence of biblical errancy?
Nox, I see you take parts of the Bible that are apparently contradictory and call them, without further analysis, as evidence of fundamental errors. When you pick some part of the Bible to interpret it, as any other book you read, you must do it considering the context, always.
The commandment “thou shalt not kill”, in Exodus 20:17, show us that man should not kill anyone, and that because is not the right of humans to kill each other, according our own will or sense of justice. True justice belongs to the Lord, therefore, only the Lord has the authority to give and to take life, and his servants always should do his will, as stated in the Law. That´s what the other passages you cited are all about (all in Old Testament): commandments about God´s judgment upon those who wouldn´t obey the Law.
So, there is no error in the Bible. The error is in your superficial and punctual reading of it.
By the way, Jesus submitted himself to the Law, and even died by the Law. He didn´t came to abolish the law or the prophets; but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). He teached us that the Mosaic Law was written because of our hardness of heart (Mark 10:5), and Paul said the Law exists to prove that we are nothing but transgressors (Romans 4:15; 5:13,20). Jesus condemned the hypocrisy of those who claimed to be justified before God by the observance of the Law (and tradition), for it´s by faith in God (and in Jesus Christ) that man is considered just. Read the Epistle to the Galatians about it.
Jesus established a superior ethic standard to the people of God, to complete the Law, and now, in the Age of Grace, under the New Alliance, the will of God is the sanctification of His sons (1Thessalonians 4:3). “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things”(Galatians 5:22-23).
The Law shows us what man should be (and can´t), the Grace shows us how God is.
So God can command people to break his own laws?
If a man today says “God told me to kill my neighbors and enslave/rape their daughter” then we should just assume God actually spoke with him and that he’s not crazy, correct? I know, “God wouldn’t say that today”, but he has, in the past, according to YOUR sacred unchanging text.
But let’s assume Jesus changed everything, in that case, why even pay attention to the Old Testament.? Please, tell us what parts of the Bible are relevant and what aren’t.
As opposed to shoddy writing, you mean? I’ll tell you what, Carlos, since you’ve insisted on posting such an absurd claim, I will take the time to demolish it for you.
Errors and contradictions in the Bible that I can think of, off the top of my head, in ninety seconds (I am timing myself):
Genesis contains two different orders of creation (neither of which make any sense in light of historical scientific discoveries),
Gospels disagree on the lineage of Jesus,
The geocentric universe,
Stars can fall to Earth,
The atmosphere has a big solid dome outside of it which is surrounded by water,
Rabbits chew cud,
Hares have cloven hoofs,
Pi equals three,
The world will end by 100AD,
700 Armenians or 7000?
When did David move to Canaan – before or after his father died?
How did Judas die?
That was just what I thought of in ninety seconds. If you like, I’ll look up chapter and verse on those. Are you still going to claim the Bible is inerrant?
I´ll start from the bottom to the top. One argument at a time.
“How did Judas die?”
Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:16-19
By hanging (Matthew 27:3-8) – “Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” But they said, “What is that to us? See to that yourself!” 5And he threw the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6And the chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood.” 7And they counseled together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers. 8For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.”
By falling (Acts 1:16-19) – “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17″For he was counted among us, and received his portion in this ministry.” 18(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)”
There is no contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another. The Second Law of Logic, the Law of Non Contradition, (LNC) says that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense. It is not a contradiction to describe something differently: Judas was hung and Judas fell down. Both are possible since neither negates the possibility of the other. A contradiction occurs when one statement makes another statement impossible but both are said to be true. So, what happened here is that Judas went and hung himself and then his body later fell down and split open. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke due to the weight and his body fell down and his bowels spilled out.
Also, notice that Matt. 27:3-8 tells us specifically how Judas died, by hanging. Acts 1:16-19 merely tells us that he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Acts does not tell us that this is the means of his death where Matthew does.
I googled your question and found that answer. It took me 0,25 seconds (according to google). I wonder why you couldn´t find it too.
As it happens, I was already aware of that apologetic explanation, but because it’s such patently absurd bullshit, I thought I’d let you regurgitate it so that readers can judge it on it’s own merits. Look at the facts:
Version One: Judas buys a field with his 30 pieces of silver , walks into it, falls down dead and explodes.
Version Two: Judas is wracked with guilt, throws the silver away and hangs himself.
You are trying to make those two versions marry – But they’re completely different. The fact that you’re trying to mangle them into being one story should cause any person capable of abstract thought some serious cognitive dissonance.
Moving on: Did Abraham move to Canaan before or after his father died? That’s Genesis 11:32 and 12:4 versus Acts 7:4, by the way.
How does one fall headlong AND hang himself?
@ Carlos
You know, by your logic, I could just as well say that as Jesus ascended to Heaven, he jammed on a Fender and played out a tearful rendition of “Stairway to Heaven” since the Bible doesn’t say he didn’t and it could fit into the Gospels and it does make some logical sense. Your logic would say this could have happened.
Judas didn’t acquire a field as he threw the money away.
Are we to believe that Judas was given money and a field and he only discarded the money?
It’s exceedingly strange to have a view that (Acts 1:16-19) describe not the manner of Judas’ death, (hanging) but what happened to his body after he was dead. (falling headlong and bursting open)
Context doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Yet God orders his chosen to kill time and time again, as Nox points out. And not only small scale killing, but full-out genocide, obliteration of men, women, infants, livestock (and subsequent take-over of their land, what a surprise).
Seems like the commandment should read: “Thou shalt not kill – except when I tell thee to kill”.
Do as I say, don’t do as I do.
Or: Do as I say, even though I just said not to.
The Israelites have only just been given the Ten Commandments on their way to Canaan, and the first thing God orders them to do upon arriving there is to commit fullscale genocide of the Amalekites. Not a very consistent god, is he?
I was thinking of the Phil Colins song “Jesus He Knows Me” (I can’t link to YouTube from the office :-)
But you’re right – despite the hype, God is not very unchanging.
[Teh Srvr Munkehs approve of linking to Phil]
All hail Teh Srvr Munkehs
The context of every one of those passages (that was the short list, I kept it to 26 examples because I already knew you wouldn’t answer any of them), is god or one of god’s prophets telling people to commit murder. In many of those examples, it specifically says to kill everyone in a city or tribe, men women, children, infants, sheep, goats, spare alive nothing that breatheth.
Are you really saying that god ordered the killing of infants because they had broken his commandments?
Daniel,
I think if more Christians approached their faith the way you did the Church of Jesus Christ would be in a lot better shape! I respect you for how you approached your doubts. You didn’t just follow along like a blind sheep (at least not for long), but you tested your faith, which is what the Bible says we are to do to see if we truly own it. I wholeheartedly agree with you that Christians are too close-minded in some areas, but we are to cling onto the central truths of the Gospel no matter what. I myself am an evangelical Christian who’s had the whole born again experience and I am simply fascinated by the debate between science and religion! Even before I became a follower of Christ I believed that science and religion didn’t have to be enemies but could work together for mutual gain. I still believe this today and I’ve just started a new blog chronicling my endeavors in amateur astronomy and my personal faith. Feel free to check it out if you ever have a desire. You won’t find any over the top and belligerent “repent of your sins” talk on it, just (hopefully) thought-provoking content. Anyways, you have a great site. Hope to see you over at http://acrosstheuniverseinnotiime.com! Peace.
@Tim:
You say:
“I am simply fascinated by the debate between science and religion! Even before I became a follower of Christ I believed that science and religion didn’t have to be enemies but could work together for mutual gain.”
It is religion that perceives science as an enemy. Science has no interest in religion. Dedicated scientists are interested in the discovery of new knowledge and the validation of existing knowledge. In all of human history, religion has contributed virtually nothing to the body of knowledge. More often, religion (or it’s zealots) has made great efforts to deny and refute the findings of scientists, to oppose and interfere with scientific work and to discredit and even threaten scientists.
Whether Christian, scientist or atheist, there is no meed for enmity, or even debate if each respects the other and does not attempt to control or interfere in the beliefs, lives and endeavors of the others.
As an atheist, I can easily accept a religious philosophy such as this:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1db_1323156698
But I will never accept the substitution of the pseudo-science of creationism for the theory of evolution in the classroom, or the religious test that prohibits atheists from holding public office which is currently written into the constitutions of 7 states in the US.
If you agree that science promotes progress for humanity in the form of new and better understanding of our world/universe then perhaps you should question the motives of the industry of religion.
Are you aware that you just claimed to be an atheist in the same post you already said you were a Christian?
Where did I say I was a christian? The first para was a quote from Tim-s post.
My bad, misread and didn’t see who the commenter was, sorry!
Custador,
Ain’t no thing -”sall good =)
I too was once a very strong Christian. People often ask “what happened to you that made you turn away from Christ?”, and I find this a very difficult question to answer. Nothing really “happened” other than, upon reflection, I saw that what I was doing simply did not make sense to me, and once that happened there was really no going back. This didn’t happen immediately, I spent many years wrestling with it. I had Christians telling me that it was “the devil” trying to trick me and giving me all sorts of Christian related material to read through that would put me “back on track”. It was then that I realised that all the material circulating in a Christian environment is completely bias, and totally dependent on what the bible saying to be true. I asked my Pastor, “But people wrote the bible, not God. How do you that the bible is really the word of god?”
Then the Pastor of my church would tell me, “That may be so, but god was speaking through those people”.
I Would ask, “How do you know?”
And he would reply, “Well, it says so in the bible.”
“But didn’t a man write that too? So how do you know it’s the word of God?”
“Well. You have to have faith.”
Faith… That’s always what it boiled down to. I can’t pinpoint exactly when it happened, but one day faith just wasn’t enough for me any more. I sought other literature, outside of that which was available in the church, and it opened me up to a whole new world of questions, but his time the questions had answers, and not a quick get out clause from questioning called “Faith”.
It’s probably worth mentioning that the Pastor was my Dad, and he still is the Pastor of that church today. I am now an Atheist, and it saddens me that we no longer have the relationship we once had, and I hope that one day he’ll succumb to reason, but he truly is a man blinded by “Faith”.
Well done for keeping on asking questions and thinking for yourself.