Today’s conversation in my ongoing segment, The Believer’s Brain, is one that I myself did not participate in, but is actually intended to get the believer(s) in question to answer a few questions and engage in an open and public dialog.
During my conversation on facebook with Jean Carolyn Marcel I had not been the only one questioning her. Another person, Tommy McKenna, had also been involved, primarily questioning her source of knowledge of god. After Jean deleted her comments Tommy mentioned to me that if I wanted to debate more believers, that he occasionally gets contacted by people on YouTube. He also mentioned that currently he was involved in a discussion with, what seems to be a group of christians who seemingly share an account, LetsTalkChrist and Tommy was interested in making this back and forth public and putting into a better forum for discussions than the YouTube messaging system.
Following are what I deem to be the “highlights” of their discussion so far, as an attempt to get the believer to join in the discussion here (the believer, LetsTalkChrist, will be in black, my thoughts are in blue, and Tommy will be in green):
Tommy: Something that is NOT matter, time, or space is NON- existant
LetsTalkChrist: Aren’t you assuming that everything in all of reality is made of matter, time and space? What if there are other forces in reality, outside of our universe, or in another dimension, that are made of other things? How could you disprove that from within our universe?
Jeff: I don’t have “proof” that you don’t have a dragon in your garage, but in the absence of evidence FOR a dragon, I live my life with the lack of belief in such creatures.
With any claim, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. In this case you make the claim of some unknown state of being or other type of force. Without evidence to back up these claims, they are essentially meaningless.
It is sometimes to subtle for certain people to grasp, but the default position is that the world is as it seems from our (meaning humanity, not you and me) current best understanding of it. For that position to be challenged there must be evidence to show something unexplained by the current theories or in contradiction to the current theories. In the case of “god” (which is where you are clearing leading), our current understanding of the universe does not have a “need” for a god or gods to explain what we observe.
Now this is not a “proof” that god does not exist, in fact proving a negative is typically understood as being impossible, but it shows clearly that the burden of proof is on those making the claim of a god or gods to show evidence supporting those claims.
LetsTalkChrist: You are making a meta-physical assumption that only matter, time, and space exist. However, we can demonstrate this is false by the necessity of the fact that matter, time and space are finite and came into being. Whatever begins to exist has a cause, and whatever caused matter, time, and space to begin to exist must necessarily exist without them. This proves there is something in reality that is not matter, time, and space, but does exist and is the cause/Creator of matter, time, and space. That being is God.
Jeff: Yes the universe came into being and is finite. However you are wrong when you say “Whatever begins to exist has a cause“. If you look into the latest scientific theories the ideas of Hawking Radiation created by Virtual Particles shows at least one example of matter being created, quite literally, from nothing.
So while your “proof” is already flawed, even if it was true, it would not automatically mean that the cause was “god” in any definition understood by humanity. This is known as an Argument from Ignorance (i.e. we don’t know something THEREFOR it must be …). Even if we were to accept your false premise that matter can never be created, it would not lead to the conclusion that god is the only alternative. Perhaps there are multiple infinite universe, and our universe was created by a collision of two or more of these universes (it’s an actual theory, although as far as I know it’s essentially untestable at this time). Perhaps a deistic entity “created” the universe and has left it alone for the last 13.7 billion years. There are many alternatives to the christian god.
And the final flaw in this argument is the old idea of who created the creator. If you argue that everything must have a creator, it is then known as Special Pleading to turn around and claim that your version of god is the only thing exempt from this arbitrary rule.
Tommy: Aren’t you making the even greater assumption that something exists, – without ANY evidence at all???
You are asserting, that something that has NOTHING to distinguish it from pure fantasy, actually exists.
We ALL have the SAME apparatus to observe and confirm what is real.
If you wish to say something exists, outside of our ability to percieve it, you are making a conjecture, without ANY information to inform you senses.
This can ONLY be fantasy!If you want to continue this debate, don’t contact me on PM.
It is a waste of time arguing with someone who is so programmed as to dodge reason and empirically observable fact’
On public forum, there is at least a small consolation that some objective onlooker will get the message.
There were many other points brought up by both Tommy and LetsTalkChrist, but I’d like to save something for the discussion here.
The primary ones I’d like to get into are some of the other comments made by LetsTalkChrist including:
- “the necessity of a first transcendent cause” [which I have already covered above, but I’d like to hear the response to the points I brought up]
- “the need for a transcendent intelligence for the creation of the established laws”
- “the complex structures found within the universe that could not have arrived by the mere laws themselves, such as our planet and the life therein”
- “The Bible is the only book in history that is over 60 books compiled together, written by over 40 different authors over 3000 years, all who claimed inspiration from the same God, who never contradicted Himself, and claimed to know the future” [the number of problems I have with this could last us at least a month of discussions, some of them are covered in my take on the first two chapters of genesis]
- “The Bible is the only religious text in the world that dares to predict the future, and is correct every time”
- “The Old Testament was written over 2000 years ago, before the birth of Christ, and foretold His coming in intricate detail”
- “Information as you identity can be transmitted in many forms. Documentation (like the Bible) is exactly that; information. The question is, what is the origin of that information, and can its origin be traced to a mere human mind? In this case, no it can’t, and therefore, I am justified in believing its cause is the transcendent Creator of the universe”
- “In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 B.C.E.”
I’d also welcome discussion on other topics as well, but from the conversation between Tommy and LetsTalkChrist these seemed to be topics that both sides (specifically LetsTalkChrist since all of these points are from you word for word) had interest in discussing.
—–
Update 8/27:
When I first posted this back and forth Tommy, who brough this whole episode to my attention, told me he would try to get LetsTalkChrist to come to the blog to engage in a dialog. Unfortunatly despite many attempts, it seems unlikely that this will happen. I had hoped to give LetsTalkChrist a chance to respond to a limited number of rebutals at first, so not as to overwhelm them with too many topics at once, however if LetsTalkChrist is not going to join it seems as if there is no reason to not proceed.
With that in mind, I figure that in order to get something of value out of this back and forth that Tommy and LetsTalkChrist had, it makes sense to post the rest of the “points” raised by LetsTalkChrist in that orignal back and forth, and begin to respond to those points.
So in addition to the ideas I mentioned above, other “points” raised by LetsTalkChrist include:
- “God gave His creation free will. Free will means that the one who wills is truly free from God and is able to make choices either in line or out of line with God’s nature. Adam and Eve (and the Serpent, Satan) chose to disobey God and thus sin, death and corruption entered the creation by the free choice of man. So God indeed flooded the world when man became wicked upon the earth, and will one day again purge all wickedness from the earth by fire”
- The bible is the leading force behind equal rights throughout history; they then discuss how christianity and the bible have promoted equality of the sexes, how slavery in biblical times was not as harsh as “modern” slavery and was actually good for the slaves, how rape victims are to be “taken care of” by their rapist (i.e. rapists should marry the women they rape), and how despite being against murder it is ok and justified that god on occasion murders innocent people or has the israelites murder innocent people
- Many (if not all) of the “contradictions” or scientific or historical inaccuraies in the bible are due to a misunderstanding of the text [I cover this in my post on the first two chapters of genesis]
So with all of these points raised, I’d like to invite Tommy and whoever else is interested in any of these topics, to share your thoughts on whichever of these “points” you feel comfortable with.
I will also weigh in with some of my own thoughts over the next few days, so for those interested in how I respond to these ideas, hopefully you won’t be disappointed by my replies…
Matthieu Guibert
Sarah Hippolitus
Rodibidably
Luis Reinoso
Brian Gregory
Thinking Critically 
Experience, with this kind of apologist, has taught me not to be too optimistic that “LetsTalkChrist” will be joining us on this thread, nor anyone from the the very polished, forum style, blog page he was associated with.
However, he gave us plenty to examine! I have recently posted several “sermon loads” to Jeff, on top of what he has had to wade through to come up with the comparitively tiny example above!!
I, for one, would like to look at the tremendous amount of evidence denying, reason twisting, apologetics that are required to justify or validate some of the most basic “messages” within Christian dogma, and scriptures itself.
The deeper an objective and rational mind probes into these messages , the greater the contradiction that is required in the apologetic, which itself requires an ever greater contradiction . Each explanation requires an ever increasing suspension of logic and reasonable credulity.
I’m certain that Jeff will be able to highlight most of this in the next few days. I’m convinced I can make my point in what he doesn’t examine – and contribute to his thread too.
Keep watching – This is about to get interesting!
I have a number of comments I want to make on the issues already listed above
And I have a lot of other information from LetsTalkChrist and you that I can post (and comment on)
BUT, I would like to give them the first chance to respond before I bring in too much more and overwhelm the conversation before it begins.
That said, if they make it clear that they will not participate, or after some amount of time not as yet determined, then I will post the remainder of the information that Tommy has provided along with my own comments on it as well as the “points” already listed above.
Ideally I view this segment, The Believer’s Brain, as a way to show people what many of the standard arguments are from various believers, and what at least one (hopefully) cogent and valid argument against those beliefs is.
I’m not giving up yet on LetsTalkChrist joining the discussion, since at least one of the people associated with that account is known to engage in online debates on these topics and all of the topics I’ve brought up so far as from them.
I posted the following on the comment box of a thread I set up on the Christian apologetic website
http://www.thewaythetruth.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2652
This is the website offered by “LetsTalkChrist” as his forum.
As I mentioned above he has now blocked any communication from me on his YouTube, so this is our only chance for us to get a representative reponse to our critique of his original offering: –
Tommy:-
Hi again Jup – and thank you all for the cordial welcome.
As I pointed out, it is now my intention to deal with apologetics, offered by YouTuber “LetsTalkChrist” on public forum. As time allows, I wish to take the contents of several large “sermons” on a point by point basis, and respond to as much as possible.
In the spirit of fairness, and as I sensed a certain “distancing” from you and “LetsTalkChrist” in your last response, Jeff has asked me to clarify which of the original apologetics I was offered were the general Christian position.
Before I post these, however, I would like to address your parting shot to me, as it may well help us to find a common premise for discussion.
Jup: – “The evidence of Gods handiwork throughout creation is obvious when you do not remove the possibility a priori: You have to be deliberately blind not to see it”
Tommy: -Would you not agree that, philosophically, in the absence of ANY manifesting definition, the same can be said for making an a priori premise that” there is no god” either?
Neither position can be proven. Therefore we are left with what the ONLY apparatus, that we (all and each of us) have, as sentient human beings, to ascertain reality.
Those commodities being: –
1, Our 5 senses
2. Our inductive and deductive reasoning
In the absence of any observable evidence, Both statements, offered as truth statements, are nonsense. Yet both statements are possibilities.
However, in this case, a clear definition is made as to the identity of your god, as evidence of His existence.
He is a character in a book, which many claim as inerrant truth, others claim as symbolic truth, and yet others claim as fiction, based on Bronze Age mythology.
Therefore, the definition of the God, which YOU and every other Christian are describing, is contingent on the rational credibility of the writings that YOU use to define Him.
To posit what exists as evidence of a creator, without definition of that “creator”, or an other evidence is as illogical as saying that its evidence of every other god that man has defined, (remember Zeus? Apollo? Thor? Amun? Etc) . By your logic, it is also evidence that no god exists.
So let’s stick with the Christian version of God, for the purposes of any further discussion.
That said, I would appreciate your take on whether these are generally faithful apologetics that counter sceptical criticism of scripture? I will offer Jeff’s priority first of all:
“the necessity of a first transcendent cause – Is a supernatural Alpha and omega the only possibility
“the need for a transcendent intelligence for the creation of the established laws”
“the complex structures found within the universe that could not have arrived by the mere laws themselves, such as our planet and the life therein”
“The Bible is the only book in history that is over 60 books compiled together, written by over 40 different authors over 3000 years, all who claimed inspiration from the same God, who never contradicted Himself, and claimed to know the future” [the number of problems I have with this could last us at least a month of discussions]
“The Bible is the only religious text in the world that dares to predict the future, and is correct every time”
“The Old Testament was written over 2000 years ago, before the birth of Christ, and foretold His coming in intricate detail”
“Information as you identity can be transmitted in many forms. Documentation (like the Bible) is exactly that – information. The question is, what is the origin of that information, and can its origin be traced to a mere human mind? In this case, no it can’t, and therefore, I am justified in believing its cause is the transcendent Creator of the universe”
“In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 B.C.E.”
Yeah … I know…..Sorry!
As a result of my experience with your friend “LetsTalkChrist” I am empathetically aware of the frustration of having a tidal wave of argument washing over your thought processes.
Might I suggest that you give it a read and just highlight the apologetics that you might have a problem with?
If there are any qualifiers you, or your fellows, feel you would like to make please do and very welcome they would be!
If you feel that this is fair comment, or you don’t feel you would like to make a contribution to the discussion, then we can begin our dissection of “LetsTalkChrist”’s arguments immediately!
Thank you for your courtesy thus far
Tommy (tobytrim)
What follows are responses to me, and replies, on the Christian forum linked to me by LetsTalkChrist – I thought the best way to keep this thread viable, would be to post as sent and recieved
Re: A chance to preach to the unconverted!!
by Jup » Sat Aug 28, 2010 7:18 am
No need to be sorry Tommy, we have yet to substantiate that the YouTuber “LetsTalkChrist” is an “admin”, “member” or even “friend”.
I approved your original post to allow for the possibility (in the absence of evidence), so that your invitation to resume dialogue might reach this person(s). If that person is either: not a member here, or unwilling to resume for whatever reason, that is between you and them.
There is no need to “distance myself” from something that is yet to be associated with me. I may reference the bible many times, but that only makes me a fan, not a contributor.
As for my signature: It is not a “passing shot at you” and I apologise if you have taken this personally. I would have thought that a person so obviously experienced on internet forums as yourself would know that signatures change over time as pleases the user, for whatever reason pleases them at the time.
Again, if this person(s) with which you seek dialogue are amongst the membership here, then I hope their reason for discontinuing discussion with you is not something devastating.
And yes, I only have a tiny little brain, and I’m not capable of encompassing such rational thought. Perhaps if you want such an ignorant person as myself to engage you in these discussions you would be kind enough to start a thread on a specific area of the bible that you would like me to give my feeble minded, unscientific, opinion on?The evidence of Gods handiwork throughout creation is obvious when you do not remove the possibility a priori: You have to be deliberately blind not to see it
Jup
Christian
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 11:25 am
Location: A sojourner in a foreign land.
E-mail JupWebsite
Reply with quote Re: A chance to preach to the unconverted!!
by Jup » Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:51 am
tobytrim wrote:
I would like you to confirm the general “Christian take”, or even your own, as an educated intelligent person, on the claims made by “LetsTalkChrist”.
Do they tally with general Christian belief, and the assertions made in order to justify or defend this belief?
Jup wrote:
“On the blog “thinking-critically.com” Jeff presents an article on debating tactics during which he mentions “Unstated Major Premise”. If my understanding of this article is correct, then I believe this discussion suffers from such a premise.
I am not, nor am I acutely aware of, the “general Christian take” on these claims. Although I imagine that a google search would furnish us both with such a take, it would be dishonest of me to tell you that I make those claims myself, and it is apparent to me that you would be unlikely to accept such regardless.
Speaking strictly as a moderator, my only function on this forum is to moderate the discussions on this forum. Personally, I am not required to adhere to, or agree with, any doctrine or belief that may be espoused by any other member both on this forum, and especially on other forums.
As a member here, I personally hold differing understandings of what it means to be christian than the vast majority of those who lay claim to that descriptive. So in fairness, I cannot personally represent an opinion that I may not even have given consideration to. And I certainly do not claim any “educated intelligent” status regardless of your insistence on applying such. ”
Tobytrim (me):-
“If you think a new thread is necessary for this so be it or “Amen” as you guys put it – lol!!”
Jup wrote:-
I do consider it probably for the best if a thread was established for the purpose of establishing other members understandings of scripture. My understanding of this thread was that it was an invitation for a youtuber to reestablish contact with you, on the off chance that he/she/they were members here, which is yet to be established.
Should you do so, please be mindful that, not every member here is inclined to be able to satisfy your enquiry adequately, and that some may deem it a fruitless endeavour and as such, may not respond at all.
Tobytrim:-
Perhaps I will get back to you on some more theological questions – and thank you for the invitation!
Jup wrote: –
You’re always welcome to seek an understanding of our beliefs, as widely ranged in experience and accuracy as they can be. I would ask you, officially, to be mindful that this is not a debate forum. As a moderator, I will shut down a discussion if I suspect that it is becoming a debate, and I will do so without apology.
The evidence of Gods handiwork throughout creation is obvious when you do not remove the possibility a priori: You have to be deliberately blind not to see it
Have you gotten a feel yet for if this conversation will lead to a thorough discussion of substantive issues?
I know one of his posts ended with a statement along the lines of “if this turns into a debate I’ll cut it off with no warning”.
Re: A chance to preach to the unconverted!!
by tobytrim » Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:38 am
Jup wrote:
“ and I’m glad you’re not taking my passing thought of a signature personally. It’ll probably change within a week”
Tobytrim wrote:
I’m glad you’re thinking of changing it. It makes a very flawed and dishonest philosophical point, in that it’s premise presupposes its conclusion.
Put another way: – Once you arbitrarily declare, by fiat, without evidence, that the universe was a purposeful “creation”, then it suggests there is undeniable evidence that a purposeful “creator” exists
Indeed, it’s misleading to anyone claiming to be “seeking the truth”.
Jup wrote:
“I agree that we may both agree that the way we look at life, the universe, and everything, is always biased depending on our presuppositions.”
Tobytrim wrote:
We are obligated to use the same thought biases. For example, the presupposition that our sensory perception and reasoning are reliable.
Indeed, we rely on our ability to evaluate what are perceived by our senses with our powers of reason.
Based on this recognition of the behavioural patterns of the universe, we can make predictions that are in turn verified by our perceptions.
Theist or sceptic, all uses our cognisance in this manner, in our day to day lives.
The difference occurs when theists need to fit their “supernatural” beliefs, and scriptural definitions of “the Creator”, into the inductive reasoning you use to understand how the “real world” works.
For example:
In the real world you KNOW that resurrection from death doesn’t happen – yet your “faith” says it was a common occurrence in 1st century Palestine – Especially one fateful weekend!
In the same way, in the world you live in every day, you learn from your experience of the laws of physics that:
No human can walk on water.
Events or objects can not occur by incantation, or by being “spake” into existence.
“Ex nihlo” Creation isn’t a possibility.
Diseases are not unclean or evil spirits that can be driven out by the spoken word and/or willpower
…I’ll spare you further examples…
My point is, your acceptance this one hearsay account of a creator, offered to you from the less informed presuppositions of Bronze Age nomadic tribal myths, relies on your suspending all acceptance on the evidence you use to decide reality from fantasy, on a day to day basis.
More simply put – If someone came and told you that they had witnessed a human being walking on the surface of a deep lake, even if he was the most apparently sincere and charismatic pastor that ever witnessed “the word” to you, would you believe him? – I doubt it!
Yet, you believe the very same pastor, when he anecdotally tells the same unlikely tale, from a hearsay source many times removed, read from ancient text, written from the hearsay mythical tales of an ancient people. I would further point out that the writers of this source of information were, instinctively, believers in mysticism, with nothing like the knowledge and understandings brought to us by modern science
Jup wrote:
“I do not agree that all believers everywhere of all religions assume a “definite actuality” of any god.”
Tobytrim wrote: –
But you do, don’t you? – In fact, isn’t that the required belief of every devout Christian.
In fact, isn’t the “definite actuality of God”, the Christian belief?
Isn’t denial of God to be denied salvation?
Jup wrote:-
“The basic premise of christianity specifically is that one believe the testimony of Jesus and put their faith in His sacrifice as a final atonement for their sin.”
Tobytrim wrote: –
You do see why any rational person, living today, would have a problem believing this, don’t you?
That someone died to atone for “sins”, almost two thousand years before they were born, ergo two thousand years before they were sentient, or physically capable to do any deed, (much less anything that needed to be “atoned” for) isn’t just irrational, it can be stated, as an observation:
IT DIDN’T HAPPEN!!
Whether you wish to believe he “atoned” for the “sins” of the people of his time, or before, is your business, though still pretty irrational!
Jup wrote: –
“One does not have to be a theist to deem something beautiful, wondrous or complex, nor to take joy in considering it, nor do I consider appreciation the wonder of creation to be a tautology to a believer.”
Tobytrim: –
I’m afraid you quoted me out of context here – Maybe I worded my premise badly.
What I meant to say was:
To define the worldly beauty and complexity of the universe as “creation”, then using this arbitrary semantic term as proof of creation that is treated as a tautology by many believers.
Ray Comfort, for example, uses this ridiculous fallacy a lot!
I dealt with this point right off the starting blocks, with my comments on your motto.
Jup wrote: –
Here is the crux of the issue AFAIA. What is “most obvious” is already pre defined by the observers (a)theistic paradigm.
Tobytrim wrote:
I disagree. Most people’s paradigm for what exists (even yours, when it doesn’t have to justify your religion) is based on what is observed, and on what is testable against what is observed.
Religion is based on unsupported acceptance of hearsay stories, on faith, much of what is debunked by rationality, in the light of current knowledge and scientific testability.
Jup wrote: –
Regardless of the atheist preference for usurping the term “open mind”, it is my experience that neither the atheist, nor the theist can be persuaded via a forum such as this, and so, such attempted persuasion is likely to be fruitless. I believe you said something similar, although less open-minded, in your first post here.
Tobytrim wrote: –
Atheism doesn’t claim, in itself, to be the open minded approach. My atheism is informed by my agnosticism. That is to say the apparent lack of evidence that any god exists.
As soon as I see some viable evidence – say, for example, as much as would support a well-established scientific theory, I would be fairly convinced that such a religion has a point worthy of consideration, at the very least!
I would say that such was an open-minded approach!
Obviously you set a higher evidence bar, or you would have abandoned your belief already.
I noticed below that you have linked a Creationist source, therefore I take it you are not interested in the same level of testability either?
Jup wrote: –
I disagree with your assertion that creation is unsupported and that observational science contradicts an assumed behaviour.
I’m afraid that my “assertion” that creationism is unsupported by scientific testability is way more than a matter of my personal opinion – nor anyone else’s – not even the experts!
It is in itself an observable fact!
Last time I looked , if memory serves, there were 277,000 peer review observations published in PubMed alone in support of evolution , and many more contingent on it as fact. (Certainly well over 200,000 if you wish to argue figures)
Absolutely NONE, at all, support or assume an intelligently designed or created universe.
Just to anticipate your suggestion that there is an “atheist conspiracy” within the scientific community, to suppress any evidence in support of theistic dogma, I will explain a little about how peer review and scientific testability works
Firstly though, I would make the point that there are a great number of devout Christian scientific experts in the relevant fields, offering evidence, in support of biological evolution, for peer review.
Peer review itself is the practice of offering up a hypothesis or observation to testability by other experts in the same academic discipline
These experts have a committed interest in falsifying it if they can. Anything that survives the rigorous gauntlet of this testability stands, but is never declared to be proven.
The more of such testability a theory survives, the stronger it becomes – until such time as it is pretty much accepted as irrefutable and is recognised, unofficially, as fact.
Evolution has withstood 150 years of such testability – The Big Bang has withstood 80+ years.
Both have been further strengthened by inumerous additions from different, independent theories from other fields of enquiry.
This same testability makes a laughing stock of “Creation Science” which is no more than a scientifically illogical declaration of dogma unsupported y ANY testable evidence, to promote a purely religious agenda.
Jup wrote:-
“ If it “seems” to you that there is no such evidence might I point you to a creation science website where there is much to be learned about nature from a biblical paradigm which harmonises all observed scientific knowledge with the bible, and even highlights some rather glaring inconsistencies with such observations and any “big bang” mythology or “evolution” fantasy.”
Tobytrim wrote:-
Ha ha! Sorry but I had to laugh at you linking me a creationist site as a source of information, as though it would “open my eyes!! Lol!!
I’ve probably spent far more time reading creationist arguments than most literal bible believing Christians.
The difference being, I also spend time looking into the evidence offered by REAL scientists too!
However, other than citing a third party testimony, why don’t you present to me your favourite evolution/Bigbang debunking argument from one of these sites, and I will be happy to show you why it’s a bad argument. You can’t say fairer than that now , can you?
I’ve already made the point that science deals with more than what “seems” but I thought I would respond to the rest of this comment of yours by offering you an interesting insight into a secular mind:
What do you think, for a sceptic, is the MOST invalidating evidence against a “god” that only manifestly exists in claims, by flawed human believers, that certain ancient scriptures are “divine revelation”?
Avoiding the temptation to generalise, I will tell you, that for me, it isn’t: –
The obviously anthropomorphic perspective in the minds of the biblical writers, who were demonstrably influenced by the time and culture in which they lived.
Nor….
The immense amount of contradictions, anomalies, atrocities, demonstrations of flawed human moralities and ignorance within the text of the “holy book”
Nor….
The ideas attributed to what is described by believers as an omniscient and omni-benevolent , perfect being ,in the bible, that have since been improved upon by humanity.
Our understanding of the universe, and the abolition of slavery are two small but apt examples.
Nor
The dreadful atrocities, enforced ignorance of the dark ages, crusades, and inquisitions imposed upon an otherwise progressing world by the church and other authorities in the name of the Christian god.
Nor….
The required interpolations, changes in story, forgeries that seemed to be regularly and systematically required to uphold the authority of an illogical dogma in the last 2.000 years.
What really puts the kibosh on Christian credibility isn’t even the need for these reason bending apologetics, as much as the actual apologetics themselves, and when they are questioned, the apologetics for those apologetics!!
The credibility of it’s believers is the mark of any belief. Indeed, I was taught in the faith school that indoctrinated me, that the most credible thing in the early Christians, for their Roman persecuters, was their willingness to die for their belief Leaving aside the obvious sincerity of Muslim suicide bombers, that isn’t a bad argument
It shows that the early believers had the courage to put their belief to the ultimate test.
However, how much irrationality and dishonesty should you use to uphold the authority of a canon and dogma that has been so debunked by modern science ?
That’s right …. Creationism ( as an apologetic for science, which debunked biblical literalism, without having any anti religious agenda) was the very final nail in the coffin of any respect I had left for Christianity as an idea or a moral philosophy.
Why does it require such liars requiring such shameful denial of education and simpleminded ignorance?
Throughout the sermon circuit, there are sordid little men with bogus scientific qualifications, or diploma mill Doctorates of Divinity ( occasionally earned ones) who use the title “Dr” to lend them undeserved authority, so they can deliver dreadful scientific misinformation to the willingly ignorant , who would hide from a real scientist through fear of finding something out that might mess up their fantasies of eternal life.
These bogus scientists, and all their dishonest websites, attempt to convince the knowledge ducking devout that every working scientist, in the relevant fields of enquiry, is either a fraud or a deluded fool.
These people whom they try to represent as a coven of heathen fraudsters , whom they call “evolutionists” , discover and fine tune , and allow us to harvest scientific understanding, which informs the very technology these very preachers could not live without.
Not least, medical science, for example!
It is wrong, on every level, to accept any belief or institution which requires such blatant dishonest, especially to uphold it’s academic authority over the minds of other human beings
Jup wrote: –
“I make no assertion that it is reasonable for me to believe in God, only that I do, and that regardless of my efforts not to, I find myself unable. The assumed “paradox” hoewver, has been addressed above.”
Tobytrim wrote: –
I like this answer – it’s more honest than I am used to hearing from a theist. The “I can’t help what I believe” argument is often used by non believers to debunk Pascal’s wager.
However, I would point out that your assertion that you need to believe against what reason dictates, is a confession of an addiction problem, much the same as gambling, booze, or drugs etc.
The paradox, I referred to, is in any believer’s description of god, which I have ever heard. There’s no assumption on my part!
You haven’t dealt with that because, you don’t understand why it’s a paradox – I didn’t explain it to you, and if you could work it out for your self, you would no longer be a believer.
I won’t clutter up our discussion, any further, with this ontology now.
Jup wrote: –
Given the previously stated, and agreed, futility of this excercise, it is difficult for me to justify taking such a large amount of time away from family and home life in one sitting.
Sorry Jup – that’s not what I agreed – I stated it was futile to have a PRIVATE discussion between someone who went out of his way to avoid reason and logic, in the promotion of a belief that amounted to an emotional need., and someone who, like me lived purely on the productivity of reason and empiricism.
On the other hand, a public forum, such as this is a perfect medium, as it can stimulate thought in onlookers an other participants alike.
However, if you feel that this is a strenuous subject for you, I for one will happily get off your back.
It should be said, in fairness, that you have given me many points to answer. – whether you consider this a debate or a discussion!!
I too will make this the intermission Lol!
@Jeff- I think we’ll get some milage out of these guys – Keep watching my posts, you’ll see that they are passing me around like a new toy!
Apparently they protest too much – they are enjoying their atheist, I think.
At least so far………..
Re: A chance to preach to the unconverted!!
by Jup » Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:06 am
I think this should reassure you that I’m not going to be blocked just yet Jeff:-
Jup wrote:-
“Thankyou once again for your input Tommy. I appreciate the opportunity to hear your viewpoint.”
Jup obviously wants out of the debate, but he isn’t cutting me off from the other bloggers.
Frankly, he seems more sincere and honest than any theist ic apologist I’ve encountered lately. In respect of this, I wont respond to the second half of his post, though you may want to – much of it seems aimed at you and this forum.
NEW MEAT!
Here is a new one who take a ” my god is a foregone conclusion” approach: –
Re: A chance to preach to the unconverted!!
by WayKnowledge » Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:37 am
Hi Tommy and Welcome.
Just so you know up front, I am also not Let’sTalkChrist. Still, I am ever so happy to do what his/her name implies. But if you’re looking for a point by point refutation of your propositions or a chance return that favor to us, I have to agree with Jup; you’ll likely be disappointed.
I’d like to offer a snippet from the New Testament to explain why I’d say that.1 Peter 3:15 (Peter writing to Christians:)
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
I and, I imagine, everyone here has “the hope” and we certainly have “the reason” for it (though no two will have had it revealed to them in precisely the same way). Were you to enter “conversation” with us, I’m sure we’d have a lot to discuss. If you’d like to know why I Love and am in a relationship with God, or to “…TalkChrist,” you’d have my full attention. But I have no interest in playing with my honest belief and joy in the Lord of all creation like some axiomatic proof/disproof Geometry. I wouldn’t let anyone attempt to convince me that my parents didn’t love me, either.
Still, were I to describe my life’s hopelessness before the Holy Spirit took up residence in my spirit and brought me to life (as whacky as that may sound to you), and, the hope I now know, it’s something not open to argument. How could it be? In the same way I could never expect you to fall in love with Jesus simply because I might be able to pick apart fallacies I see in your arguments (while you’re picking off all of mine like a turkey shoot).
But if you’re interested, please continue along these lines. I will be your faithful correspondent.
Blessings,
Marc
MY RESPONSE ( very gentle it was too!): –
Edit postReply with quote Re: A chance to preach to the unconverted!!
by tobytrim » Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:05 am
Thank you for your kind words Marc!
– You are obviously sincere in your beliefs and they must have great emotional comfort for you.
Unfortunately ( perhaps thankfully) you haven’t offered me any academic points to consider. As an atheist that is all I can address.
I suspect you’re someone who doesn’t feel intellectually or morally superior to someone who doesn’t FEEL ( rather than believe) as you do.
I wouldn’t recommend that you entered into the kind of dialogue which I would have with anyone who would attempt to intellectually defend your faith – You wouldn’t like to hear what I have to say! – Lol!!
Thank you for reminding me of 1st Peter 3:15 It’s a big favourite of mine – I often use it to budge a discussion along when I have met with an apologist who suddenly announces he needs explain nothing – Lol!!(though I always quote the KJV) I also like the bit from Matthew 5? – about hiding the light under the bushel and being the salt of the Earth? I find Matt 28; 19 useful too – ( Go ye therefore……)
Thanks for your blessing
regards
Tommy
Here’s some yet newer meat…….I have a feeling this guy is going to be very arrogant in his self delusion, and hard to communicate with reasoned logic.
I will happily post, on HIS forum, anyone’s response to this guy , either before or after I send my own!!
Re: A chance to preach to the unconverted!!
by Genesis » Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:39 am
I was considering keeping my nose out of this discussion altogether, but as some here know well, my nose is quite big, and prone to finding its way into places it doesn’t belong.
Tobytrim wrote: –
“Unfortunately ( perhaps thankfully) you haven’t offered me any academic points to consider. As an atheist that is all I can address.”
Genesis responded: –
This is not true.
The thing is, Tom, that as human beings, each one of us has something far more important to consider, and it is relevant to all of us. The concept of God is something that each one of us must face, theist or atheist, and there is no more important consideration than this.
The academic aspect of religion is interesting to the mind, but numbing to the soul and spirit. It is, as our beloved brother mentioned earlier, akin to assessing our parents’ love for us from an academic perspective. It does not do God justice to look at Him through such a perspective, turning Him from a loving Father into a mathematical equation. God cannot be understood, nor appreciated, in such a fashion.
It is not an academic understanding of religion that saves us, it is having a right heart before God. That doesn’t take brains, it takes faith. Praise God for that, because if intelligence had been a prerequisite for salvation in the Christian religion, the better part of mankind could never be saved, and those that could, couldn’t, because intelligence and pride seem to go hand in hand. Jesus didn’t die so that mankind could become theologians, He died so that mankind could become children of God, there’s a gaping chasm of difference.
I once argued about the academic points of the Christian religion. For almost a decade I fought, tooth and nail, to prove the Bible to be true. I never lost an argument, but I also never brought a soul to salvation. For all the academic achievements I could boast of, it availed me nothing because before God, I came out fruitless. I achieved nothing for God, and as a Christian, I soon learned that debating the academic points of religion served as nothing more than an ego-booster. Even intra-faith discussions tend to turn into debates and often finish far short of a conclusion. If Christians themselves cannot agree on the finer points of doctrine, then it’s nothing short of utter foolishness to expect to be able to reach a reasonable conclusion in discussions involving atheists.
In light of such, I believe that most here are going to be somewhat unwilling to engage in such debate. It seems to me that most Christians here have learned, through their own experience or the experience of others, that no man has ever been saved through debate, and that it is futile to attempt to change that fact.
I believe that the title of this thread is somewhat misleading. This is not a chance to preach to the unconverted, not at all. This is a masked challenge to an intellectual debate. I hate to be so forward and so assertive, I do apologise, but it’s quite clear that it’s not answers that are being sought here, it’s an intellectual challenge (or the chance at flexing those intellectual muscles), and I’m afraid that this is not place for it. Our responsibilities before God do not involve entertaining the intellectual curiosities of atheists. If I thought, even for a moment, that answering the questions could bring this discussion to a conclusion that pleased God, I’d do all I could. I do not, however, and despite the polite manner of the challenge (for that much I am thankful, it sure beats unbridled aggression), I am disinclined to oblige.
Regarding 1 Peter 3:15…
There is a big difference between giving an answer, and debating pointless facts. I can give an answer to all that ask me for a reason, but that doesn’t mean I’m under an obligation to sit there and debate those reasons. I’m afraid that this portion of scripture is often misused to bait Christians into intellectual debate, and also tends to be used as a supporting scripture for apologists that have nothing better to do than to run around starting intellectual fights left, right and centre.
This portion of scripture encourages Christians to be prepared to proclaim the doings of the Lord in their lives, it is an encouragement to be prepared to give a profession of faith if it is required of them. It is not an exhortation to sit around arguing, not at all. The Lord never commanded His children to debate, but to profess. He never commanded us to argue, but to proclaim. The preaching of the gospel to them that are lost is our calling.
Remember, Tom, that salvation comes not from understanding the academic points of religion, but from believing on the Lord. For those that are genuine in their search for God, the answer lies in faith, not in debate. I can have supreme understanding and still lack faith, and I can have little understanding but serve as a pillar of faith. I need not have much understanding to believe, and sometimes I believe that too much understanding can be a hindrance to faith, as it causes us to depend on our own understanding and not on the Lord. I’m not condoning ignorance, but I don’t like to see people turn our faith into an academic exercise, because it’s not.
I hope that this post makes sense, I didn’t expect or intend for it to be this long, but it’s hard to express the feelings I have regarding this topic, given the experience I have in this matter. Please understand, it’s not that Christians here are afraid of losing a debate, nor is it a sense of intellectual inferiority, it’s simply that we believe that it serves no real purpose and that we’d merely be wasting our time by engaging in a debate that will ultimately bear no fruit. Our purposes are different to yours, and though it may please you to stimulate your mind in debate as it once did me, it will not satisfy us, nor will it satisfy our Lord.
I wish you all the best, and truly hope that you come to the realisation that the truth cannot be found by arguing, but by believing. The day you let go of your own understanding and give God a chance, you will understand. This is not something we can convince you of by much debating, it is something you must see for yourself. The goodness of God cannot be expressed, it must be experienced. I pray you understand this one day.Genesis
Active Member
Posts: 1400
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 12:55 pm
Location: The Land Down Under
E-mail Genesis
Tomorrow I’ll do what I did with LetsTalkChrist and compile a list of the “points” made from that forum.
Then I’ll begin writing my responses to the combined lists “points” (longer ones I may publish as separate posts and just link to them)…
First one I’ll deal with is the inerrancy of the bible and “lack of contradictions”…
I’m actually responding to the last poster”Genesis” as I write this.
I actually find him both annoying and compelling.
He wrote so much and said so little!
What he did say is very commonplace (ingrained even) in the theistic mindset.
It actually invites ridicule to such an extent, that I find it difficult to respond to with any respect.
However, I feel it is the most important and required response we can make on this whole thread, perhaps the most important we can make to a theist anywhere.
It epitomises the believers brain.
These guys actually believe that what they accept on faith actually transcends the use of empirical evidence and reason. They do not realise that what they apply such emotion to , had to have come to them, in the first place, as an intellectual proposition, subject to empirical laws and human reason .
This is my response – Though there wasn’t much of a point to respond to, on the face of it, I feel there is much more to be said to this guy! : –
Hi “Genesis”!
Thank you for your communication – I have to say that you guys really know how to “grind an axe”!! Lol!
For people who claim to not want a debate, you sure enough post a lot of very provocative materials that fairly demands a response from me!
Genesis wrote
“I was considering keeping my nose out of this discussion altogether, but as some here know well, my nose is quite big, and prone to finding its way into places it doesn’t belong.”
My response : –
That’s OK, any courteous “nose” is welcome on any thread where I have any say. Unfortunately, that isn’t always true on most places, for non believers, where “faith” is being promoted as “truth”
I wonder why this “truth” can only ever be premised in a one sided forum?
Kudos to this forum, for it’s fairly unique courage and honesty, in being an exception to that rule so far.
Genesis wrote: –
“ The thing is, Tom, that as human beings, each one of us has something far more important to consider, and it is relevant to all of us. The concept of God is something that each one of us must face, theist or atheist, and there is no more important consideration than this.”
My response: –
Oh? Then why do you feel that a mutually responsive discussion with a non-believer is “pointless” or non-productive?
Surely the first concept, ALL of us must face, is whether there is likely to be such a thing as a “god” in the first place?
Then, of course, we have to ascertain, whether the one you wish to posit as god, is the right one!
Genesis wrote: –
“The academic aspect of religion is interesting to the mind, but numbing to the soul and spirit”
My response: –
I’ll assume you mean “intellectual”, pertaining to reason, philosophical?
“Academic” is a perfect word for what you are arguing FOR!
Isn’t it fair to say that you are proposing a god who exists exactly as described by the writers of an ancient text? – You can’t get any more academic than that!
If I was a “genuine seeker”, and you were an informed apologist of whom I were to ask a question about scripture, or say, “the nature of god”, you would point me to a passage in a book, maybe the bible or the works of Anselm or Aquinas.
This is academia, as that is where your information of “god” exclusively exists, as with any other information, The trouble is the information is ONLY there!
However, for things in the material world, which can be observed to be real by our sensory perceptions, there is further testability,
Genesis wrote: –
“It is not an academic understanding of religion that saves us, it is having a right heart before God. That doesn’t take brains, it takes faith.”
My response: –
What you seem to be arguing against, is examining the validity of this “faith” acceptance against human reason and empiricism, and discussing the many anomalies, contradictions, and other illogical points this might raise?
Which brings us to that rather bad analogy: –
Genesis wrote:-
“It is, as our beloved brother mentioned earlier, akin to assessing our parents’ love for us from an academic perspective”
Again, if you mean intellectual, reasoning, as I’m sure you do, then that is exactly what we do!!
I was able to observe my Father, as a real living being.
While he was alive. I could observe his behaviour.
From my observance of his behaviour, I was able to assess how much or how little was his love for me.
We assess love in how it manifests itself, from the people we observe in the real world.
Love is never something we can take for granted, or truly be sure of , even from people we know are there. None of us can see into the mind of another.
How much less can we know the love of something that only manifests itself to our perception of reality, as a character in a book!
Whether you like it or not, such is your god.
Genesis wrote:-
“ if intelligence had been a prerequisite for salvation in the Christian religion, the better part of mankind could never be saved”
My response:-
Ha ha!!….Amen to that Brother!!!
My further question is : –
Why should ignorance and lack of intelligence be a prerequisite for salvation.?
Why is this faith in salvation only available to the willingly ignorant among mankind?
The ridiculously credulous?….. Those who run away from fact, or reason?
Do you really think that the only people your god wants with him in Paradise are those who’ll deny the laws of logic and physics ( that “He” is alleged to be the author of) to believe what is told to them by obviously flawed , fallible human beings?
Is it a sin to think?
I usually like to give such a sincere communication as this a premise by premise response, but frankly you have written so much and made so few points! Everything you say seems to follow the same central theme. – I paraphrase : –
“God is too great to be subjected to the [material limitations] of human empiricism and reason”
The great gaping philosophical fallacy, in this biased, pre –suppositional premise, is the fact that every thing we believe, every concept we have (even an original thought), is contingent on information.
Whether you like it or not, your belief in this specifically defined god, was put to you as an intellectual premise, at some time in your life as a “fallible” sentience, who relies on reason and evidence.
This intellectual proposition would have been subject to your reasoning and empirical evidence, had you been allowed to implement it.
Even if you argued that the will to believe in a god was a divinely placed instinct in the hearts of men, you would still have to justify your own particular definition of “god, as described to you, in terms of an intellectual proposition, in the form of information.
If this wasn’t the case , theism would not have so many divisive definitions . there would be no Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Christians etc. – EVERYONE would be united under the one true god – whichever one “He” turned out to be!
Everyone is an atheist by default…..You, I, and billions of the worlds population were given an intellectual proposition to consider, as reasoning human beings, whose ONLY apparatus to evaluate reality comes from our reason and empirical examination of evidence.
It should be said of course, that most of us were indoctrinated by all the authority in our formative years and were never given a chance to process religion in the light of reason/
I myself, for example was taught to pray to an unproven supernatural entity, at the side of my bed before I learned to use language properly, much less learned to read, or reason properly. I went to a faith school, where I was denied any secular education that contradicted “the good book”.
I can say with confidence that my story isn’t a rare one! Lol!
I was going to take exception to one or two of your very illogical or just silly side points . I may still look at them later- but that last summary will have to do for now!
Regards,
Tommy
I have begun to address some of the “points” raised by LetsTalkChrist in my take on the first two chapters of genesis. I will continue to address more points as I have time either here or, for the ones that require longer explanations, in separate posts.
The points I have covered so far are:
“Genesis” has also decided to bow out of the discussion. Here is his reply:
Re: A chance to preach to the unconverted!!
by Genesis » Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:29 am
Tom, as much as it pains me to do this (and I assure you it does pain me to bow out of a discussion), I have said my bit and will leave it at that. I will leave you to consider what I have said and you are free to do with it what you will. There is nothing more I can add to this conversation that I feel is profitable, so if you’ll please forgive and excuse me, I’m going to take my leave.
God bless and may you find the answers you’re looking for.
The Christians on the other site seem not the type for long discussions as the first two have begged off. They seem to be happy with a single exchange, to either assess the nature of the critical mind they’re communicating with and feel that any message they have is falling on stoney ground, or they needed to appease their curiousity on why anyone would be an atheist.
Personally I wish that they would have more curiousity in them, or more willingness to defend their world view when asked to.
That said, I think they are sincere in their faith, and astute enough to realise that any further attempt to rationalise their beliefs might require some intellectual dishonesty that is aggravating to a secular, critical mind.
Much of the same can be said, incidently, for the other side of the intellectual divide at street level!!
There are lots of atheists, freethinkers, secularists etc, on lot’s of critical thinking website, extolling views to each other that have never even been offered to a Christian as an intellectual proposition.
Shouldn’t we be talking to each other more, instead of within our own cosy little “fellowships”???
However, on that note, a new thread has been maturing in the background that I didn’t think would lead to any meaningful discussion, so I haven’t included it up to now, nor did I offer the poor man any kind of provocative response as yet.
Here it is from the beginning: –
Re: A chance to preach to the unconverted!!
by WayKnowledge » Mon Aug 30, 2010 1:37 am
Hi Tommy and Welcome.
Just so you know up front, I am also not Let’sTalkChrist. Still, I am ever so happy to do what his/her name implies. But if you’re looking for a point by point refutation of your propositions or a chance return that favor to us, I have to agree with Jup; you’ll likely be disappointed.
I’d like to offer a snippet from the New Testament to explain why I’d say that.1 Peter 3:15 (Peter writing to Christians:)
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
I and, I imagine, everyone here has “the hope” and we certainly have “the reason” for it (though no two will have had it revealed to them in precisely the same way). Were you to enter “conversation” with us, I’m sure we’d have a lot to discuss. If you’d like to know why I Love and am in a relationship with God, or to “…TalkChrist,” you’d have my full attention. But I have no interest in playing with my honest belief and joy in the Lord of all creation like some axiomatic proof/disproof Geometry. I wouldn’t let anyone attempt to convince me that my parents didn’t love me, either.
Still, were I to describe my life’s hopelessness before the Holy Spirit took up residence in my spirit and brought me to life (as whacky as that may sound to you), and, the hope I now know, it’s something not open to argument. How could it be? In the same way I could never expect you to fall in love with Jesus simply because I might be able to pick apart fallacies I see in your arguments (while you’re picking off all of mine like a turkey shoot).
But if you’re interested, please continue along these lines. I will be your faithful correspondent.
Blessings,
Marc
MY RESPONSE TO “MARC” (WayKnowledge)
Edit postReply with quote Re: A chance to preach to the unconverted!!
by tobytrim » Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:05 am
Thank you for your kind words Marc!
– You are obviously sincere in your beliefs and they must have great emotional comfort for you.
Unfortunately ( perhaps thankfully) you haven’t offered me any academic points to consider. As an atheist that is all I can address.
I suspect you’re someone who doesn’t feel intellectually or morally superior to someone who doesn’t FEEL ( rather than believe) as you do.
I wouldn’t recommend that you entered into the kind of dialogue which I would have with anyone who would attempt to intellectually defend your faith – You wouldn’t like to hear what I have to say! – Lol!!
Thank you for reminding me of 1st Peter 3:15 It’s a big favourite of mine – I often use it to budge a discussion along when I have met with an apologist who suddenly announces he needs explain nothing – Lol!!(though I always quote the KJV) I also like the bit from Matthew 5? – about hiding the light under the bushel and being the salt of the Earth? I find Matt 28; 19 useful too – ( Go ye therefore……)
Thanks for your blessing
regards
Tommy
This is the latest offering from “the other forum” . There were other responses, but this is the only response with any answerable content.
Not being an administrator of either webpages, I am not in a position to colour code the varying responders, as Jeff and Marc here can.
To try to clarify it a little, I will attempt to identify each contribution by name a I have always done.
I have been know to miss +-a few out, so a sharp eye is recommended! : –
Re: A chance to preach to the unconverted!!
by WayKnowledge » Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:49 am
Hi Tommy,
And thank you for responding. Rather than cut and paste a lot, I would like to take my lead from your Friend, Jeff, and simply insert a color scheme to keep track of who we are. So as in Mr. Randall’s blog:
Tommy is Green
Jeff (when I need to drag him in) is Blue
I’ll be Magenta
tobytrim wrote:
Thanks for your kind words Marc!
– You are obviously sincere in your beliefs and they must have great emotional comfort for you.
Marc (way of knowledge): –
Thank you
More comfort than merely emotional, I assure you.
Tobytrim: –
Unfortunately ( perhaps thankfully)…
Marc (way of knowledge): –
You’re welcome, fully.
tobytrim wrote:
…you haven’t offered me any academic points to consider. As an atheist that is all I can address.
Marc (way of knowledge): –
In saying that, you sell yourself short. I’m sure that “as an atheist” you can address yourself to countless issues that are not academic in nature, nor only argumentative. Even from reading your point-by-points above, I discern a sharp mind, fueled by passion (quietly eclipsing what might be a fine sense of humor), and a happiness in your everyday.
tobytrim wrote:
I suspect you’re someone who doesn’t feel intellectually or morally superior to someone who doesn’t FEEL ( rather than believe) as you do.
Marc (way of knowledge): –
Thank you for the compliment. But I wonder why all this concentration on “feel/FEEL,” seemingly excluding my beliefs (and my thoughts, for that matter). I simply presume in my life that I cannot ever be responsible for the FEELings, thoughts, or beliefs, or morals of anyone else. That said, of course I simply won’t pretend to be superior.
tobytrim wrote:
I wouldn’t recommend that you entered into the kind of dialogue which I would have with anyone who would attempt to intellectually defend your faith – You wouldn’t like to hear what I have to say! – Lol!!
Marc (way of knowledge): –
This statement of yours leads me to ask two questions; one personal and the other philosophical (or “intellectual” as you might deem it). You may see them as idle curiosities and choose not to answer them but, I look forward to any answer you may give.
First. If we accept the definition of an ATHEIST as “one WITHOUT God” (in the same way an AGNOSTIC is “one WITHOUT knowledge/gnosis”), and we can equally define an ANTI-THEIST as “one AGAINST God” or “one AGAINST the notion of a God,” how would you define yourself?
I ask this because it seems (only seems)to me that someone who is “Without God” would spend as little of their short time on this planet as humanly possible wrangling about something that’s Not There (like God’s existence). Surely as little time as I spend disproving Atlantis, or UFOs, or the Loch Ness Monster — which is to say, none at all. Truth be told, speculations on these things by others only tend to amuse me.
So, there’s that. Now,
Second. And to begin here, I’d like to quote from your friend Jeff’s blog (see Original Post for the link):
“…. Now this is not a “proof” that god does not exist, in fact proving a negative is typically understood as being impossible,…
Marc (way of knowledge): –
Really? Impossible? Okay, I’ll buy that. “No proving a negative.”
And yet you seem, then, to have accomplished the impossible!! You have somehow Proven, to your own satisfaction, the “Non-Existence of God.” That, and you imagine that you can somehow Prove it to us. That’s a BIG Bite, my man.
Hence, I’d only ask, is this Either because you have found a path around the “impossible” to MAKE it possible, OR, might you have accidentally lowered the the threshold for what constitutes proof in your mind?
But Jeff continues:
“… but it shows clearly that the burden of proof is on those making the claim of a god or gods to show evidence supporting those claims.”
Marc (way of knowledge): –
So Your inability to prove that there Is No GOD somehow puts the onus on Us to Prove that GOD IS? Huh?
In saying that a “Negative cannot be proven” (in fact it’s “Impossible”), you choose to demand that others engage in Futile debate, by asking them to achieve what you cannot: “Prove a Negative.”
I.E. You are NOT asking us to prove God (though you may have, until now, sincerely believed so). Ultimately, you ARE asking us to prove Only that Your Arguments are NOT [a Negative] TRUE. And that, because That’s the only argument in question.
And I humbly assent that I cannot do the “impossible” (remember, I am not “intellectually superior”). Therefore, I would not attempt to try.
Thank you for reminding me of 1st Peter 3:15 It’s a big favourite of mine – I often use it to budge a discussion along when I have met with an apologist who suddenly announces he needs explain nothing – Lol!!(though I always quote the KJV) I also like the bit from Matthew 5? – about hiding the light under the bushel and being the salt of the Earth? I find Matt 28; 19 useful too – ( Go ye therefore……)
Thanks for your blessing
regards
Tommy
I would be delighted to know your answers. Also feel free to broach any other subjects that interest you.
May the Lord Bless you,
Marc (WayKnowledge)
Christian
I pretty much expected that the folks on that website would not be interested in an ongoing debate. From my reading of their forums it seemed that they wanted to place to agree with each other, not defend their beliefs. It makes it difficult to get interested in debating them if you have a feeling from the outset that they will only take the time to make their own points and not consider or respond to those points made to them.
That said, I do still want to respond to the points from the original post above that I bulleted, and I will try to gather into a simple list all of the “points” made by the other members of that forum and asee which ones will make for good posts / responses.
Ok Jeff, that should be interesting.
You’ll notice, from the last message I posted, that they are accessing this blog and directly addressing your comments. As a matter of fact, you got better questions than I did! – You must have made more provocative assertions- lol!!
I intend to respond to my end of the discussion, both there , and here. I also intend to ask them to make any future arguments on this blog as well as their own.
As I said, the last Christian response, aimed most of his best questions and points directly at you. Would you like me to leave them for you, or shall I respond to them for you?
If I deal with them , it might help if I had the link to the whole thread so I can know the contexts?
I’ll take a look today and see what points of mine they address, this should be interesting 🙂
Once I see what they’ve addressed, I can respond, as well as provide links so you can as well if you choose.
My reply to Marc ( see above) :
Marc:
This statement of yours leads me to ask two questions; one personal and the other philosophical (or “intellectual” as you might deem it). You may see them as idle curiosities and choose not to answer them but, I look forward to any answer you may give.
Marc asked: –
“first, If we accept the definition of an ATHEIST as “one WITHOUT God” (in the same way an AGNOSTIC is “one WITHOUT knowledge/gnosis”), and we can equally define an ANTI-THEIST as “one AGAINST God” or “one AGAINST the notion of a God,” how would you define yourself?”
My reply: –
Ha! – Sorry but I always find this one funny! – Yet it gets asked a lot.
I think it’s more of a self-defence question from believers, and a rhetorical one at that!
I can give both these questions more time and space than they deserve, as I caught up a little on my backlog of work and other blogs…
I’ll leave Jeff’s questions till he has had a chance to respond to them.
I would also ask you if you wouldn’t mind responding on the other site too, as my copying and pasting what I have to reply to, is taking up multiples of the time it takes to actually reply.
Do you really see yourself as someone with a critical, objective, logical view of the universe, with a mind open to the possibility of a sentient “prime mover” to all that exists?
Do you think that you’re putting the question to someone who is subjective and closed-minded, who has eliminated that one possibility, among all the other infinite number of possibilities to be imagined, for what NONE of us knows?
That, I think, answers the last part of your suggestion.
I can be no more against the notion of god, than I can be against the notion that, somewhere in this vast, vast unexplored universe, of which even our galaxy is as a grain of sand, – a planet like “Krypton” exists to send us “Superman” some day.
Nor ANY “notion” of anything else the human mind can dream up with zero data!
“AGNOSTIC” remember? – NO KNOWLEDGE!
In fact, of such things, we ALL are agnostic ..
Religious people lack the intellectual honesty to admit it to themselves.
There are always unanswered questions. Unfortunately, there are still people who accept the word of our unscientific forebears, who were so frightened and ignorant of much of what they observed, that they found it easier to speculate, call that guess or fantasy the divine truth, and persecute anyone else who doubted it.
“Against god?” What is there to be “against” in what I see as a figment of someone else’s imagination?
If however, you wish me to evaluate him as a character in a work of fiction, I would say he presents himself more the villain, than the hero!
However, and this is what is truly amusing about your question, you are not asking me about the general idea of god. You want to know why I don’t accept your own, very clearly defined, version of who YOU feel certain that god is.
It doesn’t matter why I don’t believe in all the other gods, and all the other metaphysical supernatural entities, or just ridiculous claims required to justify or defend them.
After all, you agree with me about the Ganesh, Shiva, Allah and the prophet Mohammed, not to mention all the “dead” gods of earlier cultures Zeus, Thor, Wodin, and Mithrash. More particular you agree that the rivals of “Yahweh”, such as Molech and Chemosh, who incidently had cultural roots in the same Pantheon (Elohim) as Yahweh, El, Shadaih, Iam, and all the other “names” for the “one true god”. I assume you share my disbelief in them?
It fine not to believe in all the other 10’s of thousands of gods and supernatural beings that you presumably agree are figments of human imagination, yet when it comes to my non acceptance of the one you DO accept, as the
“Divinely inspired truth”, then I need to justify and define MY belief – and not ask you to justify yours!
Marc asked:
“because it seems (only seems) to me that someone who is “Without God” would spend as little of their short time on this planet as humanly possible wrangling about something that’s Not There (like God’s existence). Surely as little time as I spend disproving Atlantis, or UFOs, or the Loch Ness Monster — which is to say, none at all. Truth be told, speculations on these things by others only tend to amuse me.”
My reply :-
Yes, you’d think so wouldn’t you?
You’d also think that a perfect philosophical idea, such as is proclaimed for each of the thousands of gods, superstitions, and mystic claims would sustain by being told once, yet religion is the most over-promoted, propagandised piece of information that’s ever offered to one person from another. At this Christianity is a world leader!
Everything else we learn once (true it may require a little drumming in when we’re young) but once taught, it stays with us.
It doesn’t require powerfully dictated mitigation every day for the rest of our lives.
What other type of information do we need constant reassurance of to keep it valid?
Only religion needs a top –up each and ever week, for the rest of our lives, drummed in by a very passionate speaker who expects you to accept the information, without question.
Ever heard a pastor ask the congregation at the end of a sermon: “Any questions?”?
Lecturers do, secular teachers do.
In fact ANY publicly offered piece of information or education, wherever possible is offered for the approval of the listener, subject to verification or rational examination – except religion.
“The word of god” is the only dictate tolerated in the free world.
Why is this?
In the case of Christendom, why have the church authorities, since its foundation, needed the control of every piece of information that the masses were offered , to be filtered through its dogma before it could be deemed “truth” or Knowledge”?
Why did this church authority, for example, persecute and threaten, scientists, and other great thinkers (who were often also Christian themselves) for finding out things that apparently were in conflict with biblical accounts, and what these dictators commanded was“god’s description” of universal reality?
A few early examples, of course, are the problems Galileo faced trying to promote heliocentricity, and Kepler with planetary motion.
Although a spherical Earth was well established by Christian times, a number of the early church fathers proffered it as a biblical teaching, owing to some fairly obvious passages therein – as do some Christians today!
Also, despite the Catholic Church recanting these ideas and apologising, and despite the established churches recanting their criticism of Darwin’s ideas, they still uphold their opinions, either Papal or Scriptural, to be “infallible”. – Till next time?
Indeed, today there are great proportions of people, many pretending to be scientists, (even some actual scientists- but not many Lol!) trying to restrict the teaching of researched, peer review science to our children, in favour of untested, untestable religion – and in a science lesson!!
People who believe in Bigfoot, U.F.O’s, and Loch Ness monsters don’t make such impositions on societies. Neither do they impose cultural protocols and laws on the societies. They’re not prepared to kill or die for their batshit crazy ideas, as religion has ASKED , even demanded, of it’s believers through the centuries. So I suppose that answers your 2nd question?
If it helps you to step out of your own culturally programmed religious bias : –
Consider what a better place the world might be, if some atheist, in the Arab world, had debunked the idea that any suicidal maniac would be rewarded in heaven with 72 virgin wives, if he takes a few “infidels” with him when he dies!
Consider how much more of a threat to them that a well established, opposing, religious bias would be than someone with no belief at all.
Consider how much safer the world might be if neither side had an imagined “magical sky Daddy” telling them what to do and think through ego fired opportunist preachers.and priests.
Everyone then, would have to rely on empathy and reason to dictate their ideas of justice and morality.
It would also be the morality of an enlightened modern world – not that of bronze age or medaeval desert nomads!
That last paragraph alone should make clear any secular motive for debating against unsupported superstitions and its inevitably accompanying dogma..
The above, is a small portion of standard reasons anyone in my position would give you. However, I would be dishonest if I didn’t admit that I enjoy it little at times. This year alone, I have had 3 or 4 proselytisers at the door.
I enjoy watching the stumped look on their face when they hit me with a presupposition of a god, that they expect, absolutely everyone accepts without question, only to be told I’m atheist.
Justifying Christian belief, with the same evidence as you would offer another Christian, even of a different sect, is marginally less difficult than to an critical, objective mind, who has no emotional investment, therefore no unquestioning acceptance, in the central premise being a fact!
Getting back to your question about atheists wasting their time discussing religion, you must share an anecdote or two about all the atheists who knock on your door, or accost you in the street with their “message”?
Not to mention all these atheist sects, with government tax exemptions, who hold regular meeting to discuss peoples private feelings and thoughts, and how they can control them “because they are sinful”.- Lol! ( forgive my sarcasm)
Having said that, I do tend to have a go at debunking public deceptions, other than religion.
These rancid creeps who pretend to be able to talk to peoples deceased loved ones are a particular favourite. John Edwards is a prime example.
However, though I could write volumes on this subject, I think I’ve addressed your original question at this stage?
Hope this gives you an insight Marc?
Peace,
Tommy
Quick spelling correction ( not the only one required, I’ll bet!!):
On my list of other gods above, I of course meant the syrian/Roman god “Mythras” – Not the jewish biblical text “Midrash” –
Over on the forums in question one of the users, WayKnowledge, quoted something I said, and managed to take it completely out of context. I tried to post my response on their forum, and 26 hours later it’s still not been approved (or it was rejected without having broken any of their rules but they have failed to let me know) and I, for some stupid reason, failed to copy my response to post it here as well.
So since I failed to copy my response and I thought it made some valid points, I’d like to reproduce it as best I can from memory. I hope you can bear with me, because I’m typically more comfortable (and better) at writing the first time I think of something.
So the main crux of the issue I have is that WayKnowledge quoted the final two lines out of a bit I wrote, which by leaving out the beginning of the quote he was able to twist what I said and take it out of context. With that in mind, here is the FULL quote, not his hand picked pieces (this was in response to somebody asking me how I would disprove something outside our universe from within our universe):
Now in response to my claim that it is impossible to prove a negative, WayKnowledge responded:
Let’s start with the example I began my bit with, the invisible dragon. This is a famous story from Carl Sagan that shows how often times believers try to shift the burden of proof by “moving the goal post”. In Sagan’s example the believer makes a claim, when the other person asks for evidence or provides a possible way to falsify the claim, the believer keeps changing the criteria by which it could be proven or disproven.
This is a tactic often used by believers in things such as bigfoot, alien abductions, “Nessie”, etc. They will often claim that because “skeptics” can not DISPROVE their existence, that therefor these things exist. In reality the only way to prove 100% that bigfoot does dot exist would be to have cameras cover ever single point on the planet all at once and all of these cameras monitored at the same instant (and even this might not prove it to some people, there are those who claim that bigfoot can shift to alternate dimensions and that is why a body has never been found). Anything less than this would still leave a possibility that bigfoot was in one of the places that was not looked at that moment. Since this is CLEARLY an unreasonable (perhaps impossible?) task it is clear that bigfoot can never be “proven 100%” to not exist. This is what is meant by the phrase “you can not prove a negative”.
On the other hand to prove that bigfoot exists would be quite simple. It would simply take a live specimen or a corpse or a large enough DNA sample to be tested independently by multiple labs. If the DNA was shown to be different than all known species, and related to humans and other primates in such a way as to be expected of the typical bigfoot mythology, then bigfoot would be proven.
How this related to the claims of heaven, hell, god, jesus, etc is fairly straightforward. We can start with heaven and hell first since they are the easiest example.
You, as a christian, have a claim that heaven and hell are actual places. And that when people die they go to one of these two places (although you may believe in limbo or purgatory and people may go their according to your specific beliefs, but that does not change my example). By making this claim that these places exist as real places it is up to believers to support this claim. In much the same way that skeptics can not check ever point on the earth at one time in order to disprove bigfoot, skeptics of this claim can not possible check every single point in the universe to verify that such places do NOT exist (i.e. they can not prove a negative).
So when you say that I have:
You get it completely backwards in two ways actually. As an atheist, I don’t believe in the non-existence of god. I lack belief in a god or gods. The difference may seem subtle, but it’s actually quite vast. I have not “proven” to myself that god does not exist. I have looked at all of the evidence I have been able to and found this evidence lacking. If you’re interested in reading more about my coming to Accept My Atheism, feel free to check out my old blog where I wrote about it.
The other flaw you show here is that you assume belief to be the default and non belief to be a stance once takes. Nobody is born a believer. Most people learn to believe as they grow up; they are taught to believe in the same god as their parents. Some turn to belief when they are older, typically to the god that is most prevalent in their culture.
You clearly went from a non-believer (which you were at birth) to a believer at some point in your life. I never had that conversion. I was taught to believe, but it never stuck. I saw too many flaws in the stories being told to me and when I asked questions the answers were not good enough.
The second line of mine that you quote you get equally wrong, possibly in part due to your confusion with the first line:
The inability to prove a negative is not what puts the Burden of Proof on to you. The fact that it is YOU that makes the claim, that puts the Burden of Proof on you.
With the bigfoot example I showed how it is impossible to 100% DISPROVE bigfoot, but I left out one point (because it’s related to this and I did not want to confuse that part just yet), and that is as a skeptic of bigfoot we don’t have the Burden of Proof on us to disprove it either.
with Sagan’s example, it’s not up to the 2nd person to prove that the dragon is NOT there, it’s up to the person claiming the dragon exists to show evidence of the dragon.
with bigfoot, it’s not up to the skeptics to prove bigfoot does not exist (which even if it was it would be logistically impossible as I mentioned above), it’s up to the believers to provide the evidence.
This same thing applies to those making claims of heaven, hell, god, or a human/god hybrid savior. Since there is no “need” for any god (much less the christian idea of a “personal” god who intervenes in the affairs on mankind) to describe what is seen and understood in the world, the universe, the laws of physics, etc the default assumption (or Null Hypothesis) is that there is no god. The Null Hypothesis in any situation is that a given phenomena or treatment or being does not exist until having been shown first. After being shown, replicated, tested, and accepted then it becomes the default from then on. In the case of a god or gods, there have been many claims about what god is throughout history and as of yet none of these has been shown to be true. Until evidence clearly points at a god or gods, the Burden of Proof remains on those making the claim.
With god it would be even trickier to disprove, because depending on who you ask god exists outside of space and time or outside of the universe or is the universe or …
With so many claims it is impossible to disprove every possible manifestation of god, but more importantly the Burden of Proof if not even on those who don’t believe.
Believers make these claims of heaven, hell, god, jesus, etc, and by making those claims, the Burden of Proof rests squarely upon them to provide evidence.
I cover both of these topics, Burden of Proof and Null Hypothesis, in my blog post, Issues and Tactics to Keep in Mind When Debating – Part 2, or you can do a google search to learn more on these topics if you’re interested.
If there is still some aspect of these issues that you don’t get, please feel free to ask, and hopefully I can clarify it for you.
And while this is not the exact message I left on their forum, it contains the same basic ideas and examples from that post, but I’ve now waited 27 hours for them to accept my comment and they have failed to do so as of yet.
Took that forum 32 hours, but they did finally approve my comment. Since I liked the way I worded it the first time, I’m posting it here also for prosperity:
—–
This is Jeff from http://thinking-critically.com/ and seeing as how I’ve been quoted (out of context a bit in my opinion), I thought it’s about time I chimed in.
First I’d like to quote a bit more than those two lines you chose, as much of what is around those two lines is quite important to the point I was making:
Your responses to the selected text you chose are interesting, first with:
The example I gave is a well know one originally said by Carl Sagan: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
It shows that trying to prove a negative fails, because no matter what you do the one making the claim can “move the goalpost” by claiming that you have only shown evidence for lack of one specific point but not for the entire idea.
As Sagan says:
This idea often comes in to debates with believers of bigfoot, aliens, nessie, etc. They often claim that because science can not PROVE that their particular belief is not true, that it is therefor true.
The same is true of many versions of god as well…
For instance I could claim that I received a revelation from god last night. since you were not there with me, and are incapable of reading my mind, you would be unable to prove I did not receive a “true” revelation, but that does not mean that I really did hear from “the divine”. I.E. you can not PROVE a negative.
But your next comment is where you really seem to have missed what I was saying.
It is not my inability to disprove your assertion that puts the burden of proof on you. If is that the CLAIM is yours that pouts the burden of proof on you.
In Sagan’s example, the CLAIM is that of a dragon. The burden of proof is NOT on those who don’t believe the dragon is real to have to disprove the dragon (since as already mentioned proving a negative can’t be done), but instead the burden of proof is one the one who claims the dragon is real.
With bigfoot, aliens, nessie, etc the same logic is quite clear and obvious to most people (well most people who are not believers in those things at least). It is not up to “skeptics” to DISPROVE bigfoot. We can’t be expected to cover every inch of the planet with cameras so that it can be seen at one moment in time that there is no bigfoot anywhere on the eaqrth. The burden of proof is on those who believe bigfoot exists to produce a living animal or a dead body or DNA evidence, etc…
This same logic ALSO applies to god. A skeptic is incapable of scanning the entire universe to “prove” that there is no heaven or hell or god or jesus. We can not PROVE a negative (that these things do not exist). The burden of proof rests on those who make the claim (i.e. the claim in this case being that god is a divine being who created everything including a place known as heaven and another known as hell, and that in this heaven jesus sits beside god and controls everything). In this case the proof required would be a bit less obvious than something like a bigfoot corpse, but it would reside on the believer.
“Genesis” who earlier declared no more interest in the discussion changed his mind and came back with this little gem: –
by Genesis » Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:47 am
Genesis wrote: –
“ The thing is, Tom, that as human beings, each one of us has something far more important to consider, and it is relevant to all of us. The concept of God is something that each one of us must face, theist or atheist, and there is no more important consideration than this.”
My response: –
Oh? Then why do you feel that a mutually responsive discussion with a non-believer is “pointless” or non-productive?
I know I said I’d refrain from responding further, but I have done some thinking and I feel that this question demands a response.
I feel that it is pointless or non-productive because I didn’t just appear on this Earth as a Bible-believing Christian. Believe it or not, I have been through these questions before. I even asked them myself at one point. The questions, points and challenges that have been directed toward us have been directed toward us in the past, and those same question, points and challenges have all been overcome in the past. If I answer a question, another question arises in its place. There is no end, because it’s the questions, not the bigger picture, that most people seem to focus on. I am here to move forward and to help others do the same.
I don’t have alot of time Tom, and the last thing I feel like doing during the time I have is debating trivialities over and over. I have overcome these questions in the past, that is enough. I am more interested in the heavens than I am in the finger pointing toward them. Spending too much time looking at the finger is going to cause us to miss the glorious heavens. I looked at the finger, I followed it, and I found the heavens. I am not interested in looking back at the finger, I have moved on from that.
That is the reason I do not engage in debate, though I’d like to sometimes. I encourage all to do the same. Stop looking at the finger and move on, there’s much more to be seen, don’t miss it.
MY RESPONSE: –
Hi again! – You don’t think I could leave this without a response did you?
Genesis: –
“I know I said I’d refrain from responding further, but I have done some thinking and I feel that this question demands a response.”
Tommy: –
Then, with respect, why don’t you respond?
What you say here is simply bland testimony, void of any detail. It doesn’t really answer the question.
If you really have answers, why not offer them?
If you found the “magic bullet info” to explain these mysteries for you, why do you feel your answers won’t suffice for someone else?
We all use the same apparatus to acquire knowledge or to ascertain reality, don’t we?
Do Christians fear they will find out themselves, that their evidence was inadequate all along, if they offer it to someone else’s rational examination?
I honestly can’t think of another reason, that your evidence and logic, for your version of god, cannot be examined by an objective critical mind.
If you’re right, wouldn’t you like me and any other “lost soul” to know about it.
If you’re wrong, wouldn’t you feel better about knowing that you won’t waste the rest of the ONLY life, you KNOW that you’re going to have, in the uncomfortable, ridiculous, obedience of a Bronze Age fantasy figure?
Wouldn’t you like your sentience to be spent experiencing the most truthful reality it can decipher?
Genesis: –
“I feel that it is pointless or non-productive because I didn’t just appear on this Earth as a Bible-believing Christian.
Tommy:
That is correct. I have already made that point on this thread. You didn’t come into this world with the belief “divinely” placed in your mind (nor on your “heart”, as is more often the claim!).
It was taught to you, as an intellectual proposition, subject to the same scrutiny of logic, evidence and practical testability as every other piece of knowledge that you acquired.
Genesis: –
“Believe it or not, I have been through these questions before. I even asked them myself at one point
The questions, points and challenges that have been directed toward us have been directed toward us in the past, and those same question, points and challenges have all been overcome in the past..”
Tommy: –
I don’t believe it, sorry! There is no way that you could have applied honest, intelligent scrutiny to the evidence used to promote the Christian religion, as an intellectual premise, and “overcome” any problems which any objective, mature, reasoning mind would have found with them.
That is, of course, unless I missed something that you saw, or you missed something that I found to be wrong?
Again, an excellent reason to hold it up to the scrutiny of discussion
You could, of course, argue that old turkey which says “ Knowing God transcends the limits of human reason and empirical knowledge”…The problem there is, as we already established, that human understanding of “god” ALSO relies in the same empiricism and reason that gives people reason to doubt it
This is also upheld by preachers of the “word ”, who claim all kinds of “evidence” and “reasoning”, (albeit dishonest and very flawed,) for the biblical descriptions of natural events, such as creation and a global flood, which are both logical impossibilities, and can be demonstrated not to have happened.
As I write this, I am listening to a preacher misrepresenting the second law of thermodynamics, in order to refute the “beliefs” of “evolutionists”. Earlier I heard Carl Baugh blatantly telling lies to a congregation about Carbon dating.
It appears that not only is evidence acceptable, dishonest evidence is necessary to make Jesus Christ a credible idea in the modern era.
What exactly transcends human understanding? What did you examine and understand which didn’t and makes you a believer?
Didn’t you ever ask yourself why unverified claims of the “word of God” need to be supported by so many assertions that disagrees with the verified findings of all the cleverest experts, in every relevant field of enquiry, in the modern world?
Genesis:
If I answer a question, another question arises in its place. There is no end, because it’s the questions, not the bigger picture, that most people seem to focus on. I am here to move forward and to help others do the same.
Tommy:
Ha ha! Don’t you ever wonder why the questions don’t go away??!!
Because they haven’t been answered adequately, and the claimant doesn’t admit he simply doesn’t know the answer.
For centuries, people have been expected to obediently accept what some authoritative person, who claims to know more about the daunting mysteries of the universe than anyone else, tells them!
There is no right or reason for doubt or questions, because the teller “speaks for god” !
Without any further explanation, it is to be believed.
Nobody has to offer any evidence that it is true, or that this “great entity” actually exists, because it’s too great a concept not to exist!
That illogical bootstrapping premise didn’t work in Anselm’s time; it is certain not going to with me!
It also seems to be YOUR basic premise in your discussion here !
Genesis: –
I don’t have alot of time Tom, and the last thing I feel like doing during the time I have is debating trivialities over and over. I have overcome these questions in the past, that is enough. I am more interested in the heavens than I am in the finger pointing toward them. Spending too much time looking at the finger is going to cause us to miss the glorious heavens. I looked at the finger, I followed it, and I found the heavens. I am not interested in looking back at the finger, I have moved on from that
“Debating trivialities”??!!
Whether or not the only apparatus humanity has to discern reality can ascertain God as a reality??? !!
That is a triviality to you??
If you have overcome these questions after honestly asking them, then you will know how.
You would be able to show others. If you can reason god into viable existence, you can show others your reasoning, can’t you?
Why are you reluctant to do this?
I can certainly justify my non-acceptance of your god with good reasoning and evidence, which you would accept in any other aspect of your life.
What’s wrong with yours?
The first time I heard your “moving finger “analogy, it was offered by an atheist. Specifically Bruce Lee in “Enter the Dragon”. I assume by his cynical tone, and the groans of the cinema audience, that he may not have been the originator of it. I have certainly heard it many times since, in all the sermons I have listened to. I probably hear 3 or 4 a week mind you!
The problem is, in the earlier times, that finger was pointing towards heaven, to explain things that humanity understands the actual cause of today, such as thunder, lightning, the causes and cures of disease etc. The fingers have been pointing at many strange imaginings that these primitive people called “god”.
Hundreds of thousands of times, and without exception, they were wrong.
The fingers of the people who first came up with the god you pray to, pointed to what they believed to be a “firmament” in a great depth of water.
They believed that god “spake” it and the Earth into existence in six terrestrial days.
They believed it was flat and stationary, at the centre of the universe, which was made as an afterthought.
They believed that the sun and the moon, (which generated its own light), along with the rest of the stars orbited this flat fixed Earth.
They believed, as did Jesus and the author of “Revelations” that the stars were small lights which could fall to Earth.
They wrote this in a book, and called it the “divine and inspired word of god”. It is this book that dictates to you, and every other Christian, the very definition of the nature of this god you worship.
I would suggest to you, that the finger that points to this description, of god in his heaven, has got a lot of apparent fallacies to justify, and has got a lot wrong.
If you want to suggest it is pointing to an omniscient and omnipotent creator of all that exists, it certainly bears a greater scrutiny than you seem to have afforded it.
If there is an omniscient intelligence out there, which humanity might describe as a god, to accept these definitions . described above, must surely seem a heresy to him?
Genesis: –
That is the reason I do not engage in debate, though I’d like to sometimes. I encourage all to do the same. Stop looking at the finger and move on, there’s much more to be seen, don’t miss it.”
Tommy: –
You seem to be saying is :- Console yourself in the greatness and glory of god, and stop wondering if he exists or not – that doesn’t matter because the concept is so great” ?
Is that the idea? – Don’t examine the evidence too much?
Are you worried that he might become non existent to you through human reason and knowledge?
Genesis sent a quick response:-
Re: A chance to preach to the unconverted!!
by Genesis » Sat Sep 04, 2010 8:52 am
Tom, I have approved the most recent posts. I am not in the habit of forcibly silencing others.
I am, however, not going to respond to the questions. I am not convinced of any benefit in this discussion and so I am respectfully declining to engage further. I have spelled out, quite clearly, my reasons for not discussing this topic with you, and yet you seem incapable of understanding my position.
Good day.
And I gave a quicker one-
That’s fine Genesis,
It’s been nice to talk to people who are sincere in what they believe, who admit it isn’t necessarily logical, and don’t try to justify it with dishonest empirical evidence, or reason twisting philosophical arguments. – Though I enjoy taking both those to pieces.
Whilst I realise that you all derive great personal and emotional comfort from this paradox of reason, which you call “God”, I hope you will appreciate that I derive my comfort from knowing that whatever I believe in stands a chance of actually being real.
I appreciate you not censoring my comments as so many Christian forums are apt to do.
Great chat , Thank you!
Peace,
Tommy
This time it took more than 50 hours for my comment to be approved. In this instance the same person, WayKnowledge, again did not understand the concept of Burden of Proof or what constitutes a claim (this time he said that his only claim is that he claims to believe in god). So I replied:
—–
As I mentioned, this took over 50 hours to be approved, so with that in my mind next reply on their board brought this up, as well as responding to some accusations from WayKnowledge:
—–
From the tone of a few of those from that forum I do not expect much of a response beyond bland and meaningless platitudes or more unfounded accusations. However if anything of interested does come up I will respond here, as it is entirely too tedious to attempt a conversation with a 2 day lag.
I figured it was time to publish the last exchange between WayKnowledge (alias Marc)
and me , (tobytrim, alias Tommy).
Please note: His response was allowed to be published – Mine was not.
It wpold be worth checking the tone of both, plus the general tone of the whole thread, and then try to figure out why that was!
This was his , believe it or not, and the last thing allowed on the thread between us.
Re: A chance to preach to the unconverted!!
./viewtopic.php?p=23008 – p23008./viewtopic.php?p=23008 – p23008by WayKnowledge » Mon Sep 06, 2010 3:43 am
tobytrim wrote:
Hi Marc, sorry about the delay in my reply, I had much to attend to today and yesterday . Also for any typos and badly phrased points throughout these threads. The word processing programming to my PC is not as it should be.
Marc:-
This statement of yours leads me to ask two questions; one personal and the other philosophical (or “intellectual” as you might deem it). You may see them as idle curiosities and choose not to answer them but, I look forward to any answer you may give.
Marc asked: –
“first, If we accept the definition of an ATHEIST as “one WITHOUT God” (in the same way an AGNOSTIC is “one WITHOUT knowledge/gnosis”), and we can equally define an ANTI-THEIST as “one AGAINST God” or “one AGAINST the notion of a God,” how would you define yourself?”
My reply: –
Ha! – Sorry but I always find this one funny! – Yet it gets asked a lot.
I think it’s more of a self-defence question from believers, and a rhetorical one at that!
I was only curious what your answer might be. If you define your position, I will have a better idea of who I’m talking to. The fact that you’ve heard it before, (I’d imagine) would mean that you piqued the curiosity of others, as well. We will arrive at no advantage over you — so no thought of “self-defense” entered my mind. And may I ask, for clarity, when did “rhetoric’ become a bad thing? I’d think you’d see it as what you’re trying to achieve here.
I can give both these questions more time and space than they deserve,…
At the risk of being blunt I’d rather you gave these questions Only [exactly] “the time and space they deserve.” It would make interchange so much more direct.
I would also ask you if you wouldn’t mind responding on the other site too, as my copying and pasting what I have to reply to, is taking up multiples of the time it takes to actually reply.
Leaving a link there for this thread would spare anyone “taking up multitudes of the time”
Do you really see yourself as someone with a critical, objective, logical view of the universe, with a mind open to the possibility of a sentient “prime mover” to all that exists?
Do you think that you’re putting the question to someone who is subjective and closed-minded, who has eliminated that one possibility, among all the other infinite number of possibilities to be imagined, for what NONE of us knows?
That, I think, answers the last part of your suggestion.
Well, I see no answers and only two further questions, but I infer from them that you think that “reality” would prove the opposite in both cases. About what I “see” and “think,” you presume much and you presume wrong.
I can be no more against the notion of god, than I can be against the notion that, somewhere in this vast, vast unexplored universe, of which even our galaxy is as a grain of sand, – a planet like “Krypton” exists to send us “Superman” some day.
Nor ANY “notion” of anything else the human mind can dream up with zero data!
“AGNOSTIC” remember? – NO KNOWLEDGE!
Does this mean you are an Agnostic? I don’t remember reading that in your previous posts, and I certainly didn’t mean to insult you. I apologize if I offended you.
In fact, of such things, we ALL are agnostic ..
Religious people lack the intellectual honesty to admit it to themselves.
With your first statement, I will agree with you here (qualified by saying) up-to-a-point. Yes we are ALL agnostic… to differing degrees. See, I CLAIM to Know/Believe that God created the universe, because He said so (that’s His Claim which I accept — please see my post to Jeff, above, for the distinction I make), BUT I do Not Know HOW because it has been revealed to No One. Thus I’m happily “agnostic.”
And this makes your second statement rather presumptuous, don’t you think?
I’d like to take a moment, here, to express my unhappiness that you approach these ideas you have about us as foregone conclusions based on previous interactions you may have had with other Christians (and specifically those who have been as intent on debate as you are). We Christians are individuals. We have differing opinions, one from another. I don’t think it would be awful for you to get to know us as persons before you pigeon-hole us as finding your ideas reprehensible.
For instance, you would find a wide range of opinion among the members here about creation. I happen to believe that evolution very closely resembles the first story of creation. I have no problems with the theory of evolution. I think Darwin was a genius — even if some of what he postulated has been corrected. Does this set me apart in thought from others on this forum? You bet!
But you didn’t know that about me because you never asked.
There are always unanswered questions. Unfortunately, there are still people who accept the word of our unscientific forebears, who were so frightened and ignorant of much of what they observed, that they found it easier to speculate, call that guess or fantasy “the divine truth”, and persecute anyone else who doubted it.
You call our forebears “frightened and ignorant” where I would call them Awestruck and Gloriously Curious. Who’s to say which of us is right?
“Against god?” What is there to be “against” in what I see as a figment of someone else’s imagination?
This is truly what I find as your answer to my question, above. Thank you.
If however, you wish me to evaluate him as a character in a work of fiction, I would say he presents himself more the villain, than the hero!
I wouldn’t. But then if I were to have all my ‘druthers….
The point is, and this is what is truly amusing about your question, you are not asking me about the general idea of “a god”. You want to know why I don’t accept your own, very clearly defined, version of who YOU feel certain that god is.
Again, you presume. I specifically asked about the “notion of ‘a’ God.” You seem to think, (and this is ME presuming) that I can’t get my head around the idea of comparative religions, much less the idea of the faithless and the faithful living in harmony. I assure you, I can and do get my head (and my heart) around such notions amply well.
It doesn’t matter why I don’t believe in all the other gods, and all the other metaphysical supernatural entities, or just ridiculous claims required to justify or defend them.
After all, you agree with me about the Ganesh, Shiva, Allah and the prophet Mohammed, not to mention all the “dead” gods of earlier cultures Zeus, Thor, Wodin, and Mithrash. More particular you agree that the rivals of “Yahweh”, such as Molech and Chemosh, who incidently had cultural roots in the same Pantheon (Elohim) as Yahweh, El, Shadaih, Iam, and all the other “names” for the “one true god”. I assume you share my disbelief in them?
It fine, I imagine, not to believe in all the other 10’s of thousands of gods and supernatural beings that you presumably agree are figments of human imagination, yet when it comes to my non acceptance of the one you DO accept, as the “Divinely inspired truth”, then I need to justify and define MY belief – and not ask you to justify yours!
Again, (and this is where longer than needed posts mean we must begin to repeat ourselves) I have asked you to accept NOTHING. I am not debating you. Given how clear on my position I hope I’ve been from the outset, I wonder more and more what you want all this to become. That said, I asked you to define and clarify your belief so that I would know who I was talking to. I have not (and Will Not, I promise you) ask you to justify it.
That, and as I replied to you earlier (and to Jeff, above) I am only too happy to justify my faith. “Faith” and “belief” and “acceptance of the Claims of another” (that would be: God) are all that I know is my “burden to prove.” Go on, please ask me what I believe (to define it) and to justify it. Please stop imagining you know the answer to that as though any other one person-of-faith (much less hundreds[?]) have provided you with the entire scope and dimension of minds available to discuss God. I cannot, and have not and, henceforth, will not take your broad-brush insinuations as having anything to do with me.
You wanna’ Know? Ask.
Marc asked:
“because it seems (only seems) to me that someone who is “Without God” would spend as little of their short time on this planet as humanly possible wrangling about something that’s Not There (like God’s existence). Surely as little time as I spend disproving Atlantis, or UFOs, or the Loch Ness Monster — which is to say, none at all. Truth be told, speculations on these things by others only tend to amuse me.”
My reply :-
Yes, you’d think so wouldn’t you?
You’d also think that a perfect philosophical idea, such as is proclaimed for each of the thousands of gods, superstitions, and mystic claims would sustain by being told once, yet religion is the most over-promoted, propagandised piece of information that’s ever offered to one person from another. At this, Christianity is a world leader!
Everything else we learn once (true it may require a little drumming in when we’re young) but once explained and understood, it is expected to stay with us.
It doesn’t require powerfully dictated mitigation every day for the rest of our lives. – What other type of information do we need constant reassurance of to keep it valid?
Only religion needs a top –up each and ever week, for the rest of our lives, drummed in by a very passionate speaker who expects you to accept the information, without question.
I believe the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons have us beat by a long-shot on the whole “one person to another” thing — more’s the sadder.
Oh, and we gather to Worship God in fellowship. We gather to hear about new opportunities to serve the world’s needy folk. We gather to share our Love with those of like minds and spirits. We gather to hear the Word of God illuminated for us to add to what we know.
An aside: So, why take college courses in History, Math, or English after high school?
Ever heard a pastor ask the congregation at the end of a sermon: “Any questions?”?
Lecturers do, secular teachers do.
My minister does. In fact, he asks for further comment if anyone has something that will “make the scripture clearer to our brothers and sisters.”
In fact ANY publicly offered piece of information or education, wherever possible is offered for the approval of the listener, subject to verification or rational examination – except religion.
Tell THAT to the purveyors of television commercials! Have you ever REALLY wanted a Coca-Cola?
“The word of god” is the only dictate tolerated in the free world.
Why is this?
In the case of Christendom, why have the church authorities, since its foundation, needed the control of every piece of information that the masses were offered , to be filtered through its dogma before it could be deemed “truth” or Knowledge”?
Why did this church authority, for example, persecute and threaten, scientists, and other great thinkers (who were often also Christian themselves) for finding out things that apparently were in conflict with biblical accounts, and what these dictators commanded was“god’s description” of universal reality?
For clarity on your generalized question I would refer you to any good study on “the Reformation.” Also note that many Theologians have been on the sharp end of the “church’s” stick.
A few early examples, of course, are the problems Galileo faced trying to promote heliocentricity, and Kepler with planetary motion.
Although a spherical Earth was well established by Christian times, a number of the early church fathers proffered a flat Earth as a biblical teaching, owing to some fairly obvious passages therein – as do some Christians today!
Also, despite the Catholic Church recanting these ideas and apologising, and despite the established churches recanting their criticism of Darwin’s ideas, they still uphold their opinions, either Papal or Scriptural, to be “infallible”. – Till next time?
Indeed, today there are great proportions of people, many pretending to be scientists, (even some actual scientists- but not many Lol!) trying to restrict the teaching of researched, peer review science to our children, in favour of untested, untestable religion – and in a science lesson!!
I’m afraid you’ll have to ask them. It wasn’t me.
People who believe in Bigfoot, U.F.O’s, and Loch Ness monsters don’t make such impositions on societies. Neither do they impose cultural protocols and laws on the societies. They’re not prepared to kill or die for their batshit crazy ideas, as religion has ASKED , even demanded, of it’s believers through the centuries. So I suppose that answers your 2nd question?
So your motivation in all this is to STOP people from demanding others “to kill or die for their batshit crazy ideas”? Sign me up!! I am just as much against any pressing-into-service (Chistian or any other “authority”) of people to “Return Evil for Evil” — maybe even more so than you (but I hope not).
If it helps you to step out of your own culturally programmed religious bias : –
Consider what a better place the world might be, if some atheist, in the Arab world, had debunked the idea that any suicidal maniac would be rewarded in heaven with 72 virgin wives, if he takes a few “infidels” with him when he dies!
My question is then, are you also taking your message to the Muslim world?
Consider how much more of a threat to them that a well established, opposing, religious bias would be than someone with no belief at all.
Consider how much safer the world might be if neither side had an imagined “magical sky Daddy” telling them what to do and think through ego fired opportunist preachers.and priests.
Everyone then, would have to rely on empathy and reason to dictate their ideas of justice and morality.
It would also be the morality of an enlightened modern world – not that of bronze age or medaeval desert nomads!
That last paragraph alone should make clear any secular motive for debating against unsupported superstitions and its inevitably accompanying dogma..
I’d ask you to look at and consider just this one Wikipedia article before you close the door on your idea of “the morality of an enlightened modern world”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism. It’s an eye opener.
The above, is a small portion of standard reasons anyone in my position would give you. However, I would be dishonest if I didn’t admit that I enjoy it little at times. This year alone, I have had 3 or 4 proselytisers at the door.
I enjoy watching the stumped look on their face when they hit me with a presupposition of a god, that they expect, absolutely everyone accepts without question, only to be told I’m atheist.
Justifying Christian belief, with the same evidence as you would offer another Christian, even of a different sect, is marginally less difficult than to an critical, objective mind, who has no emotional investment, therefore no unquestioning acceptance, in the central premise being a fact!
I’ll just say here that I Don’t have an “unquestioning acceptance.” I DO question, all the time. It is simply obvious that what my questions have been/are different than yours, and to a large extent most of mine have been answered.
Getting back to your question about atheists wasting their time discussing religion, you must share an anecdote or two about all the atheists who knock on your door, or accost you in the street with their “message”?
I have to admit, when I first read the above, I truly DID “laugh out loud.”
So, an anecdote. Hmm,…. Okay.
This atheist comes a’knockin’ on the portal to where I am. He tells me that some other Christian (or group of Christians) told him to come here, and he’d get the fight he was looking for.
“Sorry,” he was told. “No fighting (debating) here. It’s not what we do.”
We didn’t kick him out. We listened to him and gave him our attention. He could see, if he wanted to, that not much else is happening here while we give him whatever time he thinks he needs. We pretty much went about unruffled as he was mildly rude in his insinuations and condescension.
But as the songstress, said, ‘That’s what Love is for.”
That’s my anecdote. Sound familiar?
That’s about all I have to say at the moment. I’d be happy to “prove” my claims of being a Believer and all the wondrous things that means to me. I can discuss why I’m remaining in a church that has openly Gay and Lesbian bishops and priests. Why I belong to a Denomination rather than a non-denomination. Why (again) I believe the taking up of arms is wrong for a Christian. What my experiences were when I was without Union with God, and how all of that has changed for the “amazing.” I’m really an open book. I have a lot to say. I’m just afraid my Table of Contents doesn’t include any page number for “Dis-proving Atheism” or “Proving God” — That’s in His book.
Blessings,
Marc
This is my response to the last blogcomment sent to me by “wayknowledge” alias Marc, on the other forum.
This, and another response to a point he put to Jeff, which I unfortunately didn’t back up, wasn’t published by the other forum.
A chance to preach to the unconverted!!!
Wayknowledge:
I was only curious what your answer might be. If you define your position, I will have a better idea of which I’m talking to. The fact that you’ve heard it before, (I’d imagine) would mean that you piqued the curiosity of others, as Well
Tommy:
No, I find it very difficult to understand that you are curious. My position is clear and simple. I’m the guy who doesn’t believe in YOUR very defined claim of god, and who or what he is, A claim which has absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, to distinguish it from any other figment of human imagination.
If you want to ask me about all the other gods which I’m an atheist about, feel free!
My best guess is that they are pretty much the same as the gods YOU don’t believe in either.
I’m also a teetotaller. Would you be curious about which alcoholic beverages I’m teetotal about? Would I have to list everything I DON’T drink?
You are the one defining a god without offering any evidence for his existence. I’m the guy who doesn’t belief he exists, in the absence of that evidence.
If you check back at an earlier response, you’ll see I already explained my position – at the beginning
Wayknowledge:
And may I ask, for clarity, when did “rhetoric’ become a bad thing? I’d think you’d see it as what you’re trying to achieve here.
Tommy:
It isn’t – when you wait for it to be invited in the form of a question, and it is in your answer.
I was just noticing that you were slipping it into the question as a form of preaching – much as some of your predecessors did- Lol!!
It’s part of the “atheism is a religion too” suite of implications.
Wayknowledge:
“At the risk of being blunt I’d rather you gave these questions Only [exactly] “the time and space they deserve.” It would make interchange so much more direct.”
Tommy:
No. Frankly, they weren’t very good questions. I felt they were more an opportunity for you to make a propaganda point or two. As I said above – rhetoric.
I didn’t see an attempt at any exchange of ideas – I’ve had them before as I said, and always as a form of challenge.
As such, they only deserved a glib reply.
Despite this, I felt I was able to cover some decent philosophical ground with the little I had to work on, which you seem to largely have ignored in favour of scoring argumentative points. – Which is the very thing I was asked not to engage in when I entered this forum.
In your very first contact, you made it clear that you were not prepared to justify your faith as any kind of rational position. Whilst I can’t pretend to respect that, I was prepared to honour your decision not to discuss it.
Please remember, I’m responding to questions that you asked me!
Wayknowledge;
“Leaving a link there for this thread would spare anyone “taking up multitudes of the time””
Tommy:-
I’m afraid not.
Firstly , the link is fairly prominent there. You’ll notice, for example, that Jeff has found you here.
Secondly, being a more open forum, with a greater respect for any free expression of ideas, the other site has no censorship, nor deems it necessary to restrict or approve said free expression.
The result being, your comments are published immediately, without having to wait the 24+ hours that we do on this site.
This, obviously, expedites things. I would call that saving” multitudes of time”, wouldn’t you?
WayKnowledge:-
Well, I see no answers and only two further questions, but I infer from them that you think that “reality” would prove the opposite in both cases. About what I “see” and “think,” you presume much and you presume wrong.
Tommy:-
Ha ha! Let’s call it my use of Socratic methodology!! Though, assuming you’re intelligent enough to understand the answer, that is obvious in these well-formed questions, I have to start suspecting a little intellectual dishonesty on your part? Which of the two is it? Remedial or dishonest?
These 2 questions were more than enough to answer your unreasonable question, on the nature of my atheism, followed by a nice long response dealing with every other version of atheism that believers seem to think are commonplace.
Don’t you read my responses?
Remember this? : –
That, I think, answers the last part of your suggestion.
I can be no more against the notion of god, than I can be against the notion that, somewhere in this vast, vast unexplored universe, of which even our galaxy is as a grain of sand, – a planet like “Krypton” exists to send us “Superman” some day.
Nor ANY “notion” of anything else the human mind can dream up with zero data!
And a far more complete explanation followed, if you care to go back and look…
You, on the other hand, YET AGAIN, have said nothing of any value…What exactly did I presume, and how was it wrong?
A more complete premise please? With your reasoning?
You’re just making statements, and you explain nothing…
Wayknowledge:-
See, I CLAIM to Know/Believe that God created the universe, because He said so
”
Tommy:
Yes, I’d already seen your response to Jeff, and responded myself Lol!!
So I will ask the question a different way:
– How the hell do you know that “He” said so?
Wayknowledge: –
“BUT I do not know HOW because it has been revealed to No One. Thus I’m happily “agnostic
.””
Tommy: –
Then can I take it you don’t get your information from the biblical account, which many other Christians’ claim is the “inspired and infallible word of god”?
If not, where do you get this information about your god?
Where did he make his claim to you exactly?
If it was from the bible, you’d find that there is a fairly insistent, and exacting claim, for how “He” created the universe, in it’s first 2 books.
More than one in fact , which are distinct yet contradictory versions, as it happens!
Are you claiming that this ISN’T your source of information as to who or what “God” is?
What is?
Wayknowledge:-
We Christians are individuals. We have differing opinions, one from another.
Tommy:
Really?? Not on the nature of “God” or what you think he wants surely?
After all, the ONLY definition of this “God” that manifests anywhere is in the same text that all Christians take instruction from
It is the only existent certainty that demonstrates him for all to inspect as fact or fiction.
It’s the only tangible observable evidence you have for who you say he is.
How can you possibly have different ideas from the same text in the same book?
Are you saying that this “infallible” text isn’t clear?
Are there different ways to interpret it?
How do any of you know that this is the true god when you don’t know what the book means?
What is in this very inconsistent, and by your own apparent admission, very vague and uncertain scripture that you can actually rely on?
Are you each just making up your own version of “God” from these very inconsistent mythical texts?
Is that why you disagree?
Surely the “truth” is the same for everyone?
Wayknowledge:-
You call our forebears “frightened and ignorant” where I would call them Awestruck and Gloriously Curious. Who’s to say which of us is right?
Tommy: –
Any rational and observant person, who reads the bible objectively, in the light of current knowledge, and who doesn’t need to see it as “divinely inspired”
The following admission from you illustrates the need to compromise one’s logic, piecemeal, to retain some acceptance of what is written in the bible as truth.
Wayknowledge: –
For instance, you would find a wide range of opinion among the members here about creation. I happen to believe that evolution very closely resembles the first story of creation. I have no problems with the theory of evolution. I think Darwin was a genius — even if some of what he postulated has been corrected. Does this set me apart in thought from others on this forum? You bet!
Tommy: –
Why do you suppose it sets you apart?
Wouldn’t you say it was because some accept still, as fact, what is actually written in this book, and you have decided to compromise and cherry -pick to feel comfortable in your belief?
You just cut out, or reinterpret, the bits that science has debunked.
It’s a better example of cognitive dissonance than I get when I confront creationists with evidence they can’t deny
You also claim the existence of your god as the pre-accepted root on which to base all your reasoning.
Yet you are unwilling to rationally justify, or premise any reason you can, without evidence that he exists. Indeed you offer neither evidence that he exists nor any philosophical reason to suppose so.
I was trying to resist asking but I can’t – By what stretch of your strange imagination and interpretive compromise can you compare evolution, through genetic modification with adaptability, with the universe being “spake” into existence over the “evening and morning” of six days? And in the wrong order at that??!!
Wayknowledge:-
This is truly what I find as your answer to my question, above. Thank you.
Tommy: –
Are you paying attention?!
My point is simply that one cannot be against what doesn’t exist.
An atheist doesn’t believe that any god exists. Who can be against what isn’t there?
Are you against Zeus or Thor?
Wayknowledge:
I wouldn’t. But then if I were to have all my ‘druthers….
Tommy:-
What would they be?
Would you rather he didn’t endorse or command genocide, rape, murder, theft of other peoples land, slavery, human sacrifice etc…
Pretty difficult moral dilemma for you, isn’t it? – Which do you choose?
Are these things the will of a hero, in your view, or is the bible as wrong about these claims as it was about its claims of the “creation”?
Maybe I read them “out of context” – lol!!
Wayknowledge
Again, you presume. I specifically asked about the “notion of ‘a’ God.” You seem to think, (and this is ME presuming) that I can’t get my head around the idea of comparative religions, much less the idea of the faithless and the faithful living in harmony. I assure you, I can and do get my head (and my heart) around such notions amply well
.
Tommy:
There was no presumption. I was responding to a specific question you asked me about MY atheism – By asking it, you demonstrated that you didn’t understand why I didn’t believe in YOUR god, and your god alone.
It’s obvious that you understand why I don’t believe in all the others, because YOU don’t believe in them either.
Wayknowledge:
Again, (and this is where longer than needed posts mean we must begin to repeat ourselves) I have asked you to accept NOTHING. I am not debating you. Given how clear on my position I hope I’ve been from the outset, I wonder more and more what you want all this to become. That said, I asked you to define and clarify your belief so that I would know who I was talking to. I have not (and Will Not, I promise you) ask you to justify it
Tommy:
I believe I also outlined my intentions from the outset , and on both forums.
In your case. I responded in a very polite but dismissive way that required no further response from you.
However, you did come back and with some pretty provocative dialogue which I am obliged to answer, and will continue to answer as I receive it .
You seem to have quote-mined Jeff from his own log, which necessitated a heavy correction on his part, and you seem to have turned your “misunderstanding” of my points into an art form.
All of this necessitated more typing and clarification from us than would normally be necessary.
I’m glad you won’t ask me to justify my atheism, because of my previous testimony, and your apparent desire for confrontation without making your own premise for you to justify.
I have to debunk the gods I’m offered one at a time. Finding yours would be a task in itself!
That amounts to a lot of writing… Once defined, there are always so many fallacies and contradictions of logic and fact that you seem unlikely to want to talk about.
You say you are willing to justify your faith and I haven’t asked any questions about it?
Could it be that you have forgotten the list I posted, of such questions which you, and everyone else openly declined to respond to?
I simplified it and began a new thread, which also went un-noticed.
However, I will ask you an unprovoked, un- rhetorical question about your faith , if you would like me to, and if you are willing to give an honest answer :
1)What are the top 5 data points /facts/ things about your particular god, which compel you to believe/know him to be real and existent?
2)Which of these, if proven observably untrue tomorrow, beyond a shadow of a doubt, would remove your faith in your god, as a reality you know, ?
Wayknowledge: –
“I believe the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons have us beat by a long-shot on the whole “one person to another” thing — more’s the sadder.”
Tommy: –
ALL accounts of a divine being exist exclusively as claims, one person to another, without any feasible evidence
However, to address your out of context interpretation of my point, I have had far more Christians at my door including Catholics, and evangelists than JW’s – and I’ve never had a Mormon.
Not that I draw any real distinction, other than to deal with their different flawed beliefs, on an individual basis.
Wayknowledge:
“Oh, and we gather to Worship God in fellowship. We gather to hear about new opportunities to serve the world’s needy folk. We gather to share our Love with those of like minds and spirits. We gather to hear the Word of God illuminated for us to add to what we know.”
Tommy: –
I know what happens at Sunday meetings, and at fellowships and cells etc. I’ve witnessed them many times.
Humanitarian demonstrations aside, and leaving aside that the secular world does just as much, if not more, for “the world’s needy folk, and often without the tax breaks, I have never heard any intellectual proposition made repeatedly every week.
I’ve heard the sermons myself I probably hear more of those in a week than you do. The fact is that the same information is told again and again week after week.
It’s in the book! People can read it for themselves! Why does it need to be explained in different ways every week?
Why does factual information require such gesturing, loud, appeals to the credulity of the audience, or constant reassurances that it is true?
Wayknowledge
An aside: So, why take college courses in History, Math, or English after high school?
Tommy: –
I don’t know if you ignore everything I write, or whether this is just a dishonest ploy to make me write more than necessary, but I anticipated this argument and answered it, in advance, when I made the point in the first place.
Yet you STILL ask it! – (facepalm)
You don’t get emotional appeals for credulity at any school lesson or university lecture. Facts stand on their own. Once delivered they don’t
need to be constantly reasserted. Once you learn something, you don’t have to keep going back to lectures to be reassured its true.
The “saved” need constant reminders though, apparently, of “the word of God” and, as you pointed out yourself it isn’t always the same. – In fact, it’s rarely cohesive!
And such defines the difference between propaganda and education.
Between knowledge and faith.
Between truth and conjecture.
Between evidence and sermon.
For thousands of years, every time someone talks about “God”. It is dictated, as truth, where no question, doubt, or disagreement is tolerated.
Evidence or any deeper reasoning is not an option. Even outside the fellowships of believers in the secular world, no objective discussion or enquiry into the real likelihood of his existence is allowed.
TV programmes block off anyone who asks question, the freedom of speech difference between secular and Christian forums must even be obvious to you. On YouTube, for example, You’ll find that most atheist and secular comment boxes are open, Most Christian and Muslim ones are closed, even though a very provocative, and usually, a dishonest premise was made.
You yourself opened with 1st Peter 3:15, yet both you and your colleague have suggested that it is news to be proclaimed, rather than to be held up to the scrutiny of a hitherto “non believer”.
You also in this respect, have been, true to form, somewhat unwilling to explain what you believe and why, whilst still showing a marked willingness to be confrontational.
Wayknowledge
My minister does. (invite questions from the congregation) In fact, he asks for further comment if anyone has something that will “make the scripture clearer to our brothers and sisters.”
Tommy: –
There’s a man who’s confident he’ll always be asked the “right” questions. I wouldn’t let it get around too much – I wonder if he would field many questions from sceptics?
However, asking for help to clarify his presuppositional message from those he confidently expects to accept the truth of it is not verifying the facts of it.
Wayknowledge:
“Tell THAT to the purveyors of television commercials! Have you ever REALLY wanted a Coca-Cola?”
Tommy:
That invitation to drink a coke doesn’t come with a demand that you abandon parts of your life, or personal harmless practices that the managing director of the company personally and arbitrarily thinks is immoral.
It doesn’t come with false claims or even those that can’t be verified –(As a product, none of the “gods” would pass the trading standards council!)
Coca-Cola doesn’t come with a threat of eternal damnation for not buying the product.
Coca –cola doesn’t send its customers of to kill and be killed by drinkers of Pepsi or any rival product.
(All religions have a history of such) The arrogance of this history is reflected in every proposition that is offered from the pulpit that the pastor thinks needs no justification to be accepted.
There isn’t a product sold that encourages the divisiveness between users that religion does. Nor torture and persecution, even death, that religion has throughout history. Christianity tops the list there too – closely followed by Islam.
Apart from those, the advertisers or producers of cola don’t tell you who to associate with, or who to marry or what other products to believe in. (I have witnessed all of these in recent sermons – and often!)
watknowledge:
“For clarity on your generalized question I would refer you to any good study on “the Reformation.” Also note that many Theologians have been on the sharp end of the “church’s” stick.”
Tommy: –
You think the fact that other theologians were also persecuted, for disagreeing the dogma, doesn’t reinforce my point ??
I would also point out that Martin Luther and the other reformation leaders were even more strongly critical of scientific ideas, such as heliocentricity. Luther was also a big fan of the “devout lie” principle,
Wayknowledge:
I’m afraid you’ll have to ask them. It wasn’t me
.
Tommy:-
In other words, you’re not prepared to defend the authority or validity of what you believe as it came down to you through history.
Fair enough- I would remind you that I am the one answering questions that YOU are asking me. That was one of the more direct answers. Any questions I ask are rhetorical – to help you understand my point from your perspective
Its just as well they are rhetorical, because you don’t seem capable of answering many
Wayknowledge:
So your motivation in all this is to STOP people from demanding others “to kill or die for their batshit crazy ideas”? Sign me up!! I am just as much against any pressing-into-service (Chistian or any other “authority”) of people to “Return Evil for Evil” — maybe even more so than you (but I hope not).
Tommy:
No! My motive is to answer the questions that YOU asked of me. Remember?
As for being “signed up” , it’s easy.
Learn to inform whatever moral conscience you might have from your own human reasoning, experience and empathy, instead of blindly and obediently from a book of Bronze Age superstition and myth.
WayKnowledge:
: My question is then, are you also taking your message to the Muslim world?
Tommy:
Once again, I’m not taking my message anywhere. I’m answering YOUR questions. You haven’t responded to my answers other than to go on the defensive and attempt to grab the intellectual and moral high ground by pretending that I’m the one who is confrontational , and you are the patient listener.
I do not make a point of debating theists – they don’t have a position that they can rationally and honestly defend in a debate. This I’ve realised along time ago. It is one of the stronger reasons for my atheism – and many other people’s for that matter!
That said, I’ve had a few long debates with Muslims. As with Christians I neither invite nor provoke them. They always come after me. Unlike most Christians, I find them humbler in their opinions, courteous, and the last two at least, were intellectually honest enough to withdraw when I pointed out a paradox of morality in the Qu’ran.
The last guy was actually clever enough to see my point before I got to it, and conceded it in advance – Well in advance too, considering it was a very complex philosophical point I was attempting to make.
Does the fact that you ask about Muslim apologists suggest that you have never taken YOUR message to them?
Wayknowledge:
I’d ask you to look at and consider just this one Wikipedia article before you close the door on your idea of “the morality of an enlightened modern world “:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism. It’s an eye opener.
Tommy:
Ha! – I’m an atheist, willing to listen to the worst of theist apologetics – Do you really think this is an eyeopener??
I’m aware of state atheism. It is mostly an accusation levelled against other ideology-based states such as communism. I’ve even heard it said of the Nazis!
I’ve no doubt some regimes did, and do, indeed persecute the religious. though I doubt if that would be their end purpose. That isn’t logical for the nuttiest despot!
Actually, as long as they don’t forcefully suppress anyone’s right to their superstitions and gods, it’s a far better default position than a Christian or Muslim state.
Non belief is always the most useful place to start with any intellectual investigation.
Whatever is said about a regime based on atheism, it would have a long way to go to match the obscenities of Bloody Mary and other monarchs, the Spanish and Papal inquisitions, the crusades, Islam in general, witch-hunts, the conquests, genocide and enslavement of primitive cultures through the history of the world, and excused by the spread of Christianity etc.
Wayknowledge:
“We didn’t kick him out. We listened to him and gave him our attention. He could see, if he wanted to, that not much else is happening here while we give him whatever time he thinks he needs. We pretty much went about unruffled as he was mildly rude in his insinuations and condescension.”
Tommy: –
I’ll spare everyone the whole of this rubbish…..
So the answer to the original question I asked you: “How many atheists have ever actually proselytised at you?” …is none!
Well, in terms of theists accosting me, I have you beat by scores, in person. Hundreds if you count the Internet
And what a very disingenuous, nay dishonest and offensive, way you chose to answer me.
I suggest you go back and check what is obviously true, rather than what you’d like to be true….
My original story is true – I will happily post the reams of unsolicited “sermon” which “LetsTalkChrist sent to me, the link to this forum he sent with every sermon, and my somewhat sparser and discouraging responses.
Apart from those questions that Jeff asked me to post, in order to confirm that LTC’s claims were not troll material, everything else I wrote on this forum, was in response to a discussion initiated by one of you guys.
As said before, I had no interest in hearing back from you at all.
.
You obviously WERE “ruffled” if you think I was any more rude and condescending (that’s rich!) than you were!
And I love the way you pat yourself on the back for “not kicking [me] off”.
The option must have seemed a comforting option to you?
I would remind you again that I started nothing – and if you look at my comments, on the other forum, you’ll notice that I dismissed you as a “god exists and no argument” type whom I gently discouraged and figure that no more discussion would take place.
Only on a theistic forum, would kicking a contributor off, be constantly considered, and from even before anything was posted by him!
How very open minded of you!! Lol!!
Tommy
Pingback: Issues and Tactics to Keep in Mind When Debating – Part 4 | Thinking Critically
[b]instructions on how to take clomid[/b] statistics of getting pregnant on clomid
[b]proper use of clomid[/b] dangers of clomid as fertility drug