The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread
Offline This is it. This is the official thread that Kelly and Sapient will try to interact with as many visitors as they can. If you are new here, welcome aboard. If viewing this from the homepage you can click the title of the thread, create an account, and post your comments. Kelly and Sapient will not have time to address all the email and would like to keep all of their exchanges public for the benefit of the readers who are curious. Soon we will have a downloadable document available right from this post that will expose as many arguments as we can expose from the ABC Nightline Face Off with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Here are the highlights of the face off from our eyes...
Did we make mistakes in the full debate? Yes. We stumbled on a few words, made an inaccurate point or two, and made a weak point at a moment or two. Ironically our worst points still seemed to be too much for them. So while we welcome criticism, especially constructive, please keep in mind that we feel we have a good handle on what we did wrong. We'll grow, learn, and get better. What we're really hoping for in this thread is for the actual content and discussion about gods existence to be brought into question. Challenge us to continue, and we will continue to respond to your claims. If you are a theist, please feel free to post your scientific evidence for God, leaving out the miserable arguments that Ray Comfort has already been beaten on of course. If you are having trouble finding the video on ABCs website, you can find most/all of the videos here. DIGG it.
A thread on our message board that has links to the entire unedited debate.
Other threads of interest:
Nightline Editing Bias - The Supporting Data
Gregfl starts a thread about Bashirs big blunder and the Nightline portrayal.
Some of the Christian mail coming in [YOU RESPOND] about the debate.
Pertaining to Jesus Mythicism A thorough examination of the evidence for Jesus by Rook Hawkins
A Silence That Screams - (No contemporary historical accounts for "jesus) by Todangst
Video from Rook outlining the basics of Jesus Mythicism
UPDATE Sapient spoke with ABC and voiced concerns leveled by many atheists in the community that the editing job for the Nightline piece gave Ray and Kirk a free pass. The most commonly voiced criticism of ABC was that it managed to show the debate as somewhat even and that there was no clear victor. This discussion was accepted only under the understanding that Ray and Kirk would prove God exists without invoking faith or the Bible. Anyone that understood the format saw that Ray and Kirk failed at their premise as soon as the proof of God became the Ten Commandments. ABC was made aware that commentary like "It was difficult to know if either side could claim victory" gave the impression that they were pandering to their largely Christian audience. While Sapient understood that this may be a wise business move, it was noted that it wasn't an accurate representation of the discussion. The Rational Response Squad brought it's "B" game and still destroyed every claim Kirk and Ray threw at them. In more positive news, we were made aware that the ABC unedited video of the debate was viewed over 160,000 times in the first 12 hours. Hopefully a few people have found the strength to overcome their god delusion.
AND THE PWNAGE CONTINUES:
THE FULL DEBATE!
EXPOSE OF POST DEBATE CHATTER AND BEHIND THE SCENES INFORMATION
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
Offline Hey Scott! Thanks again for the thoughtful reply. This is good stuff.Quote:Scottmax writes: “What we really need to do is look at the answer with the fewest raw assertions.”
Forgive me for perhaps sounding ignorant (I guess this is just assumed coming from a theist anyway, eh? Hehe…) but why is this necessary? Is this not an epistemological presupposition that we must assume somewhat by a kind of “faith” from the outset?
Let me give an example: My wife goes to work before me and returns after I do. I leave the house in the morning and my newspaper in sitting on the kitchen table. When I return home, I find it on the floor. Now I can come up with a number of theories for how this happened.
- My dog pulled was looking on the table for food to steal and knocked it off.
- My wife returned home early, knocked the paper on the floor, then left again. (My wife has little tolerance for newspapers on the floor, though.)
- A burglar picked the lock on my door (no broken windows), came into my house and moved the newspaper.
- A Japanese ninja was pursuing a victim and took a shortcut through my house using special ninja house entering techniques. His sword swept my newspaper off the table as he passed through my house.
Quote:Scottmax writes: “Ah, there are 2 problems here. First, we do not propose that our universe came from nothing. The various proposals postulate that the energy always existed, either in a (to us) timeless state in this universe or in some sort of eternal multiverse. Or that the sum total of positive and negative matter-energy is zero.
Secondly, at the quantum level, my understanding is that we lose cause and effect as we know it. If the pre-expansion state of the universe operated only under quantum principles, then our conventional cause and effect modus goes away.”
I don’t mean to sound facetious at all when I say this (because I think it is entirely plausible), but that is beginning to sound a bit “metaphysical”
Sure. Of course quantum physics seems a bit metaphysical to me. The point, though, is that these alternate natural hypotheses are equally as relevent as the creator god theory but suppose far less. These other theories may also be testable as our understanding and technology advances.
Quote:Scottmax writes; Just looking at an unexplained event and trying to plug God into the hole is simply Argument from Ignorance.
Actually, from what I understand, that would be better called a “God of the Gaps” argument.
Ah, good catch. Yes, I misspoke.
As I hinted at above, it sounds as though Atheists have their own version of “god of the gaps,” with the Eternal Cosmos itself filling any gaps of knowledge.
Not the same. No one is postulating that these ideas are "truth", just possibilities. Also, no one is proposing supernatural power or life altering significance to the naturalistic theories. Science often starts with speculations and then performs experiments to try to invalidate those ideas.
Scottmax writes: The best evidence for God would have to be the ability to make predictions that would be true if there is a God and false if not, and then to find those conditions to be true.
But I think there is a problem intrinsic to this statement. If, for the sake of argument, you presuppose an infinitely complex God, you would also necessarily have to presuppose that the attempt by a finite creature to make such “predictions” of confirming evidence would have to be taken with such a tremendous grain of salt it would be a nearly pointless experiment.
Here we are proposing that something may be true but that if it is true, that we would not be able to understand it or judge the truth of it. We have no way to falsify the idea and no way to prove it either. This is just as meaningful as proposing that we live in a perfect Matrix-esque simulation that is impossible for us to detect. Could be, but that cannot possibly affect how we choose to live our day to day lives. It makes more sense to assume that we can understand our existence and to attempt to do so.
It's been fun chatting, but I need to get back to the real world for a bit. I'll try to check back over the weekend.
Scott out.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sara wrote:
ERV's are not very well understood. I assume you are referring to the fact that ERV's in monkeys and humans are in the same area of their genetic sequence and this somehow implies a common ancestor. My only reply is that we do know that ERV's have insertion preferences, so it's possible that if monkeys and humans were "infected" separately by the same ERV, they could have it's DNA in the same area. But it's been a while since I've looked into this and I'm not familiar with the "broken vitamin C gene", so I will do some research.
So why would chimps and humans have the same insertion points and other animals do not? Is God trying to confuse us? This reminds me of the "earth was made to look old" argument. Implausible.
Humans cannot synthesize vitamin C and we can see where the gene was broken, yet other animals can synthesize vitamin C (e.g. dogs, cats, etc.). Chimps (and gerbils?) also have this same broken vitamin C gene. Another coincidence, considering endogenous retroviruses, genetic similarities, fossil record, etc.?
In addition, humans have 46 chromosomes, while the great apes have 48. Shortly after chimpanzee genome was sequenced, scientists were able to trace the missing human chromosomes to a pair of primate chromosomes which were fused into a single human chromosome. The actual fused chromosome has been identified as human chromosome #2. This was presented by Ken Miller at the Dover PA trial regarding ID in schools. Here's a brief clip that focuses on this particular section of his presentation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
- Login to post comments
Offline redissupreme wrote:This is one way other biological anthropologists support the ideas that we hunted.Yeah that and the spears...
All the spears in the world won't help you if you can't catch your prey. Being able to run your prey down (this due to our ability to control our breathing), is rather different since the hard part is just tracking it down and then being able to poke it vigorously with pointy sticks.
A lot of discussion here is philisophical in nature much to my dismay as I've always enjoyed blasting the Christian right with the evolution of man.
I bring this up because I had some people scream at me today that I was going to hell stating that:
<Evolutionists claim Neanderthal Man and Lucy to be such transitional forms...hoever, further evidance proves otherwise. Neanderthal Man was found to be a modern human...lucy was a 3ft tall chimp...science does not support the theory of evolution>
From there is goes on with the same stuff Cameron and Comfort said almost word for word <have you stolen have you lied blah blah you NEED god or you're going to hell>
I don't like to argue the philosophy of the Bible, it's not my area of education and I find it makes a weaker argument. "You're not making a good argument or it's flawed/contradictory" just doesn't have the same oomph as say "you say this and this but this and that prove you're straight up wrong"
I think evolution really holds this argument well. We don't know everything there is to know about it but we do know a great deal and it directly disproves many of the bible's passages rather than their interpretations. Usually when you bring these issues up, creationists will begin spouting bable that is either cherry picked(lucy is a chimp), disproven(Neanderthals are AMH), or flat out false (fossil record confirms God) like the above passages that I had more than an earful of while eating lunch. Messages of love and peace my rear.
Jesus saves....he passes to Moses...Moses shoots..he scores!!!!
All morons hate it when you call them a moron.
Bio Anthro whooo (´･ω･｀)
- Login to post comments
Offline gatogreensleeves wrote:Sara wrote:
ERV's are not very well understood. I assume you are referring to the fact that ERV's in monkeys and humans are in the same area of their genetic sequence and this somehow implies a common ancestor. My only reply is that we do know that ERV's have insertion preferences, so it's possible that if monkeys and humans were "infected" separately by the same ERV, they could have it's DNA in the same area. But it's been a while since I've looked into this and I'm not familiar with the "broken vitamin C gene", so I will do some research.
So why would chimps and humans have the same insertion points and other animals do not? Is God trying to confuse us? This reminds me of the "earth was made to look old" argument. Implausible.
Humans cannot synthesize vitamin C and we can see where the gene was broken, yet other animals can synthesize vitamin C (e.g. dogs, cats, etc.). Chimps (and gerbils?) also have this same broken vitamin C gene. Another coincidence, considering endogenous retroviruses, genetic similarities, fossil record, etc.?
In addition, humans have 46 chromosomes, while the great apes have 48. Shortly after chimpanzee genome was sequenced, scientists were able to trace the missing human chromosomes to a pair of primate chromosomes which were fused into a single human chromosome. The actual fused chromosome has been identified as human chromosome #2. This was presented by Ken Miller at the Dover PA trial regarding ID in schools. Here's a brief clip that focuses on this particular section of his presentation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M
I have that vid on my Myspace page! Many of these genetic arguments (except, I think, the vitamin C gene issue) are easy to find at the Evolution 101 podcasts page:
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:Stillmatic says:Except that the bible claims to be the inerrant inspired word of God.
Actually, it never claims to be "inerrant." Many Christians claim that it is inerrant, but that is not in the Bible itself. It does claim to be "inspired," but that is not the same thing as "inerrant."
Hmmm... what exactly does it mean to be "inspired" then? Is that like when the "Spirit of the Lord comes upon them?"
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/10/spirit-of-lord-came-upon-him.html
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:If god is real then produce him. Tell him to give me a call.. He should know the number if you are correct....lol...
"Here Goddie... C'mere boy! GOOD boy! Now go call satansbitch and I'll give you a Goddie biscuit! Go on now! There ya go!"
It's getting late and he still hasn't called. Maybe the cell coverage sucks where he is.
Can you hear me now?....
- Login to post comments
Offline A Japanese ninja was pursuing a victim and took a shortcut through my house using special ninja house entering techniques. His sword swept my newspaper off the table as he passed through my house.
Ok now you are just ninja bashing, I won't stand for it...
- Login to post comments
Offline scottmax wrote:Ok now you are just ninja bashing, I won't stand for it...A Japanese ninja was pursuing a victim and took a shortcut through my house using special ninja house entering techniques. His sword swept my newspaper off the table as he passed through my house.
Ninja? This was clearly the work of a pirate.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
- Login to post comments
Offline 'Twas a pleasure to watch you two, and I'd say you did quite well in the debate. I'd like to offer a few constructive suggestions for future speaking engagements. 1. I've done public speaking, and it's awful -- the nerves, the difficulty in concentrating, etc. That said, there are classes and seminars (and tapes and DVDs) that teach techniques for doing it as well as possible, and they'd be worth looking into. I'm not talking about rhetoric here, but of simple presentation
Toastmasters is pretty good for this, and they can really help to eliminate bad speaking habits.
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate: I am the Captain of my soul.
- Login to post comments
Offline I have a question about evolution, but first a couple quick things,
I said I wasn’t coming back here because I see in this organized atheist movement the same beginning seeds of a similar idea of the 30’s and 40’s when someone thought it would be a good idea to create a master race which ended up in the slaughter of 6 million innocent Jews. Only this time it is the creation of a “free thinking” society that has no room for people that believe different from them, which ironically would negate the idea that those people are actually “free thinking”.
I do not believe Mr. Sapient wants Christians physically murdered, but many organizations eventually have splinters that are more aggressive then the creator of the original idea. Since most Christians do not base their beliefs on science the final solution of this for many people can only be a physical removal of Christians, and unfortunately that’s exactly the “vibe” I get from the hostility here.
But since I was invited here, and Mr. Sapient said at the debate he “cares about us”, I would like a few questions answered. After all, if I am supposed to risk a fiery judgment followed by eternal death I feel I need much more tangible evidence than a picture of platypus and some wide-mouth lizard, which is the only real thing I have been showed so far in conjunction with the evidence of evolution. This website claims to be here to “free me from the mind-disorder known as theism”, so it is you that is claiming you can convince me in the non-existence of GOD, not the other way around.
Also, just one last quick comment on my original post. Scottmax said I was “copping out” because I didn’t elaborate further on why GOD didn’t save the virgins when ordering the decimation of certain groups rampant with sin, and therefore in theory, disease. I didn’t feel I needed to elaborate further as it is already obvious that disease can be spread by other means than sexual contact. I was making a point and assumed that the people here could follow that logic thread out to its conclusion, but I have to refer you again back to my original statements on how evolutionists will do this for themselves but will not do it for Theists. The English language is so open ended that anything can be twisted. To talk with having to go into long drawn out explanations of every avenue of thought on a given subject or word would be extremely inefficient for reaching any truth on any matter whether evolution or creation. But this open ended ness of the English language is one thing the evolutionist chooses to use to attack creation. I was not “copping out”. You seemed like an intelligent person and I didn’t see the need to go into extreme detail and talk to you like a child to make my point. Evolutionist like doing this to Christians, but if a Christian asked them a question on a small point of detail they are generally insulted, or it’s insinuated that the Christian is too stupid to figure out what the evolutionist is trying to say on thier own. My initial statements have only been proven in this conversation between scottmax and myself.
With that said, I am here and I am listening, so here is my first question:
Mr. Sapient brought up the 3rd law of thermodynamics, stating that the universe has always existed since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. But evolutionists also believe in a Big Bang Theory that states the universe was created and they give a definite start time, 14 Billion years ago, when a huge mass of matter exploded. These two lines of thought contradict each other. Has the universe always existed or did it start with a big bang?
Also, if the universe continuously expands and retracts in one big bang after another, what created the first huge mass of matter and what set it off since it was floating in a void without any force acting against it. Things at rest just do not suddenly explode for any reason?
Last part of the question, if it was spinning and gravity caused it to explode what initially set it to spinning? Objects in a vacuum/void do not suddenly just start spinning and accelerate to the point of explosion.
Remember I am new here, so please just answer my question, enough with the insults and condescension. I have my own computer business, taught myself to program at 12, and have a 4.0 GPA in Networking therefore while I don’t claim to be a genius I am obviously not stupid and I cannot muster any respect for anyone who talks to me as if I am, especially if they say they are trying to “help” me. You “claim” to want to save me from my disorder. You can’t do that to me or any other Christian if you just continue to insult us. Please answer my question, I would prefer you do it without any unproven theories if possible please. Thanks.
- Login to post comments
Offline I feel I need much more tangible evidence than a picture of platypus and some wide-mouth lizard, which is the only real thing I have been showed so far in conjunction with the evidence of evolution.
I'll leave the origin of the universe question up to others, but your best resource for a quick and easy rundown on evolution is Ken Miller's clip on youtube (others have already mentioned it):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
The Miller part is about 90 minutes, followed by half an hour of questions that probably aren't worth watching. But if you want a good, clear, authoritative start on the tangible evidence of evolution in 90 minutes, this is it.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
- Login to post comments
Offline [
I said I wasn’t coming back here because I see in this organized atheist movement the same beginning seeds of a similar idea of the 30’s and 40’s when someone thought it would be a good idea to create a master race which ended up in the slaughter of 6 million innocent Jews. Only this time it is the creation of a “free thinking” society that has no room for people that believe different from them, which ironically would negate the idea that those people are actually “free thinking”.
But if you want to see a Nazi-like movement, check out the Religious Right -- they are fanatical, jingoistic, militaristic, bigoted, you name it.
... if I am supposed to risk a fiery judgment followed by eternal death I feel I need much more tangible evidence than a picture of platypus and some wide-mouth lizard, which is the only real thing I have been showed so far in conjunction with the evidence of evolution.
Kinnith, what do you want? A complete set of university courses in evolutionary biology?
Also, just one last quick comment on my original post. Scottmax said I was “copping out” because I didn’t elaborate further on why GOD didn’t save the virgins when ordering the decimation of certain groups rampant with sin, and therefore in theory, disease.
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. (Deut. 7:1-5)
(lots of whining snipped)
Mr. Sapient brought up the 3rd law of thermodynamics, stating that the universe has always existed since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. But evolutionists also believe in a Big Bang Theory that states the universe was created and they give a definite start time, 14 Billion years ago, when a huge mass of matter exploded. These two lines of thought contradict each other. Has the universe always existed or did it start with a big bang?
And our Universe could be a bubble in some super-Universe. As Victor Stenger notes, the Universe's overall gravitational-potential energy cancels out its internal and kinetic energies, meaning that its overall energy content is zero or close to zero.
Also, if the universe continuously expands and retracts in one big bang after another, what created the first huge mass of matter and what set it off since it was floating in a void without any force acting against it. Things at rest just do not suddenly explode for any reason?
Last part of the question, if it was spinning and gravity caused it to explode what initially set it to spinning? Objects in a vacuum/void do not suddenly just start spinning and accelerate to the point of explosion.
Remember I am new here, so please just answer my question, enough with the insults and condescension. I have my own computer business, taught myself to program at 12, and have a 4.0 GPA in Networking therefore while I don’t claim to be a genius I am obviously not stupid and I cannot muster any respect for anyone who talks to me as if I am, especially if they say they are trying to “help” me. You “claim” to want to save me from my disorder. You can’t do that to me or any other Christian if you just continue to insult us. Please answer my question, I would prefer you do it without any unproven theories if possible please. Thanks.
And I must remind you that self-pity is not usually considered very dignified.
- Login to post comments
Offline Awfully long way to go to say.."I don't know".
It all HAD to start somewhere. You also didn't try to answer my descripancy between some athiests believing in a 14 billion year old universe and others saying it is infinite. If evolution is a fact, shouldn't there be aggreement on this point?
Also, I havn't said anything that I thought I was being "self pitying". If you are reading that into my comments I can't help that.
Finally between the self-pity remarks and now the "whining" I don't see how you are going to converse with christians to get your point accross if you keep insulting them. I don't think they are going to be open to what you have to say. Which will defeat the entire purpose your website.
thanks for answering though.
-kin
- Login to post comments
Offline Awfully long way to go to say.."I don't know".
It all HAD to start somewhere. You also didn't try to answer my descripancy between some athiests believing in a 14 billion year old universe and others saying it is infinite. If evolution is a fact, shouldn't there be aggreement on this point?
Evolutionary biology is NOT cosmologyDescent with modification is NOT the Big Bang and the expansion of the Universe
???
If you disagree with me, then you ought to give REASONS for disagreeing.
And 14 billion years vs. an infinite number of years may indeed seem like a big discrepancy, but it is a discrepancy in an area in which our knowledge is VERY weak. More specifically, what happened before the start of the expansion that formed our Universe -- and whether there was any time before that event.
Also, I havn't said anything that I thought I was being "self pitying". If you are reading that into my comments I can't help that.
Finally between the self-pity remarks and now the "whining" I don't see how you are going to converse with christians to get your point accross if you keep insulting them.
- Login to post comments
Offline I certainly think a lot could have been done better on both sides in this debate, but one thing that struck me funny, is that Ray and Kirk seemed to carry themselves more as evangelists as opposed to debators or intellectuals. While it certainly seemed clear Kirk and Ray didn't present the evidences that they said they would, most people seeing that would still consider their own objections unaddressed.
Kirk and Ray may be effective evangelists, but they aren't intellectuals, and I think that until the discussion reaches a certain level, it will not be that effective. I do not listen to WOTM radio, but I have heard from people who do that they sometimes have guest apologists or something, perhaps try debating one of those. I suppose my criticism is this really, that the arguments that are being beaten to a pulp are not the ones that actually seem to be convincing people of the existence of God or keeping the question in their mind. Its like trying to chop down a tree with an axe and swinging at leaves. I guess my main concern is I did not see anything powerful and substantial being addressed to any large degree, but then again, I am a Christian so maybe you should take what I say with a grain of salt. 
- Login to post comments
Offline I have a question about evolution, but first a couple quick things,
I said I wasn’t coming back here because I see in this organized atheist movement the same beginning seeds of a similar idea of the 30’s and 40’s when someone thought it would be a good idea to create a master race which ended up in the slaughter of 6 million innocent Jews. Only this time it is the creation of a “free thinking” society that has no room for people that believe different from them, which ironically would negate the idea that those people are actually “free thinking”.
You are right. I can't speak for the RRS, but I would certainly like to create a free-thinking society that marginalizes and disenfranchises anyone who promotes thought control or intolerance toward certain ideas. In an ideal society, the only idea that would be out-of-bounds is the idea that suppresses other ideas. Obviously, Christianity would be well-protected in such a society. That is what I want, and what you should want, too.
On the other hand, in the arena of political discourse, people are of course free to criticize and defeat ideas that don't seem to them to be good policy. This is part of the freedom that we just mentioned. So in a free-thinking society, you are free to hold any idea you want, but when you try to make others live by your idea, you become subject to criticism and debate.
Your problem, Kinnith, is that you know that Christianity cannot stand up to real critical debate. You know that, in a clash of ideas, the Christian will always lose to the rationalist. This is why you fear a society where your faith has to meet the challenge of rational scrutiny before it becomes policy. This is why you want special protection for your ideas, many of which, I might add, tend to suppress and marginalize other ideas.
I don't believe Mr. Sapient wants Christians physically murdered, but many organizations eventually have splinters that are more aggressive then the creator of the original idea. Since most Christians do not base their beliefs on science the final solution of this for many people can only be a physical removal of Christians, and unfortunately that’s exactly the “vibe” I get from the hostility here.
You are whining because your ideas are getting smacked down. There's no hostility here, just a refusal to accept your erroneous fantasies as anything other than what they are. You have no evidence whatsoever that ANYONE on this forum has the silghtest violent intent toward you, or Christians in general.
Of course, since you don't believe in evidence, it is not suprising that you would have trouble telling the difference between a paranoid fantasy and reality.
But since I was invited here, and Mr. Sapient said at the debate he “cares about us”, I would like a few questions answered. After all, if I am supposed to risk a fiery judgment followed by eternal death I feel I need much more tangible evidence than a picture of platypus and some wide-mouth lizard, which is the only real thing I have been showed so far in conjunction with the evidence of evolution. This website claims to be here to “free me from the mind-disorder known as theism”, so it is you that is claiming you can convince me in the non-existence of GOD, not the other way around.
The site says that their GOAL is to free people from the mind-disorder known as theism. Obviously, that cannot happen without the willing participation of the person with the disorder. If you refuse to look at the many, many links to proof of evolutionary theory that you have been given, and if you refuse to actually consider and internalize the arguments that refute your creationist position, then there is nothing that we can do for you.
Why is it that atheists understand the workings of faith better than the faithful themselves? Apparently, you do not understand that your faith will prevent you from accepting our arguments unless you decide to set it aside long enough to really examine them honestly.
Also, just one last quick comment on my original post. Scottmax said I was “copping out” because I didn’t elaborate further on why GOD didn’t save the virgins when ordering the decimation of certain groups rampant with sin, and therefore in theory, disease. I didn’t feel I needed to elaborate further as it is already obvious that disease can be spread by other means than sexual contact. I was making a point and assumed that the people here could follow that logic thread out to its conclusion, but I have to refer you again back to my original statements on how evolutionists will do this for themselves but will not do it for Theists. The English language is so open ended that anything can be twisted. To talk with having to go into long drawn out explanations of every avenue of thought on a given subject or word would be extremely inefficient for reaching any truth on any matter whether evolution or creation. But this open ended ness of the English language is one thing the evolutionist chooses to use to attack creation. I was not “copping out”. You seemed like an intelligent person and I didn’t see the need to go into extreme detail and talk to you like a child to make my point. Evolutionist like doing this to Christians, but if a Christian asked them a question on a small point of detail they are generally insulted, or it’s insinuated that the Christian is too stupid to figure out what the evolutionist is trying to say on thier own. My initial statements have only been proven in this conversation between scottmax and myself.
More whining. Grow up and stop complaining about having to explain yourself. Don't you think we are also tired of having to explain basic science over and over again to people like you?
With that said, I am here and I am listening, so here is my first question:
Mr. Sapient brought up the 3rd law of thermodynamics, stating that the universe has always existed since matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. But evolutionists also believe in a Big Bang Theory that states the universe was created and they give a definite start time, 14 Billion years ago, when a huge mass of matter exploded. These two lines of thought contradict each other. Has the universe always existed or did it start with a big bang?
WRONG. The Big Bang is not an account of the origins of the universe. It only describes events that occured picoseconds after the origin of the universe.
It is probably invalid to talk about anything causing the BB and thereby creating the universe because prior to the BB there was no time except the future.
Also, if the universe continuously expands and retracts in one big bang after another, what created the first huge mass of matter and what set it off since it was floating in a void without any force acting against it. Things at rest just do not suddenly explode for any reason?
In normal spacetime. The conditions around the BB were extreme.
Last part of the question, if it was spinning and gravity caused it to explode what initially set it to spinning? Objects in a vacuum/void do not suddenly just start spinning and accelerate to the point of explosion.
They might if they are subject only to quantum effects. Or if time and causality itself start with the BB.
Remember I am new here, so please just answer my question, enough with the insults and condescension. I have my own computer business, taught myself to program at 12, and have a 4.0 GPA in Networking therefore while I don’t claim to be a genius I am obviously not stupid and I cannot muster any respect for anyone who talks to me as if I am, especially if they say they are trying to “help” me. You “claim” to want to save me from my disorder. You can’t do that to me or any other Christian if you just continue to insult us. Please answer my question, I would prefer you do it without any unproven theories if possible please. Thanks.
You have a lot of gall coming in here with nothing but a pack of unproven fantasies and ordering us to present nothing but proof. Why is your speculation any better than ours? It is you dishing out disrespect and insults on this site, not us.
You have been given resource after resource where you can learn about evolution and cosmology. If you are as smart as you claim, you will want to stop embarassing yourself immediately and build an understanding of these topics before you try to debate them.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
- Login to post comments
Offline Awfully long way to go to say.."I don't know".
It all HAD to start somewhere. You also didn't try to answer my descripancy between some athiests believing in a 14 billion year old universe and others saying it is infinite. If evolution is a fact, shouldn't there be aggreement on this point?
Also, I havn't said anything that I thought I was being "self pitying". If you are reading that into my comments I can't help that.
Finally between the self-pity remarks and now the "whining" I don't see how you are going to converse with christians to get your point accross if you keep insulting them. I don't think they are going to be open to what you have to say. Which will defeat the entire purpose your website.
thanks for answering though.
-kin
To your concern with 'contradictory' ages of the universe, this is actually a misconception on your part.
The current best estimate for the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years or so. Now, the tricky part here that most people miss at first, is when using the term universe. The universe includes everything, including space-time itself. Thus time only exists as part of the universe. As such, since time didnt exist before the universe, the phrase 'before the universe' is actually entirely meaningless. There was no before the universe as before implies a time based relationship. No time = no before = a universe that has always existed.
This of course has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is entirely comsology, but I hope it at least clears it up for you so you can move on to other questions.
- Login to post comments
Offline THANK YOU OddwinOddball
Finally just an answer without all the insults! The rest of you, when I got to anything about whining I just stopped reading, I couldn't say anything without someone labeling it whining if they didn't agree with it. Your credibility went out the window.
OddwinOddball, I hear what you are saying and I can see the logic of it. I do appreciate your trying to answer the question for me in an adult manner. I don't agree with you, as I have never seen any instance where you get something from nothing, and having a time without time is a contradiction, but I do realize what you are trying to say with your line of thought.
As far as to why I connect cosmology with evolution, you have to see from my point of view you can't have evolution until you have a universe for it to occur in. That is why I connect the two.
For whichever of you asked how you were supposed to say something, read Oddwin's post, notice he didn't use any insulting language. He just answered the freakin' question! 
thank you again mr oddwin. It was greatly appreciated. (sincere)
- Login to post comments
Offline THANK YOU OddwinOddball
Finally just an answer without all the insults! The rest of you, when I got to anything about whining I just stopped reading, I couldn't say anything without someone labeling it whining if they didn't agree with it. Your credibility went out the window.
Here's a little hint for ya: I don't care whether you read the post or not. I just don't want anyone else coming in here and seeing that you're not refuted. Which you are, thoroughly.
BTW, there is the "kill 'em with kindness" thread here for you whiners who can't stand a spirited debate. Maybe you'd be more comfortable over there.
Oh, and fuck you for trying to tell me or anyone else how to post on these forums.
Now back to your regularly scheduled error.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
- Login to post comments
Offline WoW!
Today someone has asked me, "If I really thought you guys wanted to put Christians in the gas chamber", then another guy DEFENDED putting Jews in the gas chambers. And now I have been told to F-off.
I can't imagine why Christians wouldn't want to listen to you guys?
- Login to post comments
Offline WoW!
Today someone has asked me, "If I really thought you guys wanted to put Christians in the gas chamber", then another guy DEFENDED putting Jews in the gas chambers. And now I have been told to F-off.
I can't imagine why Christians wouldn't want to listen to you guys?
Got some links to this?
The thing that bothered me is that this isn't the first time this argument has come up in this thread alone. It has previously been explained that time might not be a relevant concept before the universe.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
- Login to post comments
Offline WoW!
Today someone has asked me, "If I really thought you guys wanted to put Christians in the gas chamber", then another guy DEFENDED putting Jews in the gas chambers. And now I have been told to F-off.
I can't imagine why Christians wouldn't want to listen to you guys?
Because we're entertaining.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
- Login to post comments
Offline WoW!
Today someone has asked me, "If I really thought you guys wanted to put Christians in the gas chamber", then another guy DEFENDED putting Jews in the gas chambers. And now I have been told to F-off.
I can't imagine why Christians wouldn't want to listen to you guys?
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
- Login to post comments
Offline I have some comments and questions... I hope they don't get lost. I'd like to remind any readers that, if it sounds like I'm making any sweeping generalizations or opinionated statements, please forgive me and understand that everything a person ever writes is based solely on that person's own experiences and can not possibly be based on anything else.
First, I think that the article about agnostic vs. atheistic is badly written and incomplete. What I've come to accept is that atheist means "without belief", agnostic means "without knowledge". What it seems the article seeks to point out is that not knowing and not believing are the same state of mind, so why differentiate... I propose we look at it differently. From a purely objective viewpoint, I would think a rational mind would have to admit that we are all truly "agnostic" -- nobody possesses a concrete knowledge as to either conclusion about whether god(s) exist(s). However, some among us quite adamantly believe in deities, others quite adamantly believe in the absence of deities. These are those we could label "theist" and "atheist". The rest, who just stand back and look at everything in front of them and adhere to the objective realization that it's impossible to make either call, would be the remaining "agnostics".
In other words, it is incomplete to define atheist & agnostic from the perspective of a theist because to them, of course they're both the same.
As one such 'true' agnostic myself, I can tell you that the reason for my choice has nothing to do with "wanting to hold to my disbelief tentatively". Instead, I must admit that our present knowledge of our environment has gaping holes in it everywhere; "fact" and "fiction" both. A scientific law is not a truth, nor even an explanation; rather it is an observation expressed as an equation for predicting the behavior of the universe, potentially in either direction along the time axis. All laws still hang in an uncertain state because it is always possible a new observation will be made which no longer fits into it.
What exactly is a "deity"? An intelligence higher than ours? An ability to effect upon the human-observable world an end which we as humans are currently incapable of achieving (turning stones into bread)? Could it be just one or the other, or both at once? One could imagine all varieties of things which may qualify as gods. If turning stones to bread is a deific act, does it cease to be as soon as humans create a technology capable of doing the same thing? Would the possession of the knowledge of building such technology advance us along the divinity scale, a sort of cybernetic posthuman being, or does it need to come to us without technology (but what are we, besides chemically driven machines; can anything a natural being creates truly be considered unnatural)?
More important still, what does it mean to "believe" in a deity? To worship that deity by submitting to its will at the expense of your own freedom? To simply have a suspicion that it exists? I would contend that the former is the sort of belief that causes mass suffering in our world, but the latter is harmless on its own.
Let's narrow the scope of this considerably. I'll focus on one sensory experience; vision. Here is a simulation of the visible light spectrum as experienced by individuals suffering from various types of color-blindness. I was fascinated to learn about a small island, Pingelap, where one single survivor of a devastating storm had a color-blindness gene that now afflicts 1/12 of the island's population. So imagine a group of humans who suffer from protanopy - no red, no green, no purple, etc! There are points on their visible spectrum that to them would appear exactly the same color, but to a normal person would be two completely different colors.
Now, you, a normal person, approach these people with two balls of equal volume but varying weight. You've painted these two balls in two such different colors that appear exactly the same to them. You get a neutral participant to shuffle these balls around as you and a protanopic look away. Then you each must indicate based solely on your vision which ball weighs more. You'll get the right answer every time. Probability suggests they won't.
Your ability is supernatural to them. And no matter how much you try and explain things to them, they will have trouble understanding because they are incapable of comprehending the difference between the colors of the balls. You insist a difference is there, but they cannot observe it. Now, you might eventually be able to explain light waves, the visual spectrum, and that each wavelength appears different to you but not to them, and they could even discover this themselves inadvertently through technology or you could help them build a device which would analize the light waves and indicate that one has "more of this quality" and the other has "less of this quality", and so they could use their device and now perform the test as equally flawlessly as you.
Basically, man becomes god, over time, through means either/or natural (evolutionary) and unnatural (technological). Then god isn't god anymore; god becomes whatever next thing man is not. Or if you want to be correct about it, Christian God is "all knowing, all seeing", so one day you could imagine man would hit that limit and now man really is God.
The point is, I currently feel I have no choice but to admit that there may be beings out there which exist entirely beyond my perception. As such, with my current natural abilities, I would not be capable of knowing this, nor may they be capable of telling me for any of a limitless number of scientific reasons. It may very well be that one of them intelligently created what I know as 'the universe', and they have some 'place' they are capable of transferring 'me' to if I 'choose' to 'disobey' them which, to me, would seem like 'hell'.
There may be, but there may not be. I simply don't know, and can't truly believe either way. Therefore I am agnostic. However, I tend to agree with the woman on the clip; what kind of megalomaniacal extra-dimensional being would require me to worship him? I definitely choose not to worship deities. If this/these being(s) are so extra-dimensional, they ought to be able to empathize with this feeble sentiment of mine. I thereby have resigned to say, que sera, sera!
Lastly, I would admit this belief -- God as the Christians define he/she/them/it is molarchy. They're no more capable of comprehending and documenting something like that than the rest of us.
So I would suggest, it may be more effective to approach Christians with the goal of making them see all these possibilities, rather than starting in from complete left field and trying to force them to admit to specific theories, like evolution.
- Login to post comments
Offline
As far as to why I connect cosmology with evolution, you have to see from my point of view you can't have evolution until you have a universe for it to occur in. That is why I connect the two.
Claiming that the theory of evolution is not valid without a working theory of abiogenesis / cosmology makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a working theory of meteorology.
Regardless of how the rain got there, umbrellas still kept you dry.
The theory of evolution does more that just explain how life has evolved, it can be used to predicts how life has and will evolve. And it does so with exceptional accuracy across several disciplines, including DNA and other fields of biology. Evolutionary theory has been to create new drugs and treatments that work on living things we see today. It has value that we can test and use.
In other words, regardless how the universe was created, the theory of evolution will continue to predict how life evolves on our planet. It will continue to be valuable in the fields of biology and medicine.
On the other hand, the Bible simply says that God created man. Period. It cannot be used to accurately predict anything about how life has evolved in the past or how it will evolve in the future. Any claims it might make regarding the origin of life simply cannot be substantiated. Nor can you use creationism to make any kind of contribution in biology or medicine.
What I find so amazing is how theists attack evolution, yet have no problem with other areas of science. Even though these other fields use the same scientific methods and produces similar beneficial results.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
- Login to post comments
Offline Satansbitch wrote:scottmax wrote:Ok now you are just ninja bashing, I won't stand for it...A Japanese ninja was pursuing a victim and took a shortcut through my house using special ninja house entering techniques. His sword swept my newspaper off the table as he passed through my house.Ninja? This was clearly the work of a pirate.
yeah say what you want about Pirates but let's leave the ninjas out of this. Ninjas never hurt anyone.
- Login to post comments
Offline
From a purely objective viewpoint, I would think a rational mind would have to admit that we are all truly "agnostic" -- nobody possesses a concrete knowledge as to either conclusion about whether god(s) exist(s). However, some among us quite adamantly believe in deities, others quite adamantly believe in the absence of deities. These are those we could label "theist" and "atheist". The rest, who just stand back and look at everything in front of them and adhere to the objective realization that it's impossible to make either call, would be the remaining "agnostics".
In other words, it is incomplete to define atheist & agnostic from the perspective of a theist because to them, of course they're both the same.
I think sometimes it's important to seperate technical and lay terms. It reminds me of the beginning of "The God Delusion" where Dawkins admits that he believes there is a very low possibility that god exists, but calls himself an atheist anyway. While technically and agnostic, he sees the probability so low that in practical terms he's an atheist.
It seems similar to the way some theist try to discredit evolution by saying rightly but in strong terms that its "just" an unproven theory and not a fact. Of course that's true in the narrow scientific definition where any theory can only be described as "disproven" or "not yet disproven." However outside that field in the way we use words everyday, evolution is true and proven.
I agree with you that being accurate in terminology about being atheist or agnostic is important, but it's also important to have some idea of how those words will be recieved. I don't think there's any problem with using practical or lay terms to describe ourselves or our ideas when we are in discussion with people who don't have a technical knowledge of the subject at hand. We have to use whichever words will create the most accurate impression on the recievers.
So I would suggest, it may be more effective to approach Christians with the goal of making them see all these possibilities, rather than starting in from complete left field and trying to force them to admit to specific theories, like evolution.
Just like there are all kinds of atheists, there are all kinds of theists and their beliefs can be challenged in many different ways. There isn't one approach that will work on everyone. The line of reasoning you outline seems interesting, although it doesn't lead to the kind of discussion that I personally would enjoy.
Still if you enjoy it I hope you try it out with some theists. Maybe you could do it right here on these boards somewhere so we can all see if it works well or not.
I'll look forward to that.
Why are they glad and sad and bad?
I do not know, go ask your dad.
- Login to post comments
No, I don't. The problem here is that you are invoking the idea of a deist or pantheist god -- which is so poorly defined it's irrefutable. And then you proceed to leap straight over to Jesus.
The simple problem is that there is no evidence to back up your claim. A god that is outside the natural universe is unfalsifiable. However, that is not the god that you truely believe in as the Christian God regularily interferes in our natural universe with his miracles, etc.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Exactly.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Damn double posts!
Yeah, I hear you. That is why I have been only twice. But if atheists want a church, this is the best we've got for now. It is hard to imagine putting together actual "atheist" churches.
Personally I mainly looked into UU because my wife is Christian. I will be willing to go to the UU church with my wife and kids every Sunday if she will agree to go there instead of her Christian church. Fortunately my local UU seems to be very naturalistic. God was mentioned by the guest speaker (a Sudanese Christian) but not by any of the people in the church.
Yep, that's why I get irritated when Christians tell me that I don't believe because I don't want to. They tell me that the evidence for God is obvious and that I am willfully ignoring it. Ironic.
Be unassimilated.
Satan is pro-life!
NO.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Sara, you seem like a smart person, but you are falling into the bad theist habit of repeating the same theist fallacy over and over and not responding to refutations of it. Simply saying that God is "not physical" means nothing. You are merely special pleading for God to be exempted from the rules that govern all things and offering no coherent description of what that would mean God actually is. We have no evidence for the existance of things that are not physical. Logic dictates that immaterial things cannot be said to exist at all. You have no ontology, no framework for understanding an immateral God. It is a fantasy.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Hey Scott! Thanks again for the thoughtful reply. This is good stuff.
Right. The only reason I said anything about “odds” was because you brought up “odds” as an argument against the existence of such a complex being. I was only saying that odds are an extremely relative thing. I’m not sure how you could figure the “odds” of such a complex being existing. But you’ve got me really interested in what Dawkins has to say about it. Thanks!
Forgive me for perhaps sounding ignorant (I guess this is just assumed coming from a theist anyway, eh? Hehe…) but why is this necessary? Is this not an epistemological presupposition that we must assume somewhat by a kind of “faith” from the outset?
I don’t mean to sound facetious at all when I say this (because I think it is entirely plausible), but that is beginning to sound a bit “metaphysical”—a charge, I know, that string theorists often get thrown at them. I think that it is interesting that the deeper into physics we seem to go, the more meta-physical it begins to sound: “…eternal…timeless…etc.” It seems as though, a la Sagan, the Cosmos begins to take on the form of deity in a way. I don’t really understand why it is such an “irrational” jump, then, to speak of a “God” in the same way. Either one seems, to me, to be quite plausible. But I’m still learning.
Actually, from what I understand, that would be better called a “God of the Gaps” argument. Philosophically speaking, the “Argument from Ignorance” is, as I understand, a negative/counter-argument, not a positive/affirming-argument. One type of Argument from Ignorance says, “I cannot imagine X to be true, therefore X must not be true.” Thus the Argument from Ignorance could just as easily be applied to the Atheist as the Theist. As I hinted at above, it sounds as though Atheists have their own version of “god of the gaps,” with the Eternal Cosmos itself filling any gaps of knowledge.
But I think there is a problem intrinsic to this statement. If, for the sake of argument, you presuppose an infinitely complex God, you would also necessarily have to presuppose that the attempt by a finite creature to make such “predictions” of confirming evidence would have to be taken with such a tremendous grain of salt it would be a nearly pointless experiment. It would seem to be completely illogical to give any kind of absolute, normative credence to such predictions. We can only guess. I have my own guesses why, but that is for another long post. I’d rather get these things out of the way first.
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
I agree with you. As I mentioned, I am only using the extra-dimensionality in analogous terms. As theologians such as Paul Tillich and Rudoph Otto have said before, if we assume God, we must also assume that we can ultimately speak of him only in symbolic terms. But I totally agree that our perception of “natural” and “supernatural” is really contingent upon how broad our thinking is. String physicist Brian Greene even says that superstring physics might be what manifests what we call “miracles,” but this is in reference to smaller, curled up dimensions, not “bigger” dimensions. I would say that if we presuppose “bigger” dimensions, the distinction between “natural” and “supernatural” (at least to us) would be that “natural” is what happens within the framework of our dimensional existence and “super-natural” phenomenon would be what happens when the “bigger” dimensions intersect with our smaller. As I’ve mentioned before, I think its extremely interesting that the deeper we go into physics, the more seemingly metaphysical the language starts to sound.
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
Not at all. I go through every day quite content in my assumption that I may know nothing and that anything I think is true could be contradicted in an eyeblink by new data. No need for faith, no need for God.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
<
Correct. Human beings are not the most efficient runners or the strongest creatures on the planet. If our environment changed in such a way that unassisted running or lifting of heavy objects became a critical necessity for our survival, it's likely that human beings would become extinct. We've seen this sort of scenario in the past with other species and it is accurately predicted by the theory of evolution.
I must have missed class that afternoon, could you refresh my memory to the scenario's that have caused extinction in the past due to unassisted running/lifting?
Thank you>
Actually if you were to work out you'd find that humans can run down most animals. We aren't very good at sprinting but we're excellent at long distance which is something most animals just can't keep up. This is one way other biological anthropologists support the ideas that we hunted.
Jesus saves....he passes to Moses...Moses shoots..he scores!!!!
All morons hate it when you call them a moron.
Bio Anthro whooo (´･ω･｀)
Ha ha…I LOVE the IPU argument! It always makes me laugh. It’s one of the atheists’ most clever ones, I think.
Good points. However, you do understand that this pre-supposes that bottom-up “evidence” in the here-and-now is the only way to ascertain truth, and it rejects the possibility of top-bottom revelation in the past tout court, without qualification—which, in my opinion, is a mistake. Presuppose a top-bottom revelation in the past, such as in Jesus, and you have both your (past) evidence and your imagination (i.e., the broadness of mind to believe that such a thing could have happened in the past). There are many convincing reasons or “evidences”{1} to believe in such a past revelation, but you also need the imagination to make the Kierkegaardian “leap” into that hermeneutical spiral of Christianity.
{1.} Note that I come from a Critical Realist epistemology, and do not believe in such a thing as “absolute proofs” of anything in the Foundationalist sense. Note also that I’ll be happy to go more into depth with these “evidences” in the future, but as I’m carrying on multiple conversations at this point, I just don’t have the bandwidth to go into this now. But please do remind me later. I want to handle questions of the possibility of a God first, and then move into the questions of the possibility of Christianity. I imagine they will dovetail really soon though (if they haven’t already).
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
Yeah that and the spears...
Bro, you’ve got to understand, you can’t prove me wrong on arguments I haven’t made yet. I have not made an argument for Jesus yet, so you cannot say that I “proceed to leap straight over to Jesus.” I’m saying, argue against what I’ve actually written, not where you imagine me going in the future. That’s completely counter-productive.
Right now I am dealing with the a priori notion of God, primarily in the form of the answer to the question “Who Created God”—a question that Cameron and Comfort didn’t answer in the debate. When an a priori possibility is first established, then we’ll move on to other questions. You are using claims of a lack of evidence to counter an a priori argument, and that is a non sequitur—it doesn’t follow.
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
If god is real then produce him. Tell him to give me a call.. He should know the number if you are correct.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
...lol...
"Here Goddie... C'mere boy! GOOD boy! Now go call satansbitch and I'll give you a Goddie biscuit! Go on now! There ya go!"
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
This is still the same thing I'm talking about though, none of the writers of the Bible were professional writers, a lot of them used scribes to write what they were saying, and yet you and others on this site tear it apart based upon what in other history books may be considered minor discrepancies, and according to the high standards you are using, most history books (if not all) would be moot..
Even books on evolution have discrepancies based on who is trying to put across which theory they have made up.. and now textom brings up another example that somebody has made up, I say made up only because nobody knows, they are making something up, based upon something that may or may not have happened, nobody was there to write it down but you state it almost as being fact, like "look here you go, here's the example you want." Yet you won't take a book written by people who actually lived on this planet and wrote about what they saw as fact without nitpicking it apart, who is actually using the made up story here?
Except that the bible claims to be the inerrant inspired word of God. Are you telling me that God can't get a book written without mistakes being made in it?
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Actually, it never claims to be "inerrant." Many Christians claim that it is inerrant, but that is not in the Bible itself. It does claim to be "inspired," but that is not the same thing as "inerrant."
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
But revelation in the past also relies on evidence. How do we know what Jesus said aside from the evidence that points to it? And given that our knowledge of revelation relies on evidence, can't we complain about the problems with the evidence for Jesus' words and question the quality of the revelation on that basis?
Even if we could feel confident that we had very accurate accounts of these historical revelations, on what basis do we differentiate between fiction, hoaxes, hallucinations and error? Why should we believe Jesus? If we are stretching our imaginations, where do we draw the line between fantasy and reality?
Empiricism, skepticism and the scientific method are robust precisly because they are narrow in scope. We have to admit that as human beings we are subject to all manner of error when it comes to gathering and processing information. Communication breakdowns, perceptual limitations, bias, conflict of interest, bad data - there are a million ways we can get tripped up on our way to the truth. If we admit the products of imagination into the discussion, we only increase the chances that we'll be wrong.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Jabwocky,
I know of no history books that claims to present a unified theory of the entire universe and mankind - past, present and future. If appears that non-theists subject the Bible to a high-standard of accuracy, it's because of the high-value that Christians claim the Bible has in everyones lives, not just yours.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Good points. However, you do understand that this pre-supposes that bottom-up “evidence” in the here-and-now is the only way to ascertain truth, and it rejects the possibility of top-bottom revelation in the past tout court, without qualification—which, in my opinion, is a mistake. Presuppose a top-bottom revelation in the past, such as in Jesus, and you have both your (past) evidence and your imagination (i.e., the broadness of mind to believe that such a thing could have happened in the past). There are many convincing reasons or “evidences”{1} to believe in such a past revelation, but you also need the imagination to make the Kierkegaardian “leap” into that hermeneutical spiral of Christianity.
{1.} Note that I come from a Critical Realist epistemology, and do not believe in such a thing as “absolute proofs” of anything in the Foundationalist sense. Note also that I’ll be happy to go more into depth with these “evidences” in the future, but as I’m carrying on multiple conversations at this point, I just don’t have the bandwidth to go into this now. But please do remind me later. I want to handle questions of the possibility of a God first, and then move into the questions of the possibility of Christianity. I imagine they will dovetail really soon though (if they haven’t already).
Flatlanderox,
Interesting point that we should consider "top down" approaches as well... but the problem begs the question, "where is the top?" Claims of "revelations" as I understand them (based on the mystical notion of "intuition" [not for example, Carrier's notion that intuition is based on personal skills), are unqualified at any time, even in their own day.
"If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway" -The Clash