The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail
Offline Hey all. It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy.
The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading. It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here. The book is written by Becky Garrison.
If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't. So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book? Well, I'm glad you asked. This is a book written by a True Christian. HUH? For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs. Caposkia is my name.
Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world.
This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white. How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc. She touches on all of this. I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone. If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it. It's not a very long book.
When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress. Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress.
Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end. This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian. I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "
Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully. I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God. This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.
This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following.
It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information. It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses. As said, it is from the point of view of a True Christian.
enjoy, let me know your thoughts. I would also request, please be respectful in your responses. I'm here to have mature discussions with people.
- Login to post comments
Offline It took me walking away from the belief I grew up in to find Christ. I grew up catholic and did not agree with that doctrine or their approach. After a divorce and my dad remarrying to a Jehovah's Witness, i put it upon myself to prove why they were wrong only to find I didn't know much either. from there i studied and made sure I only accepted and taught what I could back up and support.
This is a wicked short blip of years of study and questioning of many willing ministers and pastors amidst others.
Though we're very far from the NT in the forum, you should check out PJTS forum OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real. We're going step by step through the Bible with a historical focus.
What is the one thing that convinces you?
Quote:it's interesting you think it must be one thing that convinces me. Especially with your background. It's many things, some of what i listed in the previous post.
You wanted a starting point. Then what is the primary thing that convinces you, favorite thing from which to start. I've study the texts of the Bible for 40 years mostly NT since I don't enjoy Hebrew as much as Greek ( now the LXX is OK). I move further and further away from any idea of finding an acuuracy in the NT. If you want start there. Tell me the Christmas story from your perspective.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa
- Login to post comments
Offline I haven't been... and I apologize if anything I said was hypocritical. Point it out, and I'll make sure I clarify my intentions.
Stop it.
You keep asking us what we would accept for evidence. We keep telling you, and YOU refuse to apply that to your own claims. DON'T ASK US WHAT WE WOULD ACCEPT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THE WORK TO CONVINCE US.
You know you cant convince us by an established universal method. All YOU can do is to make excuses as to why you don't want to use scientific method. THAT, makes YOU a hypocrite.
You have spent countless hours trying to convince us how simple your argument is, yet no credible lab, or medical community, or drug company, or computer company, or mechanical engineering company, or NASA, is beating down your door to to apply your "method" to create all the modern things REAL METHOD does, all the time.
You can market shit as ice cream if you find gullible people to buy it. Your problem is that we demand more than, "trust me".
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline You wanted a starting point. Then what is the primary thing that convinces you, favorite thing from which to start. I've study the texts of the Bible for 40 years mostly NT since I don't enjoy Hebrew as much as Greek ( now the LXX is OK). I move further and further away from any idea of finding an acuuracy in the NT. If you want start there. Tell me the Christmas story from your perspective.
You still seem to think that there was this dawning of one piece of information that caused me to have an *enlightening* moment and i said TWANG!!! Jesus!
No, but you want me to pick a starting point. I do love going through the statistics of such things as life and DNA and the probability of life happening and the likelyhood of DNA being evolved as complex as it is as well as the lack of evidence to support interspecial evolution.
I will admit, though I know a bit of Hebrew, I'm not as familiar with the Greek, though i know some of the basic rules still. Is that an angle you want to take? I'm hoping also you're not one that's going to look at a 1 in 1,000,000 statistic and excuse it by saying... "well, it still happened didn't it... or that means there's still a chance and therefore it happened without a creator." If so, we need to take a different approach.
- Login to post comments
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah — the king of Assyria.”
Then you hypocritically willfully ignore what we tell you we would accept.
It is reasonable to use tools that are universal and transcend labels. "Metaphysics" is nothing but old comic book philosophy. You have back peddled since day one almost 3 years ago when this thread started.
You tried to use the book in the OP as an outside source to prove the validity of the bible. Then when that didn't work you went into the bible. Then when that didn't work you tried to interject science. Then when that didn't work you tried to make "metaphysics" a lagit method, which it is not.
THERE IS ONLY ONE REASONABLE WAY TO FIND EVIDENCE
We will keep repeating it until you get it.
1. Collect data with scientific method.
2. Test and falsify data to insure quality of data
3. Build a model based on prior scientific method
4. Plug proven data into model
5. Set up control groups to filter out possible errors
6. Repeat repeat repeat repeat to get a huge sample to monitor possible observations of consistent patterns.
7. Write down your findings
8. Hand everything from step one, with an explanation of your data and methodology to independent peer review for them to repeat what you have done.
IF they come to the same conclusions you have, then you have something.
You are NOT a scientist. You are an apologist. You are not looking for evidence for your claims, you are looking for justifications for your position. Evidence requires testing and falsification. You have done absolutely nothing close to that here nor do I think you could take any of the claptrap you have typed over the years into any sort of credibly lab setting and have it confirmed.
You just like what you believe and that is it.
DO NOT ASK US AGAIN WHAT WE WOULD FIND REASONABLE. THE ABOVE IS THE ONLY REASONABLE TOOL.
Now stop being a hypocrite. If you are going to ask us what is reasonable, then go do your homework. But don't ask us what we would accept then ignore it.
All you are saying to us is "I don't want to do it that way because I know I cant"
WELL? THAT SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING!
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
many have
even better
finally, someone on here who actually can defend themselves with the languages and knows what they're talking about.
It took me walking away from the belief I grew up in to find Christ. I grew up catholic and did not agree with that doctrine or their approach. After a divorce and my dad remarrying to a Jehovah's Witness, i put it upon myself to prove why they were wrong only to find I didn't know much either. from there i studied and made sure I only accepted and taught what I could back up and support.
This is a wicked short blip of years of study and questioning of many willing ministers and pastors amidst others.
Though we're very far from the NT in the forum, you should check out PJTS forum OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real. We're going step by step through the Bible with a historical focus.
I challenge you to point out one post (specific number please) that I ignored and did not address what anyone has told me they'd accept. i'm not talking about answers you're not happy with, I'm talking about failure to address.
I know, and you're a unicorn fanatic. I get it.
You seem to forget what has already been clearly stated by me.
I used the book... and I quote myself from a previous post; 'simply to start a conversation and see where it goes". Sorry to tell you, after almost 2000 posts later, it worked.
explain to me why I wouldn't go to the Bible eventually in the conversation about the God of the Bible and what the Bible says about it.
are you kidding me? so now science doesn't work? dude, how do you accept anything?
you're right, open your eyes and look for it.
*sigh* and I'll keep repeating myself.. though I'm convinced you won't get it.
I have offered many approaches, you cowered into a corner.
I have given you a means to do so and suggested you try it. You shuddered at the effort you might have to put forth. Why you and not me? Well, because I could tell you the results, but you won't accept them because regardless of the sources I represent to you, none will be reliable enough for you to accept, therefore, you should try it yourself. Remember the people groups at the concert event study?
we've discussed this
What model would you prefer? We couldn't get that far, i couldn't get you back out of your corner.
we discussed this and I have given you the opportunity to help me implement it though you fear effort and couldn't take initiative.
which if you wanted to start from scratch, would take years and years, but I welcome you to work on it with me.
more years of compiling data
I have given you the case study to try on your own, remember your corner that you cower to?
so why do you shy away from it? why not try it?
you have absolutely proven that you're not one. you can't even grasp basic scientific logic. Therefore, you have no ground to stand on that could even support your ability to judge whether I'm a scientist or not.
nah, bad support. you apparently aren't familiar with that approach to theology either.
usually people who are looking for justification of their position become redundant, offer little compromise or cooperation in conversation and always resort back to an excuse defense that basically states that they have to be right and the opposing side is wrong without logical reasoning.
I can say i have not done that. Remember I never once said "you're wrong", only "show me why I'm wrong".
you have not allowed me to. I have offered to discuss with you, before we get anywhere, you resort back to your .... uh... excuse defense that basically states that yo have to be right and I have to be wrong without logical reasoning.
You're right, I haven't gotten close to that "on here'. Why? Because anyone who knows they want to make progress with me has started a different forum with me so that we could stay focused and beat out details without being sidetracked.
can you defend yourself any better than that? Honestly. If I'm wrong, great! let's talk about it, i need to understand why. Redundancies and irrationalities are not going to do it for me.
I didn't ask what you would find reasonable. Are you literate? I don't mean that statement in an angry manner, I'm honestly curious. I stated "I always start off by asking what you would accept as reasonable evidence"
Not what you'd "find reasonable". Any excuse to support your state of mind though right?
I haven't been... and I apologize if anything I said was hypocritical. Point it out, and I'll make sure I clarify my intentions.
I don't and you know it.
not at all. Think about it, you want me to give you God DNA to study in a petri dish. It's not logical or rational. If God is real, it's not logical or rational, no one could give you that for proof. That's not how it works... It'd be like me asking you to give me a graviton so i can study it under a microscope. You and I both know it's not a logical rational request because even though science accepts the idea, no one can actually harvest a graviton and look at it, we'd have to study gravity using other means. I guess if you really want to study gravity with a microscope, you could pick one up and drop it and then record the results, but it's hardly a reasonable tool. might as well use a ball. It's cheaper and a more rational means of study.
you're right... so what have we learned?