Atheist vs. Theist
Why Christians should be the biggest defenders of science
Submitted by nigelTheBold on August 12, 2009 - 10:50am.So, I got snookered into visiting the blog of a gent named Tom Estes, called "Hard Truth" (no URL for you, Tom). I followed his link from Pharyngula, as he was trying to defend Ken Ham. Y'know, the Creation Museum (which is about as museumy as a wax museum), "If science contradicts the Bible, then science is wrong" -- that Ken Ham.
Aaaaanyway, the comments are much more interesting than Tom Estes himself. As one bloke pointed out in the comments, "Why are the atheist posts often humorous, but the Christians are never funny at all?" Actually, Tom doesn't engage much in the comments, and actively deletes links to some other Christian sites.
It occurred to me, during all this exchange, that Tom and Ken and all those folks who use the Bible to trump science are wrong.
Not just wrong in the "denying reality" sense (although that plays into it), but wrong in that they are denying god's greatest work!
Let's assume that god exists, and he is the god of the Christian Bible. So, with that assumption in mind, I will now capitalize God, and He, and other random Words associated with Him, in the Christian style.
Let me put on my Christian Apologetics hat.
----------------------------------------------
Man is corrupt.
MichaelMcF vs Luminon
Submitted by MichaelMcF on August 11, 2009 - 4:40am.Hello folks!
As I'm tired of dealing with some of the nonsense Big Science(TM) crap that gets espoused by Luminon, and that constantly derails threads, I thought I'd set somewhere up that we could "discuss" things without trampling all over other people's conversations.
The first part of this will be a continuing response to some of the crazy being thrown about in inspectormustards tin foil hat thread. I hope then to continue the conversation we were having in the visions in the form of dreams thread, which I have only not responded to because I honestly grew weary of the bullshit.
So there you have it Luminon. I'm happy to respond to everything you've got here and we can leave the other threads in peace. What do you say?
All good theists must have an answer to this question
Submitted by A_Nony_Mouse on August 9, 2009 - 1:01am.If you are claiming there is a god or gods what is the chain of authority for this knowledge?
Take for example relativity. We know who first enunciated it. We know the evidence upon which it was built. We can derive the same thing ourselves independent of him. We can verify it independently.
Similarly there is the Grand Canyon. We have heard of it. We have seen pictures of it. We can go see it. We can verify measurements of it.
From where came this knowledge of your god or gods? By what method was this knowledged derived? How can it be verified? How can we do for this knowledge what we can do for every other item of knowledge?
It was revealed? How do we verify that? How do we double check the revelation? How do we test it if it is correct? How do we know it was revealed?
If in fact you do believe in a god or gods you must have some credible basis for this belief.
If you do not, why did you start believing in the first place?
Origin of Universe Qs for Atheists
Submitted by Aedus on August 7, 2009 - 2:45pm.What are your thoughts on the origins of the universe? I guess most atheists would subscribe to some sort of cyclical multiverse theory, in which case universes & galaxies are constantly being created throughout all eternity. But is this an adequate explanation? I'm aware that most atheists will reply with "I don't know," but hopefully we can extrapolate.
Can an infinite number of universes be quantified or rationalized? Why should the "default" state of the multiverse be one that creates galaxies and then life? Even if the universe existed for perpetuity, motion is not a property of matter, so what got the multiverse moving in the first place? Theists would say this thing is God. Why can't it be God, or, what do atheists offer instead of God?
Why pick on Kent Hovind?
Submitted by ubuntuAnyone on August 6, 2009 - 5:50am.Not that I like the guy or anything, but he seems to be the whipping boy for numerous websites. Even RRS has a top level link for him.
I know for certain that atheists think he has bad arguments, but that not all. Many Christians, even a large number of young earthers, think his arguments are bad. Answers in Genesis released a statement listing arguments not to use, many of which Kent Hovind uses.
Would it not be more profitable to discuss things written by WL Craig, NT Wright, or Doug Geivit, Paul Copan, or Alister McGrath? Anydanyway...whether I agree with these guys are not, there writings are certainly more stimulating. 
Religious people more likely to give?
Submitted by Cpt_pineapple on August 2, 2009 - 1:51pm.With all the stat topics recently, I decided to do some digging and found a poll about charity in Canada, US, and the UK.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102961/charitable-giving-differs-canada-uk-us.aspx
In Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, those who say religion is an important part of their daily lives are more likely than those who don't to say they have donated money and volunteered time. In both cases, the differences are most pronounced in the United States. Seventy-one percent of U.S. respondents who say religion is important in their lives also say they donated money to charity in the last month, while 50% of those who say religion is not important say they donated. The gap is somewhat smaller in regard to volunteering time. Fifty percent of U.S. respondents who say religion is important say they volunteered time, compared with 34% among respondents who say religion is not important.
The importance of religion does not appear to be a factor in Canadians' or Americans' likelihood to report being a good Samaritan. Respondents in Canada and the United States who say religion is an important part of their daily lives are no more likely than those who say it is not to say they had helped a stranger in need in the last month. However, in the United Kingdom, those who say religion is an important part of their daily lives are more likely by -- 17 percentage points -- to say they had helped a stranger.
Brain Scientist, Stroke, and Spiritual Enlightenment
Submitted by Paisley on July 31, 2009 - 12:51pm.Brain scientist Jill Bolte Taylor experiences spiritual enlightenment after suffering a stroke. Below is the link to a video in which she recounts her story. Enjoy.
/www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
Question for Everyone: What differentiates Christian Morality from Atheist?
Submitted by Hambydammit on July 30, 2009 - 8:41pm.I just stunned myself with a rather interesting thought. I was thinking about how Francis Collins' evangelical Christian beliefs might get in the way of his objectivity as director of the NIH. When it came down to brass tacks, I could only think of a few areas where Christians typically differ from atheists in their assessment of what is good or bad morally:
1) Sex. Most Christians have some kind of non-scientific view of sex. Abstinence before marriage, masturbation is bad, etc, etc.
2) Abortion. The overwhelming majority of people who support banning abortion are Christians. It's damn hard to find a non-theist who favors banning abortion.
3) Marriage, childbearing, childrearing. Christians think of marriage as a magic pact between god and two people. Atheists don't. Some Christians think of children as the manifestation of God's will. Atheists tend to view them as the result of sexual intercourse.
4) Homosexuality. Many Christians believe homosexuality is immoral. Most atheists do not.
Can anyone think of any common Christian moral beliefs that differ substantially from a naturalist morality?
Theism and behavioural apologetics.
Submitted by Di66en6ion on July 27, 2009 - 11:15am. I'm not sure where this will lead and I'm not really posing it as a fact or an opinion but as a curiosity.
When I see articles hit the news about parents who have killed their children because "the devil told them to do it", I think to myself that maybe the people around them didn't see the obvious mental illness because of the nature of some religions. When you think the devil is real then some (or entire communities in some cases) will externalize their problems into the form of some kind of evil; some think they can fight back with some kind of spiritual warfare or something. I'm just wondering if this leads to a wider range of apathy/excuses under the guise of superstitious lies.
That is that perhaps mental illnesses go unnoticed for far longer than they should because of supernatural beliefs about life processes.
