I've read posts by theists who attempt to justify their beliefs scientifically by pointing to universal experiences among theists, particularly altered states of consciousness (meditation, prayer, etc) which are said to produce "cosmic, trancendental experiences". The uniformity among those who have reported such experiences has been cited as "proof" that these experiences are "real". Well no one doubts the reality of an experience, but is just having this experience REALLY evidence that it stems from a common, supernatural source? Does it prove that consciousness is something separate and independent from the brain and does it point to evidence of a personal god? Many theists, no doubt would want to claim it as such, for such experiences are often the chief motivation for folks to embrace a theistic stance. They cite changed lives and a host of "feelings' that they claim are "indescribable" as "evidence". Is this really evidence and what is it evidence of?

Enter Dr. Michael Persinger of the Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Persinger

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. (Galatians 1:18-20)

What writings of the New Testament are actually from Paul?  I know of no serious scholars that deny that Paul wrote Galatians.  In fact you will read in any search or book that is of any reputable scholar that Galatians is authentic. Paul claims in these verses to have met  James, the brother of the Lord.

The mythicist position is one in which there is a claim that no historical person exists behind the myth of the Christian Christ.  A mythicist must therefore go against all of of scholarship and state that Galatians is a forgery.  Or she must make another statement that is even harder to demonstrate. Paul is lying!!! 

Now certainly we can show how wrong Paul is about claims such as a resurrection or the idea that there is a god that requires a human sacrifice.  But these are his real beliefs.  They are not intentional deception.  If he is deluded about such things  could he be deluded about something like visiting actual  flesh and blood people?  Kidding aside these are different categories of knowledge.  We are left with whether Paul is telling the truth or he is lying. 

Hello rogersherrer

No rush on this, I will let you choose the topic, and go first.  If you want to set any rules let me know. 

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=62318

Let it be resolved.

This is a private debate between myself and rogersherrer.

Please refrain from posting in this thread.

Hi all,

I was just browsing around the web and stumbled across this site. Personally, I wouldn't be able to make my points against Atheism on this board with the Theistic knowledge I have. However, what I can tell you is my own personal story and I don't see how anyone could argue that since I am in fact me! And I will gladly be put under oath stating that I am me 

As a Christian, I am at a minimum called to be a witness for Christ. My only hope is for anyone who doesn't believe that my words will give them something to think about. So here it goes.

I grew up the youngest of nine children in South Texas (5 sisters, 3 brothers). We were by no means rich but we never missed a meal. My mother is Catholic and I was raised such (more on this later). I attended Catholic school and Church growing up. My father was a decent man but no churchgoer. He loved cigarettes and the beer can a little more that he should have. He died when I was 7 years old of basically bad health due to the drinking and smoking all of his life.

Not having a father from that point impacted me a heck of a lot more than I could have imagined at the time. Aside from not having the appropriate discipline, there are certain things a young boy needs that only a father can provide (children need fathers and not just the weekend visitor type either). I really missed out on the fun and times that my older brothers had.

 After watching him debate live, is it safe to say that he's the theist's best choice for apologetics? My biased views aside, I think he defeated both Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

Three (or two at minimum) things will be required. You will have to read and THINK for yourselves.

Watch this: (about 1.5 hours long)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

"Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public [7/2009] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 16717]

Then read either of Gary Taubes excellent two books:

"Good Calories/Bad Calories: the controversial science of diet and nutrition" (search amazon)

or the more recent "Why we get fat and what do to about it" (amazon again). "Why we get fat" is shorter and 'less technical' but still crammed full of the science of the last 100 plus years. 

Here's something we don't have to extrapolate back millions and billions of years to get an answer to. We can test it......over and over again in the human population, and have.

The shocker...the science is right...it's the 'consensus' that's wrong.....and it's created a lot of sick and obese people in America.

The imaginary battle between "flesh" and "spirit" is as old as theism
itself, though the definition of "spirit" has varied throughout the ages. It's
understandable why theistic thought champions the "spiritual" over physical
because that which is "physical" is associated with the temporal, and thus
associated with death. "Spirit" implies something supernatural that is supposed
to transcend death.

However in modern times,with the advent of popular new speculative studies
in physics, theists have a field day trying to redefine and reinvent terms like
"spirit" or "spirit realm".

Some imagine the spirit realm to be physical, that is belonging to the same
reality as the "flesh" just on a different dimension ( some like to infuse
string theory here) or perhaps it's another universe entirely, perhaps a
universe of "less dense matter" ( multiverse theory, it can get really
interesting when theists, especially those with just enough knowledge of physics
to make them dangerous spout pseudo science babble).

What really baffles me , though is why many theists feel that the "spirit
realm" MUST be something other than matter or energy. What difference would it
make,assuming there really is a "spirit realm", if it was composed of less dense
matter, energy or something entirely different? Is matter evil? Is energy?

I've decided that I'm going to post this every couple of months.

Matt Slick has a radio show that's on weekdays from 5 to 6 PM mountain time.

If you think you have good arguments against his position or you think that you can prove his position to be unjustified, then you should be able to refute him on the air.  He has lost debates on his own show before, so you have no excuse.

And let's assume that he does cut you off, hang up on you, and so forth; wouldn't that just make him look bad?  And let's say that Christians will act like sheep and not acknowledge your victory; what do you care?

If any atheists here have a spine, then please call in.  You can discuss his TAG argument, cosmological argument, or arguments from the Bible.  Here's the website:

http://carm.org/radio