tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post7053788226267871043..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: How to Undercut Christianity at a Fundamental LevelUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37556327339577704252010-03-22T17:31:10.421-04:002010-03-22T17:31:10.421-04:00Mr. Loftus....So....um Rush and Glenn are right ab...Mr. Loftus....So....um Rush and Glenn are right about the slippery slope?!!???? Say it ain't so!!!!!mmcelhaneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567242628894011776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89911684144142464732010-03-21T17:17:17.842-04:002010-03-21T17:17:17.842-04:00On her blog Sarah in the post titled, "Discus...On her blog Sarah in the post titled, "Discussions with Atheists," Sarah said<br /><b><br />I think dissenters and non-believers need to re-evaluate the character of Jesus, the evidence for His life, death, and resurrection, reconsider the design and anthropomorphic arguments (i.e. humanity’s need for God), and recognize the fact that Christianity provides the best explanation of the world as we know it.<br /></b><br />This is simply bizarre. Christianity provides the best explanation of the world as we know it? Tragically bizarre.<br /><br />And this woman has spent many many years and lots and lots of money to get an education that leaves her unable to evaluate the "world as we know it." She lives to confirm her presuppositions. She apparently sees clearly anything and everything which she construes(erroneously) as supporting her religious ideas, while she remains blythely ignorant of the better explanations for the "world as we know it" which come from science.<br /><br />She has a litany of "immaterial properties" - love, beauty and the like - which from her state of ignorance she confidently states cannot be accounted for by naturalism. Thus, she states that the atheist/naturalist worldview is self-refuting. She knows this absolutely. Her ignorance of naturalistic explanations for any of the qualities and characteristics she lists, leaves her convinced of her of the veracity of her religious presuppostions. This is pathetic, truly pathetic.<br /><br />In many of her posts she exposes her intentional ignorance of science and nature, then declares unequivocally that her ignorance is sufficient evidence for the failure of science and naturalism. What's more she completely ignores that whenever religion, her religion, Christianity, has ventured to make a statement about the natural world, no doubt informed by her purported creator of the universe, it has been wrong. Her God has been wrong, over and over and over again, her God has been wrong. Still, she assigns her faith to this thing that can't get the easy things right.<br /><br />Then, she has the balls to say "Christianity provides the best explanation of the world as we know it." What a crock of shit. Sarah constitutes a perfect example of how disciplines like theology, and philosophy applied to the mindless defence of ideologies fail us all.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89045308331810916602010-03-19T22:47:53.927-04:002010-03-19T22:47:53.927-04:00Sarah,
You said,
All the Christian denominations ...Sarah,<br />You said,<br /><b><br />All the Christian denominations agree on the same thing; that Jesus lived, died, and rose again.<br /></b><br />This is verifiably wrong. Some Christianities, for instance, disregard the Bible altogether. Some Christianities really are atheistic. Seriously. Doug Groothuis at Denver Seminary might tell you they aren't "True Christians," but they might say the same about Doug. I personally know active Christian clergymen who say things like "supernaturalism is phoney-baloney" and "Jesus was a nice man and the words ascribed to him are worth emulating, but he was not a god." When you make statements like that above, you expose your ignorance of the broad diversity among Christians. These are not just slight "in-house" matters or disagreements. Seventh Day Adventists are a separate sect for one simple reason: they think you are wrong not to be them. Really. They see you as condemned for not being like them. Ol' Pope Ratzinger, oops, I mean Benedict says it plain: if you ain't Roman Catholic, you have no hope of salvation. He's pretty serious about it. If your neurons don't spell out, "I am Roman Catholic," your ass is doomed. For that esteemed theologian everything else is meaningless, without your first professing to be Roman Catholic. Only then do you have a reasonable chance to be saved.<br /><br />Before you can advocate for Christianity, Sarah, you must first understand what that means. You clearly do not.<br /><br />Please understand that many of us here have jumped through many a Christian hoop before we arrived here. We are not without our own Christian experiences. Also, please understand that no arguments for Christianity are compelling. How do we know? There are many religious scholars from non-Christian religions who have closely examined the arguments in favor of Christianity, and they find them wanting. Many of these scholars are theistic but still they do not find arguments for Christianity compelling. Surely, an atheist cannot be expected to reach a conclusion other than that arrived at by a serious religious scholar. I also find it fascinating that the One True God whispers mutually contradictory things to Jews, Christians and Muslims. Isn't it the same god?<br /><br />Christianity is not compelling except to those who already believe. The arguments for Christianity do not convince those already predisposed to believe in gods, but are not already Christian. We atheists are only as skeptical about Christianity as the most esteemed scholars from non-Christian religions.<br /><br />So, don't be too hard on us poor politically underprivileged atheists. We are only mimicking the stance of the best academics from non-christian religions.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41812029548887875382010-03-19T15:17:04.639-04:002010-03-19T15:17:04.639-04:00LOL....wow Sarah opened up a new can of worms here...LOL....wow Sarah opened up a new can of worms here....lolshanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118637281630775156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9394708057587843102010-03-19T14:50:53.691-04:002010-03-19T14:50:53.691-04:00Sarah,
If you are appealing to Greenleaf I must a...Sarah,<br /><br />If you are appealing to Greenleaf I must assume you cribbed that from McDowell so, I have one question, why are you ashamed to admit you are a fundamentalist?Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21651962948585093202010-03-19T14:42:19.134-04:002010-03-19T14:42:19.134-04:00You mean, how can I say the joy of Christ within i...<b>You mean, how can I say the joy of Christ within is indescribable when I agree with Paul that words can't apply convey what the feeling is like? That would be more in line with what I wrote.</b><br /><br />Brad, <br /><br />So, to clarify, are you saying indescribability is litmus test? <br /><br />However, many Buddhists, including those who view Buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion (such as myself), would say the peace of 'enlightenment' is also indescribable. For example, 'Enlightenment' is just a word that really doesn't convey the experience. It's just a consistent way of pointing to it. <br /><br />As such, It's unclear how you could say the peace you experience points to the existence of the Christian God, rather than a natural response to meditation, practice or philosophy. <br /><br />Certainly, Christopher Guest's character could not describe why his amps must be louder. He merely repeated, "These go to eleven." as if that somehow implicitly described the means by which they were better.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64766920640184223962010-03-19T12:14:38.775-04:002010-03-19T12:14:38.775-04:00Sarah,
There were no Adam and Eve, so there was no...Sarah,<br />There were no Adam and Eve, so there was no reason, like original sin, for anyone go through being "sacrificed," unsacrificed, and then going away. We evolved. Get over it.<br /><br />Just like the other primates and other carnivores, part of our nature is that we are sometimes nice and sometimes not nice. There is no disembodied "eeville" wafting on the zephyrs awaiting the opportunity to infect one of us hapless humans. There is no Uncle Satan zapping the susceptible with an "eeville" raygun.<br /><br />We're human animals - animalia, chordata, mammalia, ... , Homo sapien, sapien - with all the admiral and nasty traits that that entails.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14451622291854086182010-03-19T10:33:41.988-04:002010-03-19T10:33:41.988-04:00Sarah,
You seem to be one of those poor lost souls...Sarah,<br />You seem to be one of those poor lost souls who has been failed by philosophy. On your own blog you are Christian one moment, atheist a bit later, and back to Christian later still. The question now is when will you find a new favorite philosophy and advocate for that.<br /><br />You embrace silly notions like intelligent design, citing the atheist philosopher Bradley Monton to support your claims, even though he presents no evidence for intelligent design, while rejecting the actual science presented by the Christian, Kenneth Miller, which refutes intelligent design. Your philosophy fails you since you lack the domain-specific knowledge and understanding necessary to evaluate the science. Prayers and their imagined objects, the gods, give no one knowledge or understanding. That's how it is with philosophy, also. You need to study some actual science and gain some real understanding rather than thoughtlessly regurgitating what Dembski or Wells tells you.<br /><br />After science you need to get a handle on the diversity of Christian thought. Yes, I understand that you can recite your personal catechism of what you say you believe, but realize there is no point of doctrine that is common to all Christianities - not divine Jesus, not a god, not original sin, not heaven, not hell, not virgin births, not resurrections, and so on.<br /><br />Realize that of the 180 thousand words in the New Testament (one even has to pick a specific version of it to have "faith" in) words ascribed to Jesus account for almost none of them. What's more nothing in the NT attributed to Jesus was original, many of the ideas being in writing for centuries before Jesus is purported to have lived.<br /><br />Christians have what they are taught is the powerful tool of prayer, but it observably does nothing. If the god they worship actually cares for them, the lives of Christians don't show it. If life outcomes are any indication of who gods care about, it appears that the gods favor atheists over Christians. Most of Christian's "charitable giving" goes to pay for their church's cost of doing business: salaries, insurances, building maintenance, utilities, video equipment, sound systems, advertising, legal fees, settling lawsuits, etc. Only a small fraction, between 10 and 15 percent, of what is counted as Christian's generosity goes to things like humanitarian aid.<br /><br />Notice also that the only thing Christians do that's of benefit is humanitarian aid, but there is nothing Christian-specific about it. Humanitarian aid is provided by all human communities, no gods and no Christianities required. Christians fully recognize and acknowledge that intercessory prayer has no affect. They know full well that their version of god will do nothing, so if people are to be helped they must do it themselves. Just like non-Christian humanitarians, Christians use 100 percent supernatural-free means to supply those in need. No gods, no silly religious crap required.<br /><br />Philosophy makes for fun playtime, Sarah. But, absent domain specific understanding of disciplines like science and the myriad of beliefs under the circus tent of the Christianities, your philosophy is nothing but a toy which you have spent lots of years and lots of money to procure.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26372186581762499932010-03-19T08:48:29.323-04:002010-03-19T08:48:29.323-04:00Sarah.
Yes, all denominations agree on Jesus deat...Sarah.<br /><br />Yes, all denominations agree on Jesus death, resurrection,....etc...but they do not agree on doctrine, how salvation works, the inspiration of the OT etc.....these are just as important.<br /><br />You mentioned sources that confirm Jesus.....such as OT and Talmud.<br />This is a joke...... many of the OT prophecies could almost mean anything and some have nothing to do with Jesus which can be understood simply by reading it.<br /><br />Example- (Isaiah 7:14) is suppossed to be a prophecy about the virgin birth, but a simple reading of it shows it had nothing to do with Jesus and the Hebrew word meant woman not virgin.<br /><br />(Jeremiah 31:15) is another. This is suppossed to be a prophecy regarding the slaughter of innocents, yet the context makes it clear that the weeping is for the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon.<br /><br />(Hosea 11:1) is yet another. This is suppossed to be a prophecy regarding the return of Jesus from Egypt. However, Matthew only quotes the second half. The first half of the verse makes it clear that the verse refers to God calling the Israelites out of Egypt in the exodus led by Moses.<br /><br />There are many more examples!<br /><br />Josephus?<br />Josephus mentions a christos, but im sure you have read how some of Josephus writtings are believed to be tampered with and faulty.<br /><br />You mentioned Simon Greenleaf, I have had a conversation about this topic with someone else before.<br />The legal system and how it works to find evidence and what it assumes, are not as trust worthy as cold hard science!<br />According to scienctific knowledge, people do not rise from the dead, people do not walk on water, epilepsy is not caused by demon possession...etc...<br /><br />More then this, it might be true that if all 4 gospel accounts of the resurrection and empty tomb had said exactly the same thing that it would be subject to suspicion!<br />But you see, this only works with eyewitness accounts of the same event and as long as the witnesses do not grossly contradict eachother!<br /><br />The gospel accounts do GROSSLY contradict eachother!<br />And it is not totally believed that the gospel writters even got their information from first hand eyewitnesses. More then likely, most of it was from hearsay witnesses which Simon Greenleaf's system would not apply to.<br /><br />More then this, there is scripture in the NT where there would have been nobody to bear witness, such as Jesus ascending to heaven and sitting at the right hand of the Father?<br /> Who would have been able to witness to Jesus sitting at the right hand of God in heaven and and tell us this????<br /><br />And I disagree about the claim that I could not know according to the five senses.<br /><br />The five senses are connected to the brain, and it is the brain which takes in the stimuli from internal and external sources that the senses detect. then the new stimuli is compared with old stimuli, this is how we learn anything.<br /><br />Lastly, you said "the only way to falsify christianity is to make a compelling case that Jesus did not rise from the dead"?<br />Well.......I think scientific understanding, aswell as common life experience has already made a very strong case against this!<br />But you are forgetting that the burden of proof lies on you and other believers, and not on the skeptical!<br />It is the defender of the gospel who is obligated to prove such things not the unbelieving!shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118637281630775156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36843055687859696022010-03-19T08:19:51.252-04:002010-03-19T08:19:51.252-04:00Sarah Schoonmaker writes,
"However, I hold t...Sarah Schoonmaker writes,<br /><br /><b>"However, I hold to the basic tenants of Christianity: 1) that Jesus lived, died, and rose again, 2) that humanity is Fallen and in need of Christ, and 3) God promises eternal life for those who believe."</b><br /><br />One of the major disagreements within Christianity seems to be between those who claim that God will give eternal life <b>only</b> to those who "believe" (believe what?), and those who claim that belief is not, in fact, an absolute requirement. What's your position on this, Sarah?Northlanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00769117142960558423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83753532633124278702010-03-19T08:16:11.498-04:002010-03-19T08:16:11.498-04:00Hi John,
PZ has a post titled, "Priests who d...Hi John,<br />PZ has a post titled, "Priests who don't believe" that is worth looking at in the context of undercutting belief. It references some work by Dan Dennett and some of his associates concerning active Christian clergy whose beliefs include atheism. Quite interesting.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14618089189150619212010-03-19T07:53:16.428-04:002010-03-19T07:53:16.428-04:00@sarah
This is a problem I find with Christians th...@sarah<br />This is a problem I find with Christians they need to explain things. Atheism doesn't need to explain anything as much as a frog needs to explain to you why it is in a pond going "gribbit". <br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TG2_aTu7cE&feature=PlayList&p=4D71F6FB04ED4DDD&index=1<br /><br /><br />In addition just because you can place "ism" behind a word it doesn't make it a world view. It is a complete fallacy for you or anyone else in your ilk to create the label, define it, and then label it on someone just because they think (free will) differently than you<br /><br />You think God for whatever reason forced a girl to conceive a child, then have this child, do a couple of tricks, spit on some people, piss off the local authorities, get his butt crucified, and then rise from the dead. This makes perfect sense. <br />I mean really is this the best God can do? Then because the bible is concise in its meaning (with the help of the printing press) splits off in hundreds of fractions, at first these "Christians" kill one another in the various bloody wars that raged threw Europe. Until each nation develops their own version of a tolerance acts. Christian tolerating other Christians. Oh yea, at least there still Jews, I mean there still fair game for abuse.<br /><br />But really this makes perfect sense? If you had to do it over would you do the same thing? <br /><br />What I also find quite laughable is this you call "God's Love." <br /><br />God floods the world, kills everything and you claim God is love. <br /><br />God gets nervous about stone towers reaching heaven so God confuse's their language, as if God didn't know you can't build a stone tower even with our technology to heaven<br />And Confusing their language now there is a great idea. <br /><br />Lets talk about God's love when he tells Abraham to sacrifice his son, "where is that love?" The funny this is God doesn't even know if Abraham would do it. God knows everything? I guess not. <br /><br />What about God nuked those two cities? Turning Lott's wife into salt, then his daughters get him drunk to do the nasty. Oh such family values.<br />Or about those Bears eating children, or about grinding the gold statue and forcing it down the idol worshipers throats. <br /><br />What about when God killed the 1st born of the Egyptian, including their live stock? God hates baby lambs? <br /><br />The best is God creates Hell? The purpose is???<br /><br />Gospels reliable? Is the Gospels any more reliable than the Egyptian book of the dead? the Iliad? Gilgamesh? Or any other ancient text? A dictionary? <br /><br />What do you mean reliable, like my car is reliable? <br /><br />After all this (and more) you really have to wonder why I am a skeptic? <br /><br />I have a new "ism" for you!<br /><br /><b>Whateverism ! </b><br /><br />Have a cookie.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b> Hey Rob!</b><br /><br /><br />About the guy in South American who was hit by a car than healed because a bunch of people fondled him, did you ever get back with info with that? <br /><br />laterJonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00715319397553428894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71615774236725647982010-03-19T02:28:08.158-04:002010-03-19T02:28:08.158-04:00Hi Scott,
"However, In your case, how do you...Hi Scott,<br /><br />"However, In your case, how do you know the peace you experience could only be the result of a supernatural cause?"<br /><br />You mean, how can I say the joy of Christ within is indescribable when I agree with Paul that words can't apply convey what the feeling is like? That would be more in line with what I wrote.<br /><br />But as to your question: Faith, since I can't crawl into the mind, body or heart of anyone else.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03184505091838154270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2765620050319837492010-03-19T00:58:31.292-04:002010-03-19T00:58:31.292-04:00Shane & Chuck:
All the Christian denomination...Shane & Chuck:<br /><br />All the Christian denominations agree on the same thing; that Jesus lived, died, and rose again. Just because people cannot agree on in-house matters does not mean Christianity is false. <br /><br />No, the NT is not the only source that tells of Jesus. The OT, the Talmud, Josephus, Seutonius, Thallus, Lucian, and more tell about Jesus. Indeed, these historians wrote many years after Jesus' lifetime, except for Josephus, but this should not be problematic for this age in history. Besides, there is no good reason to reject the Gospels as reliable sources because they are actually quite consistent in claiming Jesus' message, death, and resurrection. In fact, since the authors vary on some of the details supports the sources as genuine and not merely fabricated. If they were fabricated by a group of people, they most likely contain exactly the same information. One of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, Simon Greenleaf, wrote a compelling case for the reliability of the Gospels:<br />http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html<br /><br /><br />You said, "If your suggesting the church itself is evidence of Jesus divinity, then i beg to differ!!!! Church history alone is evidence against this."<br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean, but Jesus' teachings and miracles recorded in Scripture are quite clear about his divinity. <br /><br />You said: "Christianity provides no more of an explaination then other religions do!"<br /><br />Christianity most certainly does provide more of an explanation than any other religion, including worldviews such as, atheism/agnosticism/skepticism. Christ is the only one to offer the gift of life and restoration through faith, not by works alone. All other religions espouse works based lives and pales in comparison to Christianity's historical evidence. <br /><br />As far as atheism/physicalism goes, this is a self-refuting worldview. If the physical is all that exists, then you cannot claim to know that other people have minds, that other immaterial entities exist like goodness, evil, love and beauty. That's why atheism cannot account for reality, which includes such immaterial things. <br /><br />Moreover, I assume you are a logical positivist, which claims that we can only know truth through our five senses. Well, this is self-refuting too because this claim or theory of knowledge cannot be verified with the five senses. <br /><br />Lastly, just because one is not a fundamentalist Christian does not mean that Christianity should be ditched completely! I would argue that fundamentalism is not what Jesus stood for. Simply because people cannot agree on fundamentalism says nothing about the truth value of Christianity. God and the central teachings have remained the same (i.e. Jesus lived, died, and rose again, that humanity is in need of God's love, truth, and restoration, and the promise of restoration, judgment, and fellowship with God after death). The only way to falsify Christianity is to make a compelling case that Jesus did not raise from the dead. I have yet to find a good non-Christian explanation for this and I have read Price, Carrier, Loftus, Lowder, and more. <br /><br />Ciao,<br />SarahSarah Schoonmakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14013763189170346618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43034960704440738002010-03-18T23:08:28.657-04:002010-03-18T23:08:28.657-04:00Sarah.
You said that christianity provides the be...Sarah.<br /><br />You said that christianity provides the best explaination for the world as we know it?<br /><br />I find it to be the exact opposite. The fact that there are so many denominations and non-denominations (as you said) is a good example of christianity's lack of a sufficient answer!<br />So many christian sects exist and they all go by the same book, yet they cant even agree on whats divine, or what the scriptures mean....etc...<br /><br />Since the new testament is really the only source that tells us anything about Jesus and His existence, where is all this history and evidence suppossed to be?<br />The bible is riddled with error and inconstistency, (you admitted to error yourself), so why should we trust it?<br /><br />If your suggesting the church itself is evidence of Jesus divinity, then i beg to differ!!!! Church history alone is evidence against this.<br /><br />Christianity provides no more of an explaination then other religions do!<br /><br />All religions have their own theology and their own creation story.<br />The bible version of creation seems no more impressive or probable then the rest.shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118637281630775156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91945191688716220642010-03-18T20:54:32.686-04:002010-03-18T20:54:32.686-04:00Chuck, place your commas in the right place.
Bes...Chuck, place your commas in the right place. <br /><br />Bestnormajeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612628618334389249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18960468854010004862010-03-18T20:34:15.919-04:002010-03-18T20:34:15.919-04:00Thanks Sarah
Many of us here have done all you su...Thanks Sarah<br /><br />Many of us here have done all you suggest.<br /><br />That is why we are atheists.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57889885623707032122010-03-18T20:02:37.633-04:002010-03-18T20:02:37.633-04:00Non-believers seem to think that just because I am...Non-believers seem to think that just because I am Christian who does not align with evangelical/fundamentalist views, that I am espousing a different version of Christianity. Thus Christianity as a whole is false. However, I hold to the basic tenants of Christianity: 1) that Jesus lived, died, and rose again, 2) that humanity is Fallen and in need of Christ, and 3) God promises eternal life for those who believe. Just because I have slightly different views about theology (i.e. I don't hold to inerrancy, a literal Adam & Eve, or a literal creationist account), does not mean I am endorsing a new version of Christianity (see Brian McLaren for that!), nor does it mean that I'm on some slippery slope to non-belief. Besides, I do not see the problem that there are many in-house debates about the meaning of Scripture, God's character, teachings, ect...denominations or non-denominations that are Christian agree on the basic tenants, while differing on in-house matters. <br /><br />In fact, an infinite, perfect being could never be *fully* understood through Scripture alone or through anything given human finite minds. However, I believe humans have sufficient evidence (both intellectual and experiential) for the existence of God, including Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, but of course, their freewill is involved in making a decision about God. I think dissenters and non-believers need to re-evaluate the character of Jesus, the evidence for His life, death, and resurrection, reconsider the design and anthropomorphic arguments (i.e. humanity's need for God), and recognize the fact that Christianity provides the best explanation of the world as we know it.Sarah Schoonmakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14013763189170346618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18859722124693834002010-03-18T17:00:05.839-04:002010-03-18T17:00:05.839-04:00Brad wrote: Unless, of course such a one has what ...Brad wrote: <b>Unless, of course such a one has what Paul called the "peace that surpasses understanding" that transcends mere human reason.</b><br /><br />Brad, <br /><br />Have you seen the movie <i>This is Spinal Tap?</i> Specifically, I'm referring to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVKWCpNFhY" rel="nofollow">this dialog</a> between Marty DiBergi (Rob Reiner) and Nigel Tufnel (Christopher Guest) <br /><br />Surely, their special amps must "transcend" the ability of all normal amps because they go to "11", right? And, apparently, the issue raised by Rob's character (why couldn't the volume at "10" be as loud as "11") surpasses "understanding" of Christopher'a character, who is either ignorant about how amplifiers actually work or chooses to ignore rational arguments that might reveal his amps are not so special after all. <br /><br />While it's true his amps might be louder at 11, in reality, we could confirm this by measuring the output in decibels. <br /><br />However, In your case, how do you know the peace you experience could only be the result of a supernatural cause? <br /><br />Exactly what level of peace could not be reached by natural means and how did you determine where this level falls? And, most impotently, what method do you to measure peace so your results are useful across the vast number of practices, philosophies and religions? <br /><br />For example, have you genuinely experienced the level of peace claimed by non-theistic Buddhists (many who have practiced meditation for decades), so you have at least one reference point to compare with your theistic peace?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51161753334771461152010-03-18T11:50:18.932-04:002010-03-18T11:50:18.932-04:00Brad for the following sentence to make any sense,...Brad for the following sentence to make any sense, you need to apply reason, "Not in this case, in this case I was merely reminding you that human reason is worthless when examining something that is beyond the grasp of mere human understanding - despite your insistence that it isn't. But if arguing with the wind makes you feel better"<br /><br />Like I said, if you want to convince me that your faith is better than what we all rely on to make sense of reality (reason and our senses) you will have to appeal to something other than the thing you are denigrating.<br /><br />Like I said, maybe post a YouTube clip of you applying Glossolalia to a modern ethical problem (e.g. The AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa) and I will consider your case. Until then, you are depending on the same things we all depend upon but, simply land on a common cultural superstition as an easy antidote to your fear. Your placebo doesn't mean your truth claims are real.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76432190382517475602010-03-18T11:47:37.807-04:002010-03-18T11:47:37.807-04:00Nolimits, if you can scientifically prove that God...Nolimits, if you can scientifically prove that God exists, then go to the James Randi foundation and collect his million dollar prize. No-one,ever, has been able to scientifically prove that God exists. If you can, then you are the first.<br /><br />Bythe way, I love the bit about the sun falling out of the sky. THat sounds as though you think the earth is the centre of the unverse!Clarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17836679819711814306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12888572807445372332010-03-18T10:50:56.001-04:002010-03-18T10:50:56.001-04:00Brad.
You said chuck is arguing against the wind ...Brad.<br /><br />You said chuck is arguing against the wind here.......well then you in turn are arguing for the wind!<br /><br />Your retreating into your incomprehensible God here which disolves you of any real explainationshanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07118637281630775156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1742399134971464232010-03-18T10:18:57.420-04:002010-03-18T10:18:57.420-04:00Hi Chuck
"You can believe anything you want ...Hi Chuck<br /><br />"You can believe anything you want but your willingness to engage me indicates you count reason as something worthwhile in defending your make believe so..."<br /><br />Not in this case, in this case I was merely reminding you that human reason is worthless when examining something that is beyond the grasp of mere human understanding - despite your insistence that it isn't. But if arguing with the wind makes you feel better...Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03184505091838154270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24801964689958473242010-03-18T10:13:26.709-04:002010-03-18T10:13:26.709-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03184505091838154270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26780613197033277542010-03-18T06:29:06.934-04:002010-03-18T06:29:06.934-04:00nolimits
Why is it the ignorance of believers lea...nolimits<br /><br />Why is it the ignorance of believers leads them to embarassing and unoriginal solipsism?Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com