Here's How Christian Evangelist/Apologists Can Impress Me
Christians are claiming their faith is growing around the world, and it is in the Southern Hemisphere and Asia. Big deal. You want to really impress me? Then put a rubberband around my two books Why I Became an Atheist, and The Christian Delusion, and give them to prospects before they decide (or similar books). Also give them any two Christian apologetics books. Have them translated into their languages if needed. Then give these prospects a couple of weeks or more to decide. If they choose to believe THEN I'll be impressed. Until then I remain unimpressed.
102 comments:
Exactly, John,
Let's teach critical thinking rather than inculcate. Once a person's capacity for critical thought has been established, then introduce them to the strange, the bizarre, the farcical, the humorous, the cruel and the morally repulsive religions.
Could religions survive such an honest regime? No, and they know as much. That's why the fear and self-loathing, the hallmarks of religion, are pounded into people from cradle on. The religious know that to allow young minds to develop would be their downfall. Many admit as much. Without the degrading social pressure to conform to ideas that defy reason, religion would wither away in a generation.
Critical thinking would go a long way in helping people navigate the emotional distress that so often acts as a catalyst for religious belief.
I suffered undiagnosed depression for years and found a placebo effect in both worship and fellowship until Calvinist theology over-rode the efficacy of group-think.
My atheism has been an effective step in dealing with my depression because it enables a cognitive practice in what is pragmatically real and behavioral. I no longer need to invite panic when tough coincidence presents itself as anything more than a bad day (rather than collateral damage in a celestial battle).
I have never been more psychologically or emotionally healhty since declaring my life 100% superstition-free.
The only reason christianity is growing in places like Asia and lets say Africa, is because some of those places over there are in dire straights with famine, disease, population control...etc...
So when someone from western civilization comes over with the Gospel message and the promises that God will liberate them and save their souls they readily except it!
I remember when i was a christian watching video's in our church about the masses of African people who were experiencing miraculous healings and deliverances and speaking in tongues...etc..
Those people ate it all up and really believed it.
We were always told that us here in western society needed to start having faith like those third world countries and we would see the miracles they were experiencing.
I realize now that those evangalist's were just playing on those peoples disposition and need for hope!
What they really need is some contraceptives, food, and medacine, not the Gospel!
Dear John,
I recently has a discussion with a builder about whether God or not existed. I pitied your book against Tim Keller's 'The Reason for God.' This builder did not become a Believer yet, however he found not only your book difficult to read but not convincing. He wants more time to think through Kellers.
Are you impressed?
Phil
John, your very own statement in your book...that you had to give up on reason to figure it all outt...refutes your whole world view.
You know I am right, and you simply delete it.
Gotta love the old theis classics from the Rev and Winston. The dubious anectdotal other and that old chestnut, Quote Minin. Yay God!
Rev Phil okay, but I said both of my books, one of which isn't out yet, in which I tear into Timothy Keller's book in chapter four.
Glad you liked it, Chuck!
Now, since Loftus had to give up on reason what's your excuse? LOL!
Builder vs:
Here is what Dr. Geisler said (who is considered the DEAN of Christian apologetics, and wrote the Christian Encyclopedia of Apologetics, along with 70 other books): "[John's book] is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face."
---------------------
Dr. Mark D. Linville, Christian philosopher and contributor to the forthcoming Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology: "Of the spate of books coming from the so-called "New Atheists" that have appeared in the past few years--Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, et al--John W. Loftus's critique of Christian theism is by far the most sophisticated. Where, say, Dawkins might be found attacking a man of straw, Loftus understands and assesses the arguments of today's premier Christian apologists and philosophers. Evangelicals cannot afford to ignore Why I Became an Atheist."
--------------------
Dr. James F. Sennett, Christian philosopher and author of Modality, Probability, and Rationality: A Critical Examination of Alvin Plantinga's Philosophy: "Scholarly unbelief is far more sophisticated, far more defensible than any of us would like to believe. John W. Loftus is a scholar and a former Christian who was overwhelmed by that sophistication. His story is a wake up call to the church: it's time for us to start living in, and speaking to, the real world."
Ronald
I don't think the Rev and Winston live in the real world. They're too excited about defending their revealed invisible one.
Chuck,
You said,
I don't think the Rev and Winston live in the real world. They're too excited about defending their revealed invisible one.
Sadly, many of these people are so paid well to promote the belief in the nonsensical, that while they recognize its falsity, they are too heavily vested to get out. I know a few clergymen in that predicament.
Empirically we know, they know, that religion is a failed enterprise. What positive things they do in the name of or inspired by their religion - exclusively humanitarian aid - are the same things the nonreligious do. We know that prayer is completely useless since, if it worked, the affect on believer's lives would be directly observable relative to non-believers. What we do see is that, if some god's presence is made known by the benefit he bestows on the one's he likes, he likes non-believers better. Simple observable fact.
Religions have a knack for backing people into corners in childhood and keeping them there.
Russ,
Well said.
I tried to make the point to my wife last night that if believers truly believed in the power of prayer than they would use it as first line therapy when ill. Her response, was that it doesn't work that way. I asked how it works. Her answer, I don't know, it just does.
Confusing. I can't believe I once believed this stuff and, I am glad I am free of it now.
Dear Winston,
I would not worry to much about Chuck. He has shown himself to me personally to be a slanderer and a defamer when he actually cannot provide content against your arguments. He is highly emotive and that comes out in his comments, mostly he is just hot air. I have found not much use for his blog.
Regards, Rev. Phil.
"Religions have a knack for backing people into corners in childhood and keeping them there."
Amen to that! This is part of the reason I feel totally unable to relate to late converts. For kids who were forced into it, I can understand facing that sort psychological trauma inflicted upon us, leaving us with options of destabilizing the universe in order to question what is so blatantly bizarre. The late converts who come into mythology without being immediately repulsed... I don't know how they do it.
I mean, I've faced desperation in my life, but c'mon. I realize it happens, but I just don't see how unless they honestly never had a deep thought in their life until the snake oil salesman came along.
Why would we want to spread a work that uncritically promotes western modernism as if it didn't have problems. And would there be just two books that would effectively answer your arguments for people without so much as a minor in philosophy? I don't know.
Of course there is the mistake here of thinking that I want other peoples to make a rational balanced decision based upon a neutral study. I don't. I want them to come to a human belief for human reasons, not on the basis of failed naive modernistic pretensions to objectivity which in fact doesn't exist. Not on the basis that treats all of our human faculties except for the alleged rational ones as a liability and fractures all that we have available to us.
it's funny that shane brought up the plight of the empoverished world of suffering and starvation and noted that these people didn't need the gospel. And yet, these are the people who even regardless of aid will indeed find themselves needing more hope than human aid can offer, hope that transcends this world. The idea that they'd be better off atheists is nothing short of laughable. They don't need there human worth and dignity slashed by a materialistic world. That just isn't in line with the aid that indeed comes from missionaries alongside the gospel.
This is the second time I've noticed (first from Valery Tarico), we see atheist after atheist treat the human plight as if it were only about the intenstines to be filled, without concern for the whole person.
I can't wait for your new book to come out. Please tell me that there is going to be a Kindle edition and hopefully it will be out the same time as the print edition. I would gladly preorder the Kindle edition today, if I could.
---
Reverend Brown,
I would like to know, other than Salvation, something I do not care about because I honestly don't want to live forever in any form, what does religion have to offer me that I can't arrive at as a non-believer?
I'm talking in the practical aspects of a daily life; what does religion offer us that we can't get from education, social discourse and simple human experience?
Why does it matter that God exists? I mean, the world is going to hell everyday, just like it would be if there were no God. Obviously the fear of God does nothing to stop people from committing atrocities against their fellow man, and all manner of living things. Nor does someone's lack of belief in God automatically turn them into Ted Bundy. So, tell me, what does it matter if God exists?
Beyond that, as we march forward through human history, natural explanation upon natural expalanation is discovered to explain how the universe works. The more we learn about our world, the more we realize how natural laws govern it all. Again, we continually see no need for God. So, what does God's existence matter to me? How can it make my life better? How can it BETTER explain my existence? How can I forget how miserable it once made my life?
Why does religion ask me to seek my peace with God to the exlusion of others? Why is the process of life as we know it predicated on the destruction of other life? Why are there people in this world, as well as other animals, who are enduring unconscionable suffering at this very moment? Why, in light of all the misery and death, does God just expect me to raise my hands and shout praise to the sky, assuming I'll just blithely ignore all this pain that abounds, seemingly without end?
Why should I so callously seek my own happiness from a source that has all the power and ability to end all sentient suffering, but continually chooses not to do so?
I appreciate your answers.
Rev
Project much?
Rob, pull it together man or get to Africa and start feeding the hungry your super-powerful supernatural Jesus juice.
Poor people do not need superstitions. They need answers to their problems which do not come from delusional folks stealing their misery for assumed piety.
Glock21 said..."The late converts who come into mythology without being immediately repulsed... I don't know how they do it. "
Howdy Glock21.
I think maybe lots join through the "love bombing" that happens in the honey moon period.Enjoying the feel good situation of being a "Johnny come lately".
And its why Jails are such great hunting grounds.
Its a bit like wondering why some women seem to be attracted to abusive men.
..................
Reverend Phillip Brown said..."I have found not much use for his blog. "
Hey Rev while your busy running down Chucks blog,how many more bother with your blog Rev?.Do you get so busy you feel a need to come and find company over at Johns blog?.
Just wondering.
.................
Winston Smith, how many books have you written yourself ?.Just wondering, because your critical thought still even seems to be kinda lacking.
On your profile it says this ...."If most scientists are atheists, as Richard Dawkins claims, why have they filled the world with nuclear weapons? Was that smart?"
Winston the scientists were employed by governments voted in by Christians!,Franklin D. Roosevelt of the (Episcopal religion) was in "charge" when the bomb was being invented.
And Harry S. Truman a (Southern Baptist) ordered the bomb dropped.
Whats so smart?, about the blaming scientists, for only doing what christian governments employed them for.
You say on your profile.. "I enjoy applying the study of history, philosophy, and science to the practical experience of debating atheists. I find that they always end up falling back on undemonstrated assumptions"
Winston is it a silly utterly stupid idiotic christian assumption, that scientists were all to blame for the atomic bomb ?.
Rob R said..."And yet, these are the people who even regardless of aid will indeed find themselves needing more hope than human aid can offer, hope that transcends this world."
Rob the best hope for these people is to learn to support each other as family and community.The best thing for these people is to forget voodoo! and forget faiths! which tend to divide communities and waste energy.
Rob R...."The idea that they'd be better off atheists is nothing short of laughable."
Oh so you really think these people future, is better served by having further invasion of divisive faiths?.
Thats freaking hilarious Rob!
Rob R..."They don't need there human worth and dignity slashed by a materialistic world. That just isn't in line with the aid that indeed comes from missionaries alongside the gospel"
Rather it be further slashed by divisions that always exist between differing faith franchises,hmmm Rob?.Its divisive, but divisive not materialistic
Some trade off.
Rob R ...."This is the second time I've noticed (first from Valery Tarico), we see atheist after atheist treat the human plight as if it were only about the intenstines to be filled, without concern for the whole person."
Rob R when did you not realize family and community is the best medicine for filling concerns of the whole person.Places like Switzerland and Norway have very little faith,do there lives really seem so unfilled Rob?.
Atheism is about addressing the whole society, not so interested in just addressing the concerns of the selfish nature of all the separate segregated faith groups,promoting bigotry.
Atheism seeks to help address the human plight of getting back to family and closer community relationships (between all people).Atheism seeks to break down walls created by the ignorance of many faiths.
The divisive nature of faith divides people into segregated groups.
Rob please educate us with your faith wisdom, how do you think promotion of faith division help matters much, specially in times like disasters when communities really need to learn to come together?.
Its to be expected that faith bulldogs like yourself would like to run thoughts of the Valery Tarico`s of this world down.
But the Valery Tarico`s of this world are not simple brainwashed faith followers,their knowledge is part of modern science!, not about promotion of old ancient rhetoric of the religious desert cave dwelling goat herders.
Rob.
By the time i checked your post a few people had already answered you for me so there is not much else to say.
I will say that the problems of those third world people such as hunger, disease, over population are materialistic problems which can only be met by material solutions!
However, it is not a proven fact that thier problems have anything to do with spiritual deprivation and in need of religion, and this goes for all people.
Unless you can prove the faith you hold is true, and that people need it more then human faculties, dont criticize my posts with your religious transcendent propaganda!
John, you keep stringing people out as if one more chapter by you will kill belief. If WIBA doesn't do it, take the OTF, if that doesn't do it, wait until my next book comes out, that will be the one. You even posted once that people who "passed" the OTF should be skeptical because...they are...brainwashed?
Can't you see that you're acting just like a preacher?
Another thing is that many christians proudly say that christianity is the leading religion in the world!
There are more countries that hold christianity as their national religion then any other religion!
I wish these people would do a history lesson and learn exactly how christianity spread so far so rapidly.
I wish they would learn just how the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Roman Empire spread christianity throughout the known world!
For the most part, it was spread by war and torture.
Some conquered countries had no choice but to except, and people facing the Inquisition (especially women) had similar options!
So if thats what their proud of, i want no part of it. evangalists take a different approach to converting people today and its becuase our modern secular society has recognized the rights of humanity as a whole!
Does Rob or the Reverend have anything to say about the history of their faith?
Brad,
You said, "John, you keep stringing people out as if one more chapter by you will kill belief. If WIBA doesn't do it, take the OTF, if that doesn't do it, wait until my next book comes out, that will be the one. You even posted once that people who "passed" the OTF should be skeptical because...they are...brainwashed?
Can't you see that you're acting just like a preacher?"
How does this have anything to do with the post. You are a fan of NT Wright. Okay, provide us an argument here that he makes from his book defending the historicity of the faith which will "re-convert" someone like me?
That is the topic of this post.
Shane you said,
"Does Rob or the Reverend have anything to say about the history of their faith?"
I'd venture to imagine that the former will say it is irrelevant to his idiosyncratic theology and the latter will deny it (and then probably call me names).
Good posts Shane.
Honest, reasoned and mature.
Shane,
I'm not sure I follow you, because if you're suggesting that Christianity spread by political takeover, I think you're a little mistaken.
Constantine wasn't emperor until the 4th century, and Christianity was spreading in spite of political persecution. If the Crusades (a black spot, to be sure in the history of Christianity) were by nature evangelistic, then they failed to convert Palestine. The Inquisition was primarily in southern Spain, and that, as well, was a failure if it was meant as evangelism. Northern Africa remains the conquest of Muslim wars.
I think you should read up on monastic orders and how their efforts brought about evangelism. Of course, today Christianity is expanding even without the presence of missionaries (see: China), so I'm not sure how you would formulate this in an argument.
Chuck,
My point is that John will never be "impressed". I played that game with him over the issue of Psalms 14:1, conceding to all of his requests, and in the end he dismissed me as brainwashed. I just feel John embodies the very attitude he writes against.
I think that offering an argument for the resurrection in a comment thread is fleeting, but I'll try to summarize Wright's Resurrection. He traces the Jewish understanding of Messiah and resurrection in the 2nd Temple setting and shows how the eventual beliefs of the disciples were so foreign that the only way historically to account for their beliefs is by the actual event.
(probably not as convincing in this comment as his actual 800 page study.)
Have a good day!
Chuck.
Your right, they would probably say that the christians of those times distorted the gospel and it is not a reflection of the gospel itself.
Its amazing they believe that in spite of the fact that God apparently didn't bother to tell those people they were wrong for the centuries it took place over.
And if they deny it actually happened that way, then they might aswell deny the old testament genocides and wars of extermination that they attribute to their loving merciful God!
Brad.
Your right, those attempts did fail as evangelistic conversion, but they did not fail to force the christian belief using fear.
Have you ever heard of the witches hammer, which was a tutorial on how to torture so called witches....?
This is what we get from supersitious belief!
Things like the Inquisition also took place in Euorope.
And yes palistine did not convert, but it was becuase the jews did not believe that christ was the messiah written about in the old testament becuase the messiah was suppossed to set up an earthly kingdom and sit on the throne of David! (christ never did that!)
At the time of Constantine, christains and Pagans were warring and threatening to split Rome in two.
So Constantine united Rome under one religion which he chose christianity.
Some say it was becuase he was a believer, others say it was because christianity was a better investment since it was on the rise and he was concerned with the future of his empire.
No matter how you defend it, christianity was established by the threat of death or torture during the middle ages right up until the 1700's
Brad,
You said, "Constantine wasn't emperor until the 4th century, and Christianity was spreading in spite of political persecution. If the Crusades (a black spot, to be sure in the history of Christianity) were by nature evangelistic, then they failed to convert Palestine. The Inquisition was primarily in southern Spain, and that, as well, was a failure if it was meant as evangelism. Northern Africa remains the conquest of Muslim wars."
Aren't you being a little dishonest here.
All the different forms of Christianity within the first 3 centuries would be recognized today as the Orthodox type? Including the beliefs held by both Marcion and the Gnostics?
Come now, you are better than that.
And if you believe Wright's assertion than you must believe that the Hindu Milk Miracle occurred, right?
By the time i checked your post a few people had already answered you for me so there is not much else to say.
If you found something specific that they said to be convincing, you can bring it to my attention. Otherwise, I don't respond to chuck or Gandalf and I rarely read what they say as they have proven themselves to be unethical in discussion.
Course in mentioning that the problems of these people is primarily materialistic is precisely an affirmation of the problem of atheism. It reduces us to intestines and has little to offer to us for true and authentic human worth and significance. It is nothing short of silly to insist that our aid cannot treat the whole person, heart and mind as well as stomach.
It's also demonstrably false that there problems are just material as our materialistic problems are often connected to our spiritual problems. The AIDS crisis in africa proves the point. While research and treatment may one day cure aids and HIV and today at least help them survive, we already have a cure that could almost eradicate AIDS within a generation in a Christian sexual ethic of monogamy and using sex in it's intended use to exalt and bond a sexually exclusive married couple.
No sermons William. Respond to the post or they will all be deleted. Again. No sermons. We've heard them before.
Shane,
I still think that your facts are a little fuzzy. Are you talking about Crusades trying to convince Jews (?) in Palestine or are you referring back to the 1st century expansion of the church? I'm also curious as to where you read up on Constantine's choice between the warring Christian and Pagan factions within the Empire. Could you point me to your source on that one? I still think it's going to be a tough road arguing that Christianity was spread by fear of the sword, especially in the first three centuries. In fact, Christianities growth tended to stagnate, geographically speaking, when the church was wedded with the government in the Holy Roman Empire. But maybe you have an alternate source, and I would be interested.
Chuck,
I think I can confidently describe Marcion and the Gnostics as splinter groups. None of them claimed apostolic authority, and their views were short-lived. They weren't even on the radar by the time of Nicaea. I'm still not sure, though, how this affects the argument I made to Shane earlier, though.
Re: Wright's argument for the resurrection
I think it's easy to dismiss when you don't have all the available evidence in front of you, which I can't provide in a comment section. Also, I'm not familiar with the Hindu Milk Miracle, so I can't really comment on whether or not the arguments are similar. Maybe you can point me to some more info on that. Thanks!
Rob R.
Hold up a second, this is were i find the biblical foundation totally messed up.
You said it is the christian ethic of monogamy...etc...
Yet the old testament sanctioned polygamy and incest.
Abrahams wife was Sarah and she was his sister. Lot's daughters had sex with him. The old testament upholds multiple wives. The great and wise Solomon with his hundreds of wives and concubines!
Yet christians say that both the OT and NT are inspired?
Christian monogamy contradicts old testament pologamy!
Yet you say "God does not change"-Malachi-3:6
You also said that it is demonstratebly false that their problems are just material?
How in the world can you demonstrate that there is such a thing as spiritual need?
Mental need yes, emotional yes, physical yes, if you want to call any of these spiritual go ahead, but the spirit or soul has yet to be proven to exist!
Im saying we should focus on issues we know are real issues.
To say that christianity can treat the whole person, heart, mind, and stomach is something i found false in my own experience as a believer.
The concepts of the bible actually caused me depression, mental anguish, and emotional grief, not to mention fear!
I was the only believer in my family, and i lost countless nights of sleep because of the nightmares i had of them all going to hell.
I also found that applying most of the christian docrines to everyday life did not add up to reality, and worrying about every action, word, and thought, whether it was sinful or not or whether God (who apparently knows our thoughts), was judging me, is not mentally healthy
for any person!
And an example i'll give is from Gandolf, he said basically that-those people need to learn to support eachother as families and a community, faiths bring division within a community!
Isn't Islam growing even faster?
Brad.
I was generally speaking about the 1st century in regards to the jews.
By the time the crusades came it was to take the land back from the Muslims who conquered and forced their religion. And the crusades were for the same purpose (even though they may have failed).
What im generally trying to get across is that to say that christianity has always been a tranquil force for good and that it was established that way is false my friend!
The bloody history of the church testifies to that. The crusades are an example and so was the tortures of so called witches and infidels and blasphemers!
This all happened because of superstitious beliefs.
And i believe the reason christianity is still riseing in some places is because of the same superstitious exceptability.
My sources for Constantine. I have read about the time frame of that era, and i've read about the gnostics and pagan influence on the early Catholic church. It was awhile ago so i'll see if i can provide some titles, one book i remember reading was actually gnostic gospels for dummies...lol...believe it or not.
Brad,
You said, "I think I can confidently describe Marcion and the Gnostics as splinter groups. None of them claimed apostolic authority, and their views were short-lived. They weren't even on the radar by the time of Nicaea. I'm still not sure, though, how this affects the argument I made to Shane earlier, though."
You miss my point.
You claim an historical authority of a universal Christianity within the first 3 centuries yet history says you are wrong.
Here's a different question to illustrate your dishonesty.
Can you please explain away Arius?
Also, do you think a 25% actuality in estimating a proposed probability is an authority which you wish to appeal to? Because, that would be the estimated actuality concerning the "apostalic tradition" the church fathers appealed to win constructing the New Testament.
It is somewhat offensive that you dismiss history as casaully as you do seeing that you are so diligent in the form of biblical scholarship you are studying.
It does seem like you are brain-washed and are seeking out data to confirm your bias.
Rob R said, "I don't respond to chuck or Gandalf and I rarely read what they say as they have proven themselves to be unethical in discussion."
Meaning we have succesfully illustrated Rob's epistemology as nothing more than self-centered fantasy.
Sorry Rob, endorsing your world-view means I enable narcissistic cruelty. Call me unethical, I will call me honest.
Brad you said,
"Also, I'm not familiar with the Hindu Milk Miracle, so I can't really comment on whether or not the arguments are similar. Maybe you can point me to some more info on that. Thanks!"
Google it.
Rob speaks of treating the whole body but fails to acknowledge that science has discovered a highly probable prophylaxis for HIV which will confidently end the spread of AIDS.
It is the male conraceptive device called the Condom.
Atheists do see the whole person Rob. We don't ignore and demonize the sex organs like you do.
Shane,
I agree with you that the Crusades, Inquisition, and witch trials are black spots in the history of Christianity. It hasn't always been rosy. But I think it's a stretch to try to characterize all of Christian history in this violent brush. It just doesn't work.
Chuck,
I'm a little surprised to hear you use the brainwash tactic. I'm also not sure I completely track with you on this argument. Arius, Marcion, and the Gnostics all believed different things at different times, which leads me to believe that they weren't organized factions within early Christianity. At least, there isn't any literature from the time to suggest that. But I'm not arguing for a clean and clear (and catholic) orthodoxy as we know it, either. It was messier. But my argument was that, before Constantine, Christianity spread without the threat of violence. I don't think that would be in any way controversial, actually.
I'll look up the Milk Miracle hopefully later on today.
Brad.
Well if you agree that thoughs were black spots then for what reason did they occur? Especially when God did not seem to do anything to stop it?
Obviously it is because of superstition.
The main reason i included them was to show how christians fought to spread their belief's in times past, but have taken a more subtile approach in latter times.
And i think it is due to secular stances not religious ones.
I realize that christianity probably cannot be blamed for every perversion of its teachings, but it shows what religion and superstition can do when it fills the minds of men with demon possessions, unseen spirits lurking about, promises of heaven and threats of hell!
This is why i think Atheist or Agnostic positions are better for humanity as a whole.
Also, what does it help people to believe in bible anyway?
It teaches the reality of a hell were millions of people are apparently going forever, it teaches prejudice against non-believers, it teaches that sex is basically a crime, and that to bring another life into the world a parent must fear for the salvation of that childs soul, as if life doesn't have enough struggles as is! What benefit are we suppossed to get from it that will help our lives and look out for our best interests?
Brad,
"It was messier."
Thanks for finally being honest.
You are entertaining the post hoc fallacy and attributing cause to the uniformity of current orthodoxy based on a select reading of history.
Yes, that indicates someone who fails to weigh evidence against their indoctrinated opinion. In short-hand, that person would be called "brain-washed".
Shane,
Hold up a second, this is were i find the biblical foundation totally messed up.
You said it is the christian ethic of monogamy...etc...
Yet the old testament sanctioned polygamy and incest.
The Old Testament presents ethical devolopement with moral trajectories. A flat absolutism will not be helpful here (though I believe that SOME morals are absolute). And polygamy is not the same promiscuity that spreads AIDS and other STDs.
God's method as seen in scripture isn't always to change society by outright condemnation of a behavior. It also has trajectories and it undermines certain practices as we see with prostitution and slavery.
Abrahams wife was Sarah and she was his sister. Lot's daughters had sex with him. The old testament upholds multiple wives. The great and wise Solomon with his hundreds of wives and concubines!
Abraham and Lot were not under the Mosaic covenant which forbade incest. But in the narrative all of these relationships are presented as a source of strife or the result of sordid trickery (Lot's daughters after all had to get him drunk). I don't recall of the Mosaic covenant if it forbids that a king should have many wives as a sin or if it is just a suggestion, but either way, Solomon ignored this council and it was part of his downfall as he engaged in the idolatry of his wives. So again, what isn't outright judgment is undermined.
Yet you say "God does not change"-Malachi-3:6
But we do, we develop, as does our relationship with God, not just on the individual level but (very much ignored by western individualists that we are) on a communal level spanning human history.
How in the world can you demonstrate that there is such a thing as spiritual need?
Mental need yes, emotional yes, physical yes, if you want to call any of these spiritual go ahead, but the spirit or soul has yet to be proven to exist!
it hasn't been proven to you, but for us, it is quite established. The spiritual involves all those as there are no clear cut lines between them, physicality included. It is all spiritual and an understanding of our place in the world, our significance is very important to that. That is why Christian compassion is more holistic.
The concepts of the bible actually caused me depression, mental anguish, and emotional grief, not to mention fear!
I was the only believer in my family, and i lost countless nights of sleep because of the nightmares i had of them all going to hell.
And did you have someone to pray with during these times whom you trusted?
And an example i'll give is from Gandolf, he said basically that-those people need to learn to support eachother as families and a community, faiths bring division within a community!
And how do you know that they aren't items that are worth dividing over. Should they learn to support each other when their indigenous faith/culture says that the sister ought to be stoned to death. Seems changes are often in order, changes that will result in division that will have religious implications. But following Christ even here has the best chance to unite a family if the follower goes the extra mile, turns the cheek and loves his enemy which very well may be in the family.
Not all communal unities are equal, but of course, to return to a relevent item, atheism offers no basis for that at all. It is a morally, socially, existentially useless void.
Rob you said,
"Not all communal unities are equal, but of course, to return to a relevent item, atheism offers no basis for that at all. It is a morally, socially, existentially useless void."
What is a communal unity? Why do you believe atheists have one? Please provide observable evidence to this claim?
And non-stamp collecting isn't a hobby. What is your point?
And then you said, "But following Christ even here has the best chance to unite a family if the follower goes the extra mile, turns the cheek and loves his enemy which very well may be in the family."
Which you have shown not to do as evidenced by saying you reject both Gandolf and I as immoral rather than engage us in dialogue.
You are one big contradiction son and you can't see past your own rhetoric.
Your right, it is about human development, that is why much of the human race is moving beyond the scope of religion.
And you are confusing human change with precepts that were allowed by God according to scripture. If God saw these as wrong why wouldn't He command not to have multiple wives?
He commanded everything else.
You said the Mosaic law did not forbid having multiple wives, true, but jesus did, so were did Moses get the law from if God Himself also forbade it?
It seems that all this is showing that the only precepts in the entire bible are man made and based on the time frame they were observed.
And because you claim spirituality is real to you it doesn't make it a demonstration!
Chuck,
Which you have shown not to do as evidenced by saying you reject both Gandolf and I as immoral rather than engage us in dialogue.
I don't suppose I have always turned the other cheek in discussion. I am still growing. But this is not an example. The man who originated this knew what he was saying and he noted that there were times to shake the dust off ones feet (which is a sign of disrespect) and leave the obstinate. And we are not called to be silent in naming wrongdoing. Chuck, Gandolf gets insulting and you attack personally by among other things, psychoanlysing beyond your abilities and have even insulted my own mother. Immoral in discussion? yes. Even John Loftus was embarrased by your mode of discussion when Howell contributed here.
Shane,
And you are confusing human change with precepts that were allowed by God according to scripture.
I'm confused by this statement. i don't see where my confusion lies.
If God saw these as wrong why wouldn't He command not to have multiple wives?
He commanded everything else.
It wasn't sinful. it was substandard (it is sinful for us who have monogamy engrained in the culture knowing the dignity it gives to the wife who doesn't have to share her husband and for Christians, understanding God's fuller purposes in marriage).
I suppose in the ancient near east, polygamy was useful and had it's benefits. But our growing understanding of marriage makes us responsible. Did it have to be this way for this particular subject? I don't know. That would be speculative. But moral developement explains the continuity of ethics throughout scripture.
It seems that all this is showing that the only precepts in the entire bible are man made and based on the time frame they were observed.
It seems that to you. You can indeed have this interpretation. But I have no reason to share it.
And because you claim spirituality is real to you it doesn't make it a demonstration!
Right. Not to you. We aren't passive observers but are active interpreters. The ineptitude of atheistic materialism to adequately explain morality, human worth, beauty, love and so on and the superior affirmation of our transcendence which matches our existence so much better I find to be an excellent demonstration of our transcendent spirituality.
Rob,
I named your mother for what she is, a bigot and a homophobe.
She is an object lesson as to what your world-view creates.
And you will have to remind me of the Howell incident. I don't recall it.
Rob you said,
"We aren't passive observers but are active interpreters."
Why do you use the royal we?
It's a little pretentious.
Are you speaking for a collective or, are you speaking for yourself?
Oh, now I remember the Howell incident.
More special pleading.
Christians reserve the right to condemn humanity but when harsh criticism of a bad idea is used they cry for mercy.
Sorry Rob, you can't have one set of rules for yourself (insinuating I am depraved) without inviting the same harsh criticism.
I know that the OCD in your family genome would lead to the kind or exceptional narcissism you invoke but, that's not how the world works.
Oh and Rob make no mistake, I think what you stand for is evil.
You seek to seize social status based on nothing more than tradition and superstition which afford you emotional pleasure.
You are not all that different from a neo-Nazi really. Especially when one considers the fight for equal rights my homosexual friends seek relative to the "epistemic risk" your religion demands.
Rob R said....."If you found something specific that they said to be convincing, you can bring it to my attention. Otherwise, I don't respond to chuck or Gandalf and I rarely read what they say as they have proven themselves to be unethical in discussion."
Ahh the old tried and trusted, biblical shunning and excommunication treatment.Please yourself Rob!,you being christian bible follower cherry picking for yourself what to, and what not to read literally, its really whats to be expected.
Rob R ..."Course in mentioning that the problems of these people is primarily materialistic is precisely an affirmation of the problem of atheism. It reduces us to intestines and has little to offer to us for true and authentic human worth and significance."
Of course the problem of these people who just experience a earthquake where their houses and buildings etc were wasted,is primarily materialistic at the moment Rob.What do you suggest we offer them bibles to build their houses out of?.Bibles to eat?.
Get real man,wake up from living in a fairy tale of faith.
And no atheism dont reduce us to intestines,why the need for christianity to be so dishonest?.Is the atheist view that families and communities should not be divided by faith,about reducing humans to intestines?.
Rob wake up,old faith propaganda just dont cut the mustard anymore these days.We are not thick goat herding barbarians who can be fed any rubbish !
Rob R..." It is nothing short of silly to insist that our aid cannot treat the whole person, heart and mind as well as stomach."
Rob R faith serves to treat humans as pawns to be converted for a ongoing faith war.Faith cannot treat humans as a whole,its impossible because faith creates division and we end up with differing cults of Islam or differing cults of christianity etc.Humanity is never going to be completely whole whilst the christian faith pokes its nose in,dividing folks off into the separate cults Baptist,Catholic,Anglican,JWs,Mormon,Westbro god hates ya etc etc,faith imposed curse of segregation.
Rob faith cults do not really equal anything about "whole humans".It is you thats suggesting something very silly,but i do understand, you have been brainwashed by your faith.How can faith divisions,ever equal a "whole" humanity?.
Rob R even your childish excommunication and shunning of discussing matters further with me and Chuck,is wonderful! evidence of how faith cannot really ever go about properly addressing humanity as a "whole".Its a prime example of what the nasty ignorant attitude of faith exposes our world to.If faith cannot agree on something and conversations happen to get heated and passionate,the childish divisive attitude that faiths often bring to the world, is they shun, excommunicate, separate, segregate and refuse to continues to even speak.
Not that it fazes me much,it happens to prove to me that faith is a curse.What i expect,doesnt really tend to ever shock me so much.Your actions are simply evidence of the nasty nature of faith.
Rob R..."It's also demonstrably false that there problems are just material as our materialistic problems are often connected to our spiritual problems."
Yeah Rob and atheism does not suggest human problems are only materialistic either.Why your need for use of old propaganda to try to suggest that it does? ...Like i said it just dont cut the mustard anymore!,we humans use science and our brains lots more these days Rob.Memes wont work.
What is so materialistic about atheism being concerned, about division between family and community thats historically been created and caused by all the many superstitious faiths?.
Are you trying to suggest wanting more future togetherness between family and community is materialistic is only about filling intestines?.Come on Rob you even suggesting such utter rubbish is a joke.
Gandy,
You said, "Rob R even your childish excommunication and shunning of discussing matters further with me and Chuck,is wonderful! evidence of how faith cannot really ever go about properly addressing humanity as a "whole".Its a prime example of what the nasty ignorant attitude of faith exposes our world to.If faith cannot agree on something and conversations happen to get heated and passionate,the childish divisive attitude that faiths often bring to the world, is they shun, excommunicate, separate, segregate and refuse to continues to even speak."
You forget to mention that pre-englightenment, the men that shared Rob's conviction would have not thought twice about killing us for ours.
Yeah, Christianity has such a peaceful history.
Rob.
Come on man, seriously, poloygamy in the old testament had nothing to do with uses.
It had to do with the fact that women were treated as possessions and less human than men!
Why was a man allowed to have 10 wives, yet a women could only have one husband and had to share that husband.
I think Jesus (if he was a real person), saw the obvious wrong in that way of life. Its based on greed!
And if Jesus was God and God does not change, then why does He permit pologamy at one time and then condemn it at another.
If it wasn't a sin then, why is it one now?
It doesn't add up!
Rob is no different than other superstitious person looking to seize authority for himself through rhetoric. He will not admit his contradictions but will invent theories to smooth them over.
Rob.
I sounds like your making these things up as you go along!
Rob,
You said,
The Old Testament presents ethical devolopement with moral trajectories. A flat absolutism will not be helpful here (though I believe that SOME morals are absolute).
Look at the jury rigging you're doing to make it appear that the Old Testament says what you want it to. From what you've said elsewhere on this thread and in other threads here at Debunking Christianity it's obvious that what you're saying in this comment is ad hoc. You're making it up as you go along and because it's religion-speak you expect everyone to defer.
"Ethical devolopement" and "moral trajectories" are your imaginings. If you're equating this ethical development with a positive moral progress, religion leaves you looking in the wrong place. The millenium-long languishing of nearly every human endeavor called the Dark Ages, imposed by the cruel, heartless, vindictive and oppressive Christian church, powerfully demonstrates how the church lead the west down a path of moral decay.
From the mountains of apologetics needed to justify any one of the many ways of interpreting any specific verse in the Bible, we know that we would be wasting our time to give your reading of it any special notice. You're simply telling us what you want it to say. You can't tell us what it does say. The Bible is inscrutable text onto which dime-a-dozen theologians like yourself project what you've decided it will say. The vast variability in the apologetics tells us that there is no god speaking to you or anyone else. You're all making it up.
Maybe you should reread some of those college philosophy texts. You have what? a masters degree in philosophy. Make it work for you.
Observably, Christianity does not come close to fulfilling the promises it makes. What good Christianity does do is exclusively humanitarian aid, no different than the rest of humanity. Believing in Christian-specific things carries with it no advantages, but as we have seen how Christians react to accusations of witchcraft and how Christians can let their children die under Christianity's influence, it has grave disadvantages. Your response to this is to bring to bear the ol' razzle dazzle of philosophical obscurantism. The facts are still the facts, and your refusing to accept them will not change them. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend the world is how you wish it to be rather than how it is, and it is pure charlatanism to use philosophy to steer this reality we all share toward those dense fog banks you apparently love.
You need to get over the fact that the world is a wonderful and inspiring place without the gods, Christian or other. If you could see your fellow man without that distorting Christian filter you're so fond of you would see that almost all the time under almost all circumstances people are good to each other; people everywhere are caring, loving and generous, and they don't need your god or any other to be so.
"You forget to mention that pre-englightenment, the men that shared Rob's conviction would have not thought twice about killing us for ours."
Hi Chuck yes its true.And so im very thankful for enlightenment.
Chuck best wishes to you and all family and friends.
Russ,
You said, "It's intellectually dishonest to pretend the world is how you wish it to be rather than how it is, and it is pure charlatanism to use philosophy to steer this reality we all share toward those dense fog banks you apparently love."
And you fail to include he demands that we accept this premise that his superstition is the one and only absolute true story which defines the universe and its meaning.
Never venturing to consider what you have posted here many times. People claiming equal status in the name of Jesus would call him an apostate becuase he doesn't interpret the bible the way they do.
I can't name one public policy decision which has led to increased human prosperity and respect for the individual that has been born from Christianity that wasn't also opposed by it.
Rob's insistence that christians respect the individual ignores the theological fact his bible says we only exist to give god glory.
What a fool.
"give these prospects a couple of weeks or more to decide. If they choose to believe THEN I'll be impressed."
rationality alone can't decide metaphysical issues. your scenario would be nothing more than name-dropping and wouldn't really prove anything. it's unfortunate that you don't understand that.
If we cant really on rationality, then i dont suspect faith will help much either.
sorry thats rely.
John Loftus,
I'll be impressed when you all raise enough money of your own to translate and distribute your own literature.
By the way, some of the lanugages that you will be translating into were gifts given by Christian missionaries who wanted people to be able to read the Bible.
I think your posts have an edge on them since your recent debate. Are you okay?
JK
b,
"metaphysical issues" huh?
I don't have any.
What are yours?
JK,
"By the way, some of the lanugages that you will be translating into were gifts given by Christian missionaries who wanted people to be able to read the Bible."
Those funds could have been better spent dealing with the needs of people but, christians wanted to feel good about themselves and chose to use that cash for literature.
OK. What is your point?
If, I see people starving but really want them to play air-hockey so I spend money I could use to buy food and shelter on an air-hockey table would you say I was a good person, simply because I wanted them to play air-hockey?
"If we cant really on rationality, then i dont suspect faith will help much either."
i said rationality alone can't decide the issue. but it certainly is good enough to know that the alternatives to theism are tantamount to intellectual surrender
""metaphysical issues" huh? I don't have any. what are yours?"
the fact that no one will ever be able to come up with a better explanation than theism as to why there is something rather than nothing
b,
That is not an issue. That is an invented conspiracy by non-scientific theists to claim that "God did it".
I could care less if there is something other than nothing. Answering the question does not lead to any more technology or information which is useful in reducing suffering or increasing happiness.
You are offering us an unoriginal strawman that you haven't thought up and is trivial in regards to the human plight.
bfniii.
The alternatives to theism are tantamount to intellectual surrender.
If your claiming the bible is an intellectual source you need to re-think that one over!
Chuck O'Conner,
I couldn't help but notice that many of the things assumed by the original posts' requests are the very things Christianity has historically provided. You have to be able to read to go through all that literature, for example.
By the way, the same criticisms could be laid at the face of the original post. Why not spend monies on practical aid instead of all of Loftus' books, for example.
I do JK.
You are arrogant to assume I don't.
Chuck,
I don't understand your comment. You asked me to explain my original comment, and I tried to.
When did I accuse you of anything? If I did in some way, I am sorry. I didn't intend to.
JK
JK,
You don't understand the idea of this post and you come on here defending missionaries spending their money giving away bibles?
shane
Come on man, seriously, poloygamy in the old testament had nothing to do with uses.
It had to do with the fact that women were treated as possessions and less human than men!
That whole property claim really doesn't pan out. If you steal another man's possesions, you were to restore them. Take another man's wife and you were put to death. Murder a woman and you were put to death. Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth and no gender distinction was made.
Polygamy was useful because women depended on men for survival in the nomadic middle east and there were more women than men. We know after all that a widows existence was very harsh if she didn't replace her husband which is why
And if Jesus was God and God does not change, then why does He permit pologamy at one time and then condemn it at another.
I told you. God does not change, but our relationship to him does. God's expectations of us grow as our understanding and responsibility grows. You can repeat yourself, but can you advance the discussion?
Now, that God's expectation changes could be seen as a change within God. Of course this is a no no within much of the theological tradition that emphasizes the absolute unchangeability of God. But that tradition is wrong and an over-emphasis of some scripture over others. God is a living dynamic person. His nature of love, and justice does not change, but he judges his creatures with equity, knowing where they are at and what is reasonable to expect of them given natural developement.
It doesn't add up!
If you don't want it to, it won't. But it's not as if it has to completely add up. Much of what we know in all areas of life is not fully disclosed to us. Religion is not special in this. It makes sense to me that polygamy was useful and permisable, but I don't know that they couldn't have done without it. Why permit it at all. i don't know. I don't have to know. It is just one area where it is reasonable to allow for the continued expansion of knowledge. I may never learn, but there is no reason for me to think that it is an unsolvable problem that should give me one iota of a reason to doubt or give up the faith. I find that profoundly absurd.
Rob.
I sounds like your making these things up as you go along!
No, some of these things I have learned, some of them I have deduced. The observation of the moral trajectories of scripture was something I intuited for a long time but was made explicit by an instructor.
The sounds you speak of are mostly in your head.
I agree Rob it sound like you are making all of this up. You seem defensive and panicked. Everyone gets it wrong inside and outside the church. Must be hard living in the elevated space you occupy.
Rob R,
God does not change, but our relationship to him does. God's expectations of us grow as our understanding and responsibility grows.
Here you've merely asserted your right to concoct new conceptions of your god as you go along.
Are you saying your god makes conditional stipulations based on a persons knowledge? Does your god give a pass to exceptionally stupid people? Are ignorant people given special dispensations? How about people smart enough to not believe?
You are indeed making it up, Rob R. You're a polished con man no different than psychics, astrologers, chiromancers or augurs reading entrails. And just like many of these other purveyors of bunk, you've become lost in your self-deception. Maybe you've been seduced by your own gloss. In any case, your religious con has metastasized such that you see the religion and the con as one and the same. Now you worship the con.
"That is not an issue. That is an invented conspiracy by non-scientific theists to claim that "God did it"."
just because you avoid answering the question doesn't mean it's not an issue. you can call it invented but you haven't done anything to show HOW it is invented. of course, that would require actually dealing with the issue without resorting to ad hominems.
"Answering the question does not lead to any more technology or information which is useful in reducing suffering or increasing happiness."
so you're stating that naturalism is all there is? and i disagree about the question not addressing happiness.
B,
You said, "so you're stating that naturalism is all there is?"
Yes.
Do you want to show me something else?
Thanks.
chuck, there is no way for a person to know that naturalism is all there is. it would require knowledge no human can possess. it's unfortunate you don't realize that.
b said,
"chuck, there is no way for a person to know that naturalism is all there is. it would require knowledge no human can possess. it's unfortunate you don't realize that."
This coming from a man who knows god exists.
Hey b, how tall is god? What color hair does he have? I'm certain you will attest to having a "personal relationship" with Jesus. If so, what is his favorite movie? His hobbies? His favorite ice-cream flavor?
I can test nature for its predictive possibilities.
All of your god concepts live in your imagination.
And if you don't like nature, here's a clue. How about you use your superior supernaturalism and communicate with me via your holy spirit. I'm waiting. I'm waiting. Nope, don't hear anyting. I'm waiting. Nope. I'm waiting. You doing it yet? Sorry, nothing. You want to know why dip-shit. Your invisible worlds don't exist. If you doubt the reality of naturalism so much how about you just stop eating and going to the doctor and using the Internet. Your appearance here seems to validate your confidence in natural phenemenon. YOUR USING IT TO SLING YOUR BULL-SHIT! If supernaturalism is superior than naturalism then call on your holy spirit as a more efficacious answer to the naturalistic communication tool known as the Internet. If you can't then shut your hole and go jack-off to your metaphysical worries. You are a retard.
"I can test nature for its predictive possibilities."
1. all observation is theory laden (common scientific maxim). therefore, you really can't even reach certainty about nature. btw, have you ever heard of the heisenberg UNCERTAINTY principle?
2. even if you could, that doesn't prove that nature is all there is. some of us want answers to the rest.
"All of your god concepts live in your imagination."
how do you know? it sounds to me like you're looking for natural proof of a supernatural phenomenon. now, God can intervene in natural affairs but, expecting it to happen at your beck and call is probably going to be disappointing.
"If you doubt the reality of naturalism"
i never said that. i said there is more to existence than just naturalism.
b,
I don't discount supernaturalism a priori. I just have not been presented with any valid evidence.
Care to share some?
And have you heard of Bayesian inference? I don't need assert a certainty to take action with a level of confidence towards the consequence. With that, I am fairly certain that nothing christianity claims is real. I base that on the evidence of people like you b. Smug supernaturalists who present special pleading as if it is a self-evident truth.
I spent 41 years around ignorant authority worshipping automotans like you and have decided I have had enough.
Before you dismiss atheism, how about you give it the same amount of time and investigation I gave christianity. Until then, you aren't in my league in terms of honest investigatory intellectualism. You are a drone parroting the ideas of men you think are powerful. And you are doing it as if it takes moral courage. That's the most offensive part of it.
Rob R.
You said there was no gender distinction in the old testament?
What bible are you reading from. If you read closer, there was much harsher punishments for women then men.
Secondly, try reading Numbers:31, after the Isaeralites destroyed all the men, the children, and the babies, and also the women who were not virgins of the Midianites , Moses let the men keep the young virgins, and they were divided up amongst the men with the rest of the spoil they took!
Try reading the old testament and you will find that women were treated as lesser beings.
Also, you said the property claim doesn't pan out, and you refered to regulations...etc..I never counted my point in with the laws of taking men's wives or oxen...etc...I was saying that men treated their wives like possessions.
Fathers chose the husbands that their daughters had to marry and their daughters had no say about it!
That whole thing that God doesn't change but His expectations do as our understanding grows...
That contradicts the whole point.
To say that, "no God does not change, but His expectations do", is a contradiction.
If He doesn't change then neither do His expectations!
Besides, why would people like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, why would they not be able to meet that expectation of monogamy?
Abraham had so much faith he was gonna kill his own son, David was a man close to Gods heart,Moses was chosen because he was the meekest of all the earth......?
But no monogamy commanded there! just pologamy.
But apparently by AD 30, God expected more....?
What a bunch of bs!
Well said Shane.
Chuck.
Thank you chuck, Rob digs far, far too deep into biblical concepts to get answers, then twists the logic to form a new thesis!
Rob.
I would like to know where you get your info from that there were more women then men in the old testament?
Considering that the old testament is claimed to be written over a 1,100 year span of time, and pologamy was prominant all through it! And it doesn't all take place in palistine?
There was no Israel or Judea until the conquering by Joshua.
Yet pologamy was going on since the time of Abraham till the time of Christ!
And Probably still by the Jews who held to Judaism!
"I don't discount supernaturalism a priori. I just have not been presented with any valid evidence.
Care to share some?"
what would you consider evidence?
"I am fairly certain that nothing christianity claims is real."
how would you know?
"Smug supernaturalists who present special pleading as if it is a self-evident truth."
name one thing i stated that was special pleading. i've got news for you, this blog is full of smug naturalists.
"ignorant authority worshipping automotans"
a person is not a robot when they can not only accurately reproduce the criticism but, can respond to it as well. are there some robot christians? yes. does that make the claims of christianity untrue? no. what about non-theists who eventually become christians? they changed from enlightened rationalist to robot? special pleading indeed.
"Before you dismiss atheism, how about you give it the same amount of time and investigation I gave christianity."
laughable. do you honestly believe that the best christian thinkers are not aware of the most forceful objections to christianity? they've devoted their careers to such things.
b,
You asked "what would you consider evidence?"
Something falsifiable and independent of your influence.
b,
You asked, "How would you know?" to the question, "I am fairly certain that nothing christianity claims is real."
Because I tested all the arguments and theories you have presented for myself first hand as both a lay-minster and missionary over the course of 7 years of Evangelical Christianity and know that my devotion to that faith was an act of willful ignorance. When I examined the historicity of the bible and the attitudes and behavior of leading lights of christianity like Calvin, Luther and Edwards I came to understand that the "truth" claims of christianity were both self-refuting and flimsy.
Additionally, the love, respect, trust and fun in my marriage to a still-practicing Evangelical Christian has intensified since I have been honest with her and admitted my atheism.
My personal experience with atheism is proving to be more edifying and honest than christianity ever was.
You will have to deny the basis of your belief (personal experience) to refute the reality of my atheism.
"name one thing i stated that was special pleading."
Your consistent argument that science can't answer what you call the most important metaphysical issues where theism can yet never offering an answer that is exceptional or definitive despite the assertion that your brand of theism (christianity) involves a personal relationship with god in the person of the holy spirit. If you are going to pit science against theism using metaphysical quandries as the basis of this comparison but, never offer definitive answers for these using your an inclusive argument for theism with the doctrine of the holy spirit. That my friend is special pleading. You want us to believe science is flawed because it doesn't have definitive answers the methodology never asserts but theism is not flawed despite it too does not have definitive answers to the same questions despite holding a methodological doctrine that says it should.
Talk about your absolute knowledge in specifics driven by the reality you havd god living inside of you and let us know what those absolute answers are.
Better yet, publish a peer-reviewed paper that refutes the mechanisms of action science offers in terms of evolution driven by the absolute revealed knowledge of your holy spirit.
You assert absolute knowledge due to the doctrine of the holy spirit but stand on ignorance to exhibit its superior efficacy to science.
That is special pleading.
"do you honestly believe that the best christian thinkers are not aware of the most forceful objections to christianity? they've devoted their careers to such things."
I already responded to this question.
Here's an illustration. Do you honestly believe the best marxist thinkers are not aware of the most forceful objections to marxism? they've devoted their careers to such things.
Devoting one's career to an idea is not a proof the idea is true. That would be appeal to authority.
Most leading apologists today (Craig, Plantinga) hold to a Calvinist world-view. Do you think they would condone the socio-political structure of Calvin's Geneva if that structure were to enforce sharia?
Just because someone has committed to a delusional idea does not make that idea true.
See Tom Cruise and Scientology.
"a person is not a robot when they can not only accurately reproduce the criticism but, can respond to it as well."
Yet when all of their arguments seem to be cribbed by today's most popular christian apologists it looks less like thinking and more like an elaborate softward program. Thus, automotan.
None of your arguments are original or yours yet, you act as if your parroting of popular cultural superstition is somehow both morally and intellectually superior to the honest admission of, "I don't know." (the basis of scientific inquiry).
"I think I can confidently describe Marcion and the Gnostics as splinter groups. None of them claimed apostolic authority, and their views were short-lived." (Brad Haggard)
Are you high on crack?????
Marcion's Bible was all Paul all the time and according to the Muratorian Canon the Marcionites had an epistle of Paul to the Alexandrians.
Basilides claimed to have derived his knowledge from Glaucas an interpreter of Peter via apostolic succession.
The Valentinians claimed to be disciples of John through Polycarp just as Ireneaus claimed. Ireneaus's contemporary, the Valentinian Florinus claimed that Ireneaus was corrupting the teaching of Polycarp and that Polycarp had actually been a Valentinian, and thus that the apostle John was in agreement with them.
Then there are all sorts of Gnostic writings in the names of apostles Matthias and Thomas.
Seriously, put down the crack pipe.
And their views were only short lived due to persecution from the so-called 'orthodox' who merged with the evil state to kill them. Even at that, Dualistic versions of Christianity kept popping into existence and competing with 'orthodoxy' until the 12th or 13th century when the Inquisition finally sqaushed the Cathars.
Oh, and Loftus...is Christianity about impressing you? Last I checked it wasn't.
"The Inquisition was primarily in southern Spain, and that, as well, was a failure if it was meant as evangelism."
The Inquisition began to destroy Dualistic versions of Christianity. Its modern incarnation began in France to destroy the Cathars. But Inquisitions were used by the RCC as early as the Commodian period in the 2nd century against the Marcionites.
I don't understand why we have to impress you?
We could all be impressed if any Christian anywhere could show that any of Christianity's supernatural claims has ever happened. Answered prayers and other miracles are the 100 percent supernatural-free product of ignorance, coincidence, medical misdiagnosis, human intervention, among similarly all-natural others.
Since you claim that miracles happen, you need to impress us by showing that at least one miracle ever has.
"Something falsifiable and independent of your influence."
1. Even science doesn’t operate solely from the criterion of falsifiability. In other words, even if you had that, it wouldn’t be totally conclusive
2. How would you falsify something supernatural?
3. What does my influence have to do with anything? If it’s supernatural, it’s beyond my control
"my devotion to that faith was an act of willful ignorance."
And what of people who leave atheism for christianity? They followed the same method as you but came up with a completely opposite conclusion. they think you're ignorant and that they "followed the evidence"
"When I examined the historicity of the bible"
The Bible has been shown to be an accurate depiction of historical events by many scholars. The question is why you believe one set over another.
"and the attitudes and behavior of leading lights of christianity like Calvin, Luther and Edwards"
why do you focus on the few bad apples and ignore the hundreds of millions of good Christians?
"I came to understand that the "truth" claims of christianity were both self-refuting and flimsy."
which truths would you be referring to?
"Your consistent argument that science can't answer what you call the most important metaphysical issues"
it's not that these are the most important metaphysical issues. these are the most important issues to humanity. As in, why we exist. How to conduct our lives. How science and technology should proceed.
"where theism can yet never offering an answer that is exceptional or definitive despite the assertion that your brand of theism (christianity) involves a personal relationship with god in the person of the holy spirit."
I’m not seeing the special pleading. Christianity does in fact offer answers and explanations for these issues.
"If you are going to pit science against theism"
You are not understanding my position. There are plenty of Christians who are not opposed to science. It is a great tool but we need to understand that it has limitations
"publish a peer-reviewed paper"
Peer reviewed publications are not free from bias. That would not be totally conclusive
"that refutes the mechanisms of action science offers in terms of evolution driven by the absolute revealed knowledge of your holy spirit."
again, not all Christians are yec, not all Christians are presuppositionalists/reformed epistemologists
Post a Comment