We Must Require Hard Evidence to Believe
Christians, you do realize that there are many believers in different religious sects who are just as convinced of their faith as you are, don't you? You see, brainwashed people do not know that they are brainwashed. The ONLY way to know whether you're one of the brainwashed or not is to subject your own faith to the same level of skepticism that you use to evaluate the other faiths you reject. You must require hard evidence for that which you accept. Hard evidence convinces others. What else is there?
71 comments:
John,
This particular point can be applied to the atheist in exactly the same manner. What exactly hard evidence is there for atheism? Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. This is a debunking Christianity site but what grounds is there for adoption atheism? Why not agnosticism? What are the positive elements for adherents to atheism. Remember brainwashed atheists do not know they are brainwashed.
Regards, Rev. Phil.
What positive truth claim does atheism make Rev?
Rev. Brown said "Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence."
Your point is taken, but what is evidence for an absence? Seems like if you were to scoure the universe for evidence of something that doesn't actually exist, in the end, you'd have an absence of evidence.
Rev.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?
So if a person was tried for murder but there was not any evidence to convict him, then we should just assume he did it anyway and send him to prison, because the lack of evidence against him did not prove his innocence?
Rev. Phil: Do you believe in the pot of gold that is at the end of every rainbow? Why or why not?
The rev appears to be confused or hoping atheists are ignorant. Either way the inability to prove a negative is not the same as the inability to back a positive claim. Theists make a positive claim, atheists remain skeptical as they can provide none.
Instead of evidence we get endless circular arguments that we'd believe if we just believed, that conceptually it makes sense if you presuppose god, endless pseudoscience, fallacies, and hoaxes to cast doubt on other explanations while providing nothing to substantiate their unsubstantiated claims.
It's all very disingenuous and reeks of desperation at recognizing they've got nothin! Admitting it publicly isn't likely, but nor is it necessary. Their only arguments could apply to other religions that even they are skeptical of. Why should theirs get a pass? Rhetorical question: they shouldn't.
The reverend just likes to throw a thought in here and there, and then lets us talk it over, but he doesn't stick around to defend it much.
John used this same argument in his recent debate with D'Souza. If you want to see a great response just listen to D'Souza.
"brainwashed people do not know that they are brainwashed."
the best christian thinkers can not only accurately reproduce objections to christianity but, they can also respond to them. i sure hope you can see that there is no way that constitutes as brainwashed.
"Hard evidence convinces others."
not always. some people are going to ignore the truth no matter what.
It is true for the most part people will believe what they want contrary to evidence, that is exactly why i find christians so stubborn in the face of contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible!
Translation:
Religion/Sect R1 believes A
Religion/Sect R2 believes notA
Therefore, R1 and R2 are both false.
Therefore, they must have been brainwashed.
This is just doesn't follow. They are certainly both not true, but one could seemingly be true and the other false.
I don't believe people of other faiths are brain washed just because they are just as confident as I am.
Tim.
But how does one differentiate which is true?
What makes the claims of one religion more true then another
bfniii: some people are going to ignore the truth no matter what.
The thing is, I find that typically it is Christians who are guilty of this. bfniii, I used to be a Christian, was one for 25 years, but ended up rejecting it because I was willing to follow the evidence (the truth if you will) no matter where it led. The evidence led to evolution being correct (I was a creationist and an IDer), it led to discovering the many historical problems with the Bible (I always like to recommend to Christians the books by Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks), it led initially to agnosticism and then eventually to atheism.
So, bfniii, are you willing to follow the truth no matter what?
"This is a debunking Christianity site but what grounds is there for adoption atheism? Why not agnosticism?"
I think the great majority of atheists are actually strong agnostics. Even Richard Dawkins has said as much. But proclaiming that one is agnostic seems to give the impression that one possibility is as likely as the other...that the chances of god existing is roughly the same as not existing.
I am technically agnostic about the existence of the god vishnu, thor, fairies and flying spaghetti monsters...as well as yahweh. There is a very small chance that one or more of these may exist but the chances are strongly against this based upon the evidence I have. I can't positively prove that hanuman or allah does not exist. Neither can you. But I doubt this means that you think there is a 50% chance that a hindu monkey god actually exists.
Is your lack of belief in hanuman (the monkey god) a dogma? Is your lack of belief in allah a dogma? In invisible unicorns? Neither is my disbelief in yahweh. Lack of belief is not another form of belief just as nudity is not a form of clothing.
And just as you don't have to 'put on' nakedness you don't have to 'adopt' atheism or lack of belief. It's what is there naturally when all else is stripped away.
"the best christian thinkers can not only accurately reproduce objections to christianity but, they can also respond to them. i sure hope you can see that there is no way that constitutes as brainwashed."
The best scientologists, moonies, mormons and jehovah's witnesses can also reproduce objections to their belief systems and respond to them. Of course you and I may not think their responses are reasonable or persuasive. This in now way proves that they aren't heavily conditioned or brainwashed to some degree.
I don't believe people of other faiths are brain washed just because they are just as confident as I am.
Every Pro-Christian response thus far has skirted the entire point of this post... amazing.
Anthony,
I read Sparks and Enns after you mentioned their books on this site a while back. They've given me alot to consider and I'm now reading Price's book The Empty Tomb. If you are still interested in textual criticism and what these authors have to say, you may want to check out the Biologos blog if you haven't already. Both Sparks and Enns regularly write posts for Biologos and respond to readers on the blog. I've found it very interesting.
Rev. Benny Hinn claims to have evidence that God heals. I always wondered why he ignored the blind, the deaf, the truly lame at his crusades. There is a young lady who claimed to me her friend had cancer all over and inside his body and God healed him instantly. When I asked her to provide the medical records and the doctors' testimony to prove what she claimed is true she began to attack me personally through words with the dreaded eternal burning Hell. Christians ignore contradictions in the Bible and throw back at us heated words consisting of threats of Hell. Is this all they have to offer in reply? I ask her why is the Sun created after fruit bearing plants are already here? We know this is impossible. Her reply was I was a bitter old man headed for Hell. She gave some mystical mumbo jumbo crap as an answer. Illogical crap. When I asked her how all the animals could fit in a wooden boat she answered God used supernatural powers. When I explained to her Noah's ark would not be sea worthy in the first place much less be able to contain all the species of animals she responded again with threats of eternal burning Hell.
Is this the best these fundies have?
Christians don't craft arguments or develop hypotheses to falsify their faith, they develop apologetics which temporarily assume a contrary position so they can then argue for a foregone conclusion. It always comes down to their personal testimony as the absolute evidence for their faith. This standard of evidence in probabalistic science is known as "availability bias" and is a symptom of brainwashing.
"contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible!"
apparently, you're not aware of the scores, if not hundreds, of websites and books that address these kinds of issues. the responses to these issues are there for you or you can continue to ignore them. this is typically just an excuse to avoid dealing with the biggest questions.
b,
You said, "apparently, you're not aware of the scores, if not hundreds, of websites and books that address these kinds of issues. the responses to these issues are there for you or you can continue to ignore them. this is typically just an excuse to avoid dealing with the biggest questions."
What makes you think we didn't? Most of the people who here were once conservative christians. There are hosts of web-sites refuting the web-sites you cite. Have you checked them out?
Or are you afraid of the truth?
Your comment by the way is a good example of "availability bias"
b: apparently, you're not aware of the scores, if not hundreds, of websites and books that address these kinds of issues
Simply because someone comes up with an answer does not mean they have truly reconciled the specific issue. And yes, we are aware of those websites and books (I have several of them in my library).
bfniii said "apparently, you're not aware of the scores, if not hundreds, of websites and books that address these kinds of issues."
I at least am aware of some of them. And yet although I've seen lots of arguments and assertions, I've not seen any that satisfy the basic problems. For example, why would the earliest manuscripts of the Mark Gospel not include the resurrection story? Apologist can waste hundreds of thousands of words on it, but none to my knowledge have adquestly addressed the issue or refute the simplest explaination.
Amy B. If you are still interested in textual criticism and what these authors have to say, you may want to check out the Biologos blog if you haven't already.
Amy, thanks for the recommendation. I actually do occasionally go over to the BioLogos site and check out what's being posted. They do have some interesting discussions at times.
You may be interested to know that Darrel Falk, another contributor, blogged about me last year on that site, it's called Saving Anthony. Be sure to read the comments section as I made a number of clarifications there.
"The thing is, I find that typically it is Christians who are guilty of this."
some are. but that doesn't mean what they believe is untrue.
"I was willing to follow the evidence (the truth if you will) no matter where it led."
some people here act like the best christian thinkers are unaware of and can't deal with every single objection to christianity. since it's the case that there is a response to every single objection to christianity, it's definitely not an issue of "evidence".
"The evidence led to evolution being correct (I was a creationist and an IDer),"
you must be unaware of theistic evolution or progressive creationism.
"it led to discovering the many historical problems with the Bible"
maybe some bibles, but certainly not all have problems. you do realize that the bible is being continually confirmed by archaeology, right?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34880397/
"it led initially to agnosticism and then eventually to atheism."
non-theism is a completely untenable belief system because it can't answer the biggest questions in life such as origin, purpose, morality, etc.
"Christians develop apologetics which temporarily assume a contrary position so they can then argue for a foregone conclusion."
definitely untrue. apologetics exists to dispel misconceptions about christianity and to point out that it's not the historical or scientific data that's in question, it's the conclusions drawn from the data. a good example is when an evolutionist supports the supernatural conclusion that God doesn't exist with natural data such as evolution. the data isn't in question. the conclusion drawn from the data is beyond the purview of science and therefore completely flawed.
"It always comes down to their personal testimony as the absolute evidence for their faith."
patently false and you would know that if you read works by the leading christian thinkers today.
"This standard of evidence in probabalistic science is known as "availability bias"
christian opponents are just as guilty of this for the above stated reasons and this is avoidance by them. it's very much like the pathetic compartmentalization critcism.
"and is a symptom of brainwashing."
as i said, when christians can accurately reproduce objections and then respond to them, that is clearly not brainwashing. this is an excuse to not deal with the issue. it's an ad hominem.
"What makes you think we didn't? There are hosts of web-sites refuting the web-sites you cite."
you're missing the point. you've regressed into a "name-dropping" mentality. you are choosing to believe one side or the other for reasons other than the "evidence".
No b
Your superstitious mind thinks those are big questions.
Real big questions are things like the mechanism of disease in multiple cancer types, how to transfer genomic knowledge to theranostics, how do we enhance sustainable environments in an increasingly crowded world.
Your invisible buddies are not very helpful ehen it comes to real questions.
"Simply because someone comes up with an answer does not mean they have truly reconciled the specific issue."
or they actually have and you're rejecting it because of a certain predisposition. for every objection, there's a response. for every reply, there's a response. it could go on and on forever. some people choose to hide behind that process in order to satisfy their predilection. those issues are trivial and are excuses for not dealing with non-theism being a failure as a belief system.
b
Look up "psychological projection"
You are practicing it.
"For example, why would the earliest manuscripts of the Mark Gospel not include the resurrection story?"
this is precisely the kind of excuse making i'm talking about. this is a trivial issue when compared to the biggest questions in life and it's an excuse to avoid dealing with them.
since you asked, it's possible that other, earlier manuscripts will be discovered that will have the story. it's also true that just because the earliest manuscripts don't have it doesn't mean it didn't happen or that the author didn't mind whether it was included or not. it's possible that when it was originally recorded, the story wasn't there but the author's memory was jogged later to a different group of people and that tradition survived elsewhere. you're making it out to be an either/or situation when it might actually be both/and. the accounts can be complementary
this is a matter of perspective. the ending of mark is an interesting mystery but, there are much bigger issues to be dealt with. you're missing the forest for the trees with these trivialities such as alleged bible contradictions that have plenty of explanations.
"Your superstitious mind thinks those are big questions."
just because you're ignoring them doesn't mean that they go away. any belief system needs to answer origin, purpose and destiny. non theism can't answer any of them.
"Real big questions are things like the mechanism of disease in multiple cancer types, how to transfer genomic knowledge to theranostics, how do we enhance sustainable environments in an increasingly crowded world."
those are certainly worthwhile endeavors and we should necessarily work on those questions. however, ignoring the metaphysical issues behind those problems leaves a gaping theological and teleological hole in our lives.
"Look up "psychological projection""
why is it that every time you face a problem you don't want to deal with, you and your pals start in with the ad hominems? doesn't that bother you? do you think you're an enlightened representative of your belief system with such immature tactics?
Yes bfniii, it's possible and earlier manuscript will be found. It's also possible we won't.
You also said "it's possible that when it was originally recorded, the story wasn't there but the author's memory was jogged later to a different group of people and that tradition survived elsewhere."
Are you suggesting that the author of Mark forgot that his* Rabbi came back to life after being tortured, killed and rotted in a tomb for three days and walked around and preached like nothing happened? He had to have his memory jogged???? Really????? Wow...
*not that the Mark author knew this particular Rabbi.
"non-theism is a completely untenable belief system because it can't answer the biggest questions in life such as origin, purpose, morality, etc."
Nontheism is no more a belief system than your own nonbelief in karma is a belief system. Call it akarmaism and it's the same as atheism. Since it isn't a belief system it is open to consider all possibilities as to origins, purpose, morality, etc.
The Hindu religion 'explains' origins, purpose and morality too. Many superstitious belief systems, ancient and modern, claim to provide such answers. Scientology has their own explanations and provides it's own ideas of morality, purpose, etc. I doubt if you accept any of these 'answers' as credible. Neither do we accept your answers.
There are educated apologists for all the major world religions that specialize in answering objections to their pov. Simply because they provide their own answers and explanations (just as your christian apologists do) does not mean they are true. Sometimes the honest answer is 'I don't know'.
"Are you suggesting that the author of Mark forgot that his* Rabbi came back to life after being tortured, killed and rotted in a tomb for three days and walked around and preached like nothing happened? He had to have his memory jogged???? Really????? Wow..."
not so much forgot but emphasized a different set of events to different people. it's not an uncommon literary method
"Nontheism is no more a belief system than your own nonbelief in karma is a belief system."
this is an interesting phenomenon among non-theists. they feel perfectly fine denying something without replacing it with anything. the reason you say something doesn't exist or express disbelief in something is because you are positing something else. it's astounding that some people don't realize there is no vacuum.
"atheism is open to consider all possibilities as to origins, purpose, morality, etc."
atheism is not open in this regard. if you don't believe me, observe the responses from chuck o' connor.
"Sometimes the honest answer is 'I don't know'."
i agree wholeheartedly. some skepticism is healthy.
"Any more questions?"
yes. when you're done attacking me personally, would you just admit that your worldview is wholly inadequate to deal with the question i asked you instead of all the posturing?
@bfnii,
Are you Trae Norsworthy from Istrouma Baptist Church in Baton Rouge?
Anyways, I have read a number of your posts, and I think I understand somewhat where you are coming from.
I deconverted about 3 months ago after 25 years of being a 'born-again', 'spirit-filled' evangelical Christian. Up until then I would post similar comments as yours (although you do have more knowledge with apologetic skills than I did).
I know you won't receive this today, but I hope at some point in the future (years?) that you will see the true value of your comments. I know you think them to be helpful to other humans (believing in a god), yet you come off a tiny bit childish with your bible 'facts' that tell you that you 'know' a god created the universe; that you 'know' who it is; that you 'know' what it wants from your life; and you 'know' that you are doing (or trying really hard) what it commands you to do.
You can not prove that any god, let alone your god, created anything let alone everything. It's odd that your god was so easily able to create everything in the universe, yet stumbles hopelessly with creating one single book that all human beings (ie. god's finest creation) could easily understand.
Man created god, my friend.
I wish you well. I truly hope you wake up from this coma of Christianity. Many will never deconvert even after they realize that their religion is false. Why? Pride and consequence. If you deconverted today you would instantly be hated and feared by most people you know. You would not be allowed alone around Christian children because, you know, you might tell them that there is no god. You will be targeted for gossiping (I mean prayer chain). Every time a Christian would think of your name they would firstly think of you as an abomination. So much for Christian love, eh?
You would suffer lost relationships, even long term relationships because you woke up.
Please, Trae. Wake up. Wake up. Wake up.
bfniii said..."non-theism is a completely untenable belief system because it can't answer the biggest questions in life such as origin, purpose, morality, etc."
Theism trys to suggest grass plants trees existed before the sun,its a good answer you think bfniii?.
Its really untenable isnt it bfniii,but yet just because its wrong doesnt totally disprove all possibility of gods which is why im agnostic/atheist.
Science doesnt completely know about our "origin" yet,but that doesnt make non theism untenable.It simply means we dont actually know yet!.And unlike theism science prefers to try to find out and prove matters first,not make uninformed guesses like theist often did, dreaming up all types of crap and burning folks at stakes accused of being witches etc.....Thats dumb ignorant barbaric shit and really is whats very untenable! isnt it bfniii,its utter stupidity and the immoral acts of thoughtless nasty pricks that really deserved to be thrown into jail.Its untenable because if everyone followed such idiotic ways, our very survival of humanity would come under threat.
Our biggest "purpose" on earth is to survive isnt it bfniii,and you cant live on bibles and theism alone can you, but you sure can keep breathing without it and its been proved by many folks.Part of survival is breeding and taking care of our offspring,and because human brains have evolved better it would be wise if we even considered the future generations of our offspring as well.
"Morality".What is it that makes you theists so overwhelmed by matters of morality bfniii?.Theistic caused loss of common sense ?
You go on about the presence of universal morals suggested as objective.
Tell me why should we even have any reason to expect maybe some groups of human might find murder (for instance) to be ok when it doesnt do much for our human survival ?.
Should we really expect somewhere in the world we would ever likely find some group of humans who all clapped their hands, whenever murder happened ?.
If our purpose is to try to survive, then murder simply doesnt really fit the bill does it, its simply morally self depleting, and if thought moral,in the end it would end up in the death of everyone!.Which really aint so great for survival of the human race.
Its found as a universal moral,because its simply common sense bfniii...Yes simple common sense,something that promotion of theistic mumbo jumbo seems to tend to help deplete!.Which you prove very well by showing you cant even seem to understand why morality of morals like murder could ever be possible without supernatural intelligence.
If i take a lump of wood and bounce it on your head,do you really think you would need some supernatural intelligence and theistic mumbo jumbo, to help you work out that it actually hurts?.
b,
"yes. when you're done attacking me personally, would you just admit that your worldview is wholly inadequate to deal with the question i asked you instead of all the posturing?"
Care to fill me in on what you think my worldview is?
If you say atheism then you don't understand the meaning of a "world-view".
b,
"not so much forgot but emphasized a different set of events to different people. it's not an uncommon literary method"
Why would he leave out the essential event of the latter faith?
b,
"atheism is not open in this regard. if you don't believe me, observe the responses from chuck o' connor."
I spent 34 years as a Roman Catholic.
And another 7 as an Evangelical Christian.
I have recently come out of the closet as admitting atheism to my wife two weeks ago.
I gave what you believe 41 years and spent an awful lot of time trying to reconcile the silliness you spout.
Your side had its say. I am now going to listen to me now.
Don't condemn atheism until you've given it an honest go for the same amount of time I gave christianity son.
"You can not prove that any god, let alone your god, created anything let alone everything."
actually, it's been done. the issue isn't the "proof". the issue is the predisposition of the recipient. the relevant question becomes why you are giving one thing the ultimate authority in your life as opposed to another.
"god stumbles hopelessly with creating one single book that all human beings (ie. god's finest creation) could easily understand."
prove that God's goal was for everyone to understand it easily.
"Man created god, my friend."
either man (and ultimately the universe) was created or he was not. if you believe the negative, then you've got some serious problems to resolve. are you going to say that the universe popped into existence out of nothing? that takes a lot of faith to go against everything we know. are you going to say that the universe was a product of other universes? now you've got an infinite regress to explain. don't even worry about ridiculous notions like anthropic principle/multiverse because all they do is shift the goalposts. wake up indeed.
"If you deconverted today you would instantly be hated and feared by most people you know."
there are jerks on both sides of the aisle. the issue isn't the people. it's about the truth.
you do realize that the bible is being continually confirmed by archaeology, right?
Reality check. This is simply not true and the link that you provided does not in and of itself prove the Bible (as divine revelation) to be true. Here is a quote by biblical archaeologist William Dever that summarizes the situation:
"From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people. Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so."
bfniii: don't even worry about ridiculous notions like anthropic principle...
You do know that the "anthropic principle" is essentially the fine-turning argument that Craig, Alister McGrath, and all your other buddies argue for don't you?
Okay. I am the simpleton of the bunch. I would just like a few questions answered by the Christian.
How do you explain the Genesis creation account? How could grass, plants, and fruit bearing trees live without the Sun? How do you explain our Sun being a third generation star yet the Bible says stars were created after our Sun? What about Noah's Ark? How could such a ship be sea worthy in the first place? How did all the species of animals fit into the Ark? How did salt and fresh water fish survive the flood? What about there being no geological evidence for a world wide flood? I am not a genius and by far the not the brightest person here but at least Christian, address these questions please.
"This is simply not true and the link that you provided does not in and of itself prove the Bible (as divine revelation) to be true."
the purpose of the article and the citation was not to prove divine revelation. it was to prove the historical accuracy and yes, history and archaeology are continually corroborating the Bible as i just provided one of the most recent examples.
btw, how would you prove divine revelation?
"William Dever"
and you know very well that there are archaeologists who disagree with dever's statement so where does that leave us? it's not the data in question. it's the conclusions being drawn from the data. so the issue is why you believe one set of scholars over another.
"You do know that the "anthropic principle" is essentially the fine-turning argument that Craig, Alister McGrath, and all your other buddies argue for don't you?"
i was referring to it's use in the world ensemble chicanery, as i said.
"How could grass, plants, and fruit bearing trees live without the Sun?"
In the context of the biblical account, plants did not need to survive millennia without sunlight. Light had already been created in verse 3, the first “day”, whereas flora followed in verse 11 on the third day. The primordial atmosphere was quite different than the one we know. There was little to no oxygen which meant that the atmosphere was clogged with various gasses. Also, as the atmosphere developed, rain was deposited by the appropriate atmospheric conditions, particularly clouds. Despite that, sunlight could still reach the surface to provide the energy necessary for photosynthesis.
"How do you explain our Sun being a third generation star yet the Bible says stars were created after our Sun?"
This objection assumes that the creation account starts at the Big Bang and is from an omniscient perspective. It’s not. It’s from the perspective of someone on earth. The account picks up at the formation of the earth and is seen from an earthly perspective. In that regard, it does not contradict science at all.
"How could such a ship be sea worthy in the first place?"
google it. there are plenty of articles and videos on the subject.
"How did all the species of animals fit into the Ark?"
two at a time?
"How did salt and fresh water fish survive the flood?"
good question. maybe we'll know someday.
"What about there being no geological evidence for a world wide flood?"
not all christians believe in a worldwide flood nor does the Bible explicitly say so. besides, yec advocates say that there is evidence.
"this is an interesting phenomenon among non-theists. they
feel perfectly fine denying something without replacing it with anything. the
reason you say something doesn't exist or express disbelief in something is
because you are positing something else. it's astounding that some people don't
realize there is no vacuum. <"
"This is an interesting phenomenon among sober people. They feel perfectly fine denying themselves a drug without replacing it with anything. The reason you stop using a drug is to switch to another drug. It's astounding that some people don't realize there is no nonaddiction. Their sobriety is just another form of addiction itself."
To discard Santa, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny does not require positing another fairy tale. To discard the demon-possession theory of disease it is not necessary to posit the healing power of crystals, homeopathy or any other faith-based belief system.
If you discard belief in astrology, must it be replaced with a belief in palmistry or esp? Simple psychological projection assumes that because 'I' am unable to conceive of living without an elaborate system of supernatural beliefs, it must be impossible for anyone to do so.
When you look at the history of the world, you see thousands -- tens of thousands, arguably hundreds of thousands or more -- of phenomena for which a supernatural explanation has been replaced by a natural one. Why the sun rises and sets; what thunder and lightning are; how and why illness happens and spreads; why people look like their parents; how people got to be here in the first place… all these things, and thousands more, were once explained by gods or spirits or mystical energies. And now all of them have natural, physical explanations. Natural explanations, I should point out, with mountains of solid, carefully collected, replicable evidence to support them. Now, how many times in the history of the world has a natural explanation of a phenomenon been supplanted by a supernatural one?
In each of these cases, a supernatural explanation (like god) has been discarded and the only thing posited was reality itself. The natural world as it is. To insist that nonbelief is another form of belief is just playing with words. Black is not another form of white.
Bnfiii.
If light was created on the first day, but the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, what light would that be?
Also you talk about the creation as if you were there..lol..how do you no what the atmosphere would be like?
bfniii said: "How do you explain our Sun being a third generation star yet the Bible says stars were created after our Sun?"
This objection assumes that the creation account starts at the Big Bang and is from an omniscient perspective. It’s not. It’s from the perspective of someone on earth. The account picks up at the formation of the earth and is seen from an earthly perspective. In that regard, it does not contradict science at all."
No Sir! The Bible says the Stars were created after the Sun! This is most definitely a lie. A Bronze Age Tale. As far as your other explanations they are laughable. We know fruit bearing plants need the Sun to live and reproduce. Don't you see how ignorant your explanations are? From no resurrection account in the earliest manuscripts of Mark to this mythical explanation of the Genesis creation account?
b: btw, how would you prove divine revelation?
That is the burden of proof that you need to bear. For me, when I discovered the shear amount of critical/historical problems with the Bible in conjunction with natural history (including biological evolution) I found that the Bible was no more an example of God's revelation than any other sacred text.
b: and you know very well that there are archaeologists who disagree with dever's statement
No, we are not going to play this game of I'm putting my scholars up against yours. Just as in the area of the biological sciences where evolution is the consensus view (with all of its evidential basis), so with archaeology. Yes, you can find a few conservative, evangelical scholars that will want to challenge the consensus, but Dever (a centrist mind you with less of an axe to grind) does accurately summarize the status of the trade.
In affect "biblical archaeology" is dead. Just because you didn't see the obituary or (more accurately) you refuse to acknowledge that fact doesn't change anything. Even your own conservative scholars admit that the Bible (especially the OT) isn't a history book and shouldn't be looked at as such. This does tend to undermine the whole project of defending the historical reliability of the Bible. This is where Sparks (and Enns) were eye openers.
With all that being said, I have not doubt that there are many aspects of the Bible that can be historically verified, even if it is just confirming some persons and places that existed.
some people choose to hide behind that process in order to satisfy their predilection. those issues are trivial and are excuses for not dealing with non-theism being a failure as a belief system.
Perhaps you can explain how you define a "belief system?"
Do you mean a "system" that provides a default answer by which you can plug absolutely any knowledge gap, so you never ever have to say "I don't know" unless you want to?
If so, then Yes. Naturalism would fail, and fail quite badly.
But I see this as a "feature", rather than a "bug"
Bfniii wrote: This objection assumes that the creation account starts at the Big Bang and is from an omniscient perspective. It’s not. It’s from the perspective of someone on earth. The account picks up at the formation of the earth and is seen from an earthly perspective. In that regard, it does not contradict science at all.
Which earth-based, non-omnicent "someone" are you referring too? Human beings had yet to be created, so It seems we can rule them out as having made this observation.
If you suggest God used revelation to "depict" the events in question to a human being, after the fact, he's not limited to an "earthly perspective." Given that the Bible includes multiple accounts where revelation is used to describe events from a non-earthly perspective, why would he not do so in this case? You're left with saying something "profound" like, "thats just the way God did it.", "Perhaps some day we'll know", " The Bible isn't a supposed to be science textbook", or "it must not be that important", despite the inconsistency being one of the reasons I do not think God exists.
If God chooses to reveal anything at all, he implicitly decides exactly what details to include and what to leave out. While it would be possible for humans beings to be imprecise in our communication, it would be impossible for God, given his supposed nature. In addition, being all knowing, he'd know the exact degree which he had been misunderstood after the fact, even his knowledge was limited to knowing only everything that had already taken place.
Having supposedly created human beings in the first place, it would seem that God would have a very good idea how his "description" of creation would be interpreted by the beings he created, even if he wasn't omnipotent. Otherwise, how would he know we'd get anything right at all?
For example, let's take human intellect. Given that we are supposedly made in God's image, but not an exact copy, our ability to comprehend things must fall somewhere on a "line" between God and, for the purpose of discussion, bacteria.
Clearly, God couldn't just randomly pick some point on this line, as the resulting level of knowledge could leave humans completely unequipped to survive at all - let alone understand his revelation of how the universe was created. As such, choosing any particular point on this line would require God to know the consequences of giving us that particular level of intellect.
To use an analogy, imaging a human being with all of it's limbs and extremities represented all of "God" intellectual abilities. God couldn't decide to create us with out any thumbs and missing one leg without knowing the impact of being without them because...
A. He has "thumbs and legs" and would know exactly how useful they are, etc.
B. Creating us without thumbs and missing one leg would have a concrete and specific impact on our abilities. If being sans-thumbs and one leg means we can't make tools, pick food, escape predators, etc. we'll go extinct.
So, unless God considers us surviving as a species irrelevant, he couldn't just decide to make "an incomplete copy of himself" without knowing how the delta between us and him would impact us.
Communication is a two way street. We don't always know if we've been misunderstood, but, even as finite beings, we can ask someone to repeat what we've said back to us, and often do if it's important and we have the time. However, Given that God's supposedly designed us, is not limited by space and time, and would know exactly the degree which we understood him, it's clear the majority of the burden of communication would be on his side, not ours.
I am in awe and somewhat amused at the amount of time atheists spend and how hard they work to try and disprove Christianity. I have seen blog after blog that requires much work. Why put in the effort? Christians (those with the correct intentions) have a purpose. We try to convert atheists because we believe Jesus is the way to eternal life and Christians who are sincere feel they are trying to save lives as Jesus told us to do. It's actually done out of love. What is the atheists motive? Seems to me it's just hate for Christians.
debrat.
I personally do not hate christians!
I dont hate anyone for their personal beliefs.
I no alot of christain people from when i myself was a christian and i consider of them to still be my friends.
But, i strongly disagree with biblical concepts!
I dont believe that if there is a loving merciful creator, that the bible is that creators work!
To claim something like the bible to be from an all powerful, all knowing, and benevolent god, is my beef.
And the reason i care is because of the negative effect that christianity had on my own personal life.
debrat.
You said you were in awe and amused at the effort atheists put into trying to disprove christianity.
Not everyone here is a full out atheist, some of us are agnostic.
Also, i am equally amused at the lengh christians and will often go to reconcile the contradictions, inconstistencies, and scientific errors that the bible contains in order to keep believing in the truth of their holy book and ignore obvious issues and settled scientific fact!
debrat,
Can you imagine how you would feel and react if you lived in a country with a majority muslim population that was doing it's best to change the present mostly secular government and society to bring it inline with muslim sharia? These muslims want your kids to pray to allah at government-run schools, punish you for blaspheming or violating any number of rules that you believe are silly. Where you are constantly being pressured to convert and believe like your neighbors. The pressure to fit in socially would be extreme.
Well, that's the way I feel now. I live in the u.s. bible belt in a state where the percentage of unbelievers is 2%. If christians would stop trying to actively impose their beliefs on others I would have little motivation to give christianity or it's dubunking a second thought.
If scientologists were an overwhelming majority where I live and were making every effort to change the laws to conform with their ideology I'd be spending considerable effort opposing it's spread into every area of life too. My guess is that you would probably join me in this. This is why I believe what John does here is worthwile. If most americans were living their lives under sharia law I'd be posting at debunking islam blogspot.
Debrat,
Have you seen Waiting for Armageddon?
In particular, this is just one way claiming God is an "answer" to problem of suffering (by ushering in a new age after the destruction of our current age) can be counterproductive and even dangerous.
anthony,
"That is the burden of proof that you need to bear."
The age-old, timeless excuse for not dealing with the issue. it’s a simple question.
"I found that the Bible was no more an example of God's revelation than any other sacred text."
How would you know?
"consensus view"
Changes all the time. Therefore, it’s not a good standard to use. Besides, Copernicus was in the minority.
"(with all of its evidential basis)"
The data isn’t in question. the conclusions drawn from the data are in question.
"Yes, you can find a few conservative, evangelical scholars that will want to challenge the consensus, but Dever (a centrist mind you with less of an axe to grind) does accurately summarize the status of the trade."
It is incredibly sad that you can’t see that this is special pleading. “I’ll only accept the scholars who agree with my conclusions. The others have a surreptitious agenda”.
Again, there is no spiritual vacuum. All people are operating from some bias. It’s a matter of which ones you choose.
"Even your own conservative scholars admit that the Bible (especially the OT) isn't a history book and shouldn't be looked at as such."
Not totally but, it does demonstrably harmonize with history as we know it.
"Which earth-based, non-omnicent "someone" are you referring too? Human beings had yet to be created, so It seems we can rule them out as having made this observation."
it’s not hard to see that the author recorded the event from an earthly perspective. the author didn’t have to exist in order to do so.
"If you suggest God used revelation to "depict" the events in question to a human being, after the fact, he's not limited to an "earthly perspective."
But it sure would have made it easier to understand, right?
"Given that the Bible includes multiple accounts where revelation is used to describe events from a non-earthly perspective, why would he not do so in this case?"
is that required?
"You're left with saying something "profound" like, "thats just the way God did it.", "Perhaps some day we'll know"
And there’s nothing wrong with either of those. Agnostics say something similar all the time in regards to metaphysical matters
"despite the inconsistency"
I’ve already pointed out how there isn’t an inconsistency
"Given that God's supposedly designed us, is not limited by space and time, and would know exactly the degree which we understood him, it's clear the majority of the burden of communication would be on his side, not ours."
And what makes you think He hasn’t communicated adequately?
scott,
"Perhaps you can explain how you define a "belief system?"
provides an explanation for origin, purpose, destiny, morality, etc
scott,
"Which earth-based, non-omnicent "someone" are you referring too? Human beings had yet to be created, so It seems we can rule them out as having made this observation."
the author didn't have to be alive to have gained this knowledge just as scientists have made observations about the universe well before humans existed.
"Which earth-based, non-omnicent "someone" are you referring too? Human beings had yet to be created, so It seems we can rule them out as having made this observation."
it’s not hard to see that the author recorded the event from an earthly perspective. the author didn’t have to exist in order to do so.
"If you suggest God used revelation to "depict" the events in question to a human being, after the fact, he's not limited to an "earthly perspective."
But it sure would have made it easier to understand, right?
"Given that the Bible includes multiple accounts where revelation is used to describe events from a non-earthly perspective, why would he not do so in this case?"
is that required?
"You're left with saying something "profound" like, "thats just the way God did it.", "Perhaps some day we'll know"
And there’s nothing wrong with either of those. Agnostics say something similar all the time in regards to metaphysical matters
"despite the inconsistency"
I’ve already pointed out how there isn’t an inconsistency
"Given that God's supposedly designed us, is not limited by space and time, and would know exactly the degree which we understood him, it's clear the majority of the burden of communication would be on his side, not ours."
And what makes you think He hasn’t communicated adequately?
"This is an interesting phenomenon among sober people. They feel perfectly fine denying themselves a drug without replacing it with anything. The reason you stop using a drug is to switch to another drug. It's astounding that some people don't realize there is no nonaddiction. Their sobriety is just another form of addiction itself."
You do realize that when the person stopped using drugs, they didn’t cease to exist, right? They replaced drugs with something else.
"When you look at the history of the world, you see thousands -- tens of thousands, arguably hundreds of thousands or more -- of phenomena for which a supernatural explanation has been replaced by a natural one."
True. However, that still doesn’t answer the question of why there is anything in the first place.
"Now, how many times in the history of the world has a natural explanation of a phenomenon been supplanted by a supernatural one? "
what difference does it make? There are still things that science might not ever be able to explain and scientists don’t even pretend to offer explanations for some things.
"In each of these cases, a supernatural explanation (like god) has been discarded and the only thing posited was reality itself."
False. God may have been supplanted as the primary cause but not necessarily as the secondary cause. besides, reality is a very slippery term
"To insist that nonbelief is another form of belief is just playing with words."
ok. Define non-belief
"If light was created on the first day, but the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, what light would that be?"
is the sun the only or the oldest star?
No Sir! The Bible says the Stars were created after the Sun! This is most definitely a lie."
if the account is from the perspective of the earth, then it should be an accurate account.
"As far as your other explanations they are laughable."
In what way?
the author didn't have to be alive to have gained this knowledge just as scientists have made observations about the universe well before humans existed.
Bfniii,
My point is, we can clearly exclude a scenario where the author's only means of gaining knowledge about the event was observing it directly from the earth as author wouldn't have existed at the time. This is the only scenario that necessitates such a earthly perspective.
The remanning "logically possible" options are that the author either deduced what occurred, received "divine revelation" of what occurred, or some combination of the two. If we go with the former, this individual must have been lacking information about the account, otherwise deduction (which was incorrect) wouldn't be necessary. At best, you have incomplete revelation. However, it's unclear as if any revelation actually took place or is correct.
However, if God is going to intervene - after the fact - by revealing any information at all, he must choose exactly what to information to include and what to leave out. And he must choose what perspective to present it from. By intentionally choosing one perspective, he also intentionally chooses against the other. And that choice has consequences and implications.
I wrote: "If you suggest God used revelation to "depict" the events in question to a human being, after the fact, he's not limited to an "earthly perspective."
Bfniii wrote: But it sure would have made it easier to understand, right?
Apparently not, as the author depicted the stars forming after the earth, which means he doesn't actually 'understand' what happened.
Surely, if God couldn't explain it to us in a way we'll understand, wouldn't that represent poor design and planning on his part? After all, God is supposedly all powerful and both designed and implemented the very capacity we human beings use to understand anything at all.
I wrote: "Given that the Bible includes multiple accounts where revelation is used to describe events from a non-earthly perspective, why would he not do so in this case?"
Bfniii wrote: is that required?
If God didn't what Genesis to appear to be like all the other creation myths then, yes. If he didn't want this appearance to be one of the reasons I do not think God exists, thereby preventing me from being "saved" then, yes.
I wrote: "You're left with saying something "profound" like, "thats just the way God did it.", "Perhaps some day we'll know"
And there’s nothing wrong with either of those. Agnostics say something similar all the time in regards to metaphysical matters
Where not talking about axioms of reality. We're talking about why God, while intentionally and explicitly intervening in human affairs and knowledge, supposedly left out or was ambiguous about the how the universe was created. At a minimum, he could have at least ensured the author got the order correct, without drastically changing the message.
And what makes you think He hasn’t communicated adequately?
If you assume that God has no more advantage than the finite human beings he supposedly communities with then, yes, his communication would be adequate. However, this is a far cry from the God that theists like yourself claim to exist.
Again, I find it baffling that, on one hand, theists think God is all knowing and all powerful while, on the other hand, theists seem to completely ignore the implications these properties would have on the process of communication in reality.
For example, theists present the 'ontological' argument for the existence of a 'maximal being', yet assume God would have no more responsibility in the two way process of communication than finite human beings. It's paradoxical.
I wrote: Perhaps you can explain how you define a "belief system?"
Bfniii wrote: "provides an explanation for origin, purpose, destiny, morality, etc
Can't help but notice how this appears to be a "system" that provides a default answer by which you can plug absolutely any knowledge gap, so you never ever have to say "I don't know" unless you want to?
Is there any difference?
Would this be enough? :-\
Post a Comment