Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

ER,

AS far as I can tell, their main focus is to go on "Raiding Parties" to correct erronous and defamatory statements by Christians against evolution.

As long as the Terms "Darwinist", "Neo-Darwinist" don't pull you up in a Google search, you are probably safe as can be...

...uh...oops...sorry about that...
 

I could troll you, if you're feeling left out...

ok, here goes: "You UCC lamers are too nice and agreeable and smart and socially conscious for your own good!" no...no, that doesn't work. How about:

"you think there's room for religion and science and that they can play nice! haw haw haw! science r00lz!!!! all your bases belong to galileo, l0$3r!!1!"

see, i'm no good at this.
 

I think I'll post something that will scream as an invitation to such trolling. Dawkins and Harris I can deal with; any "followers" of theirs should be like shooting dead fish in a cup.
 

BTW, I know it happened, so thanks for the prayers. We don't need them, but Ken and Barb Hall, the owners and operators of Edwards Apple Orchard sure do. They lost their home and all their outbuildings; the orchard itself is still there, but what good is it having award-winning apple cider if your cider press is buried under tons of rubble? What good is it to have a country store is the floor for that country store is 100 yards away in a field? Pray their insurance company doesn't employ dickheads.
 

(Geoffrey is referring to the tornado that flattened several houses and an orcahrd in his town in Illinois last night.)
 

Hey, SW! Long time no see! :-)

"UCC Lamer" -- I might have that put on a T-shirt! (Although I DO like the UU one better: "UU's are good, for nothing."


Geoffrey: Notice that Neil's blog is one of the ones in the atheist raiders's sights: There, I likened the treatment of an intrepid soul -- wait -- any intrepdi soulless (hee hee) raider here, at your hands as well as DrLoboJo's to the treatment Indiana Jones gave the machete-wielding 'tard in that one movie.
 

Well, given that 90% of the population of the world believes in one deity or another, these folks have their work cut out for them, I'd say.

Heh. Skimming a bit through some of sites they picked ... seems like they went for the low hanging fruit, eh? LOL.

But, for folks who think everything they're doing is "evidence based" the idea that they're going to "change minds" via blog comments is .... well, certainly not evidence based. :)
 

Well, I am an a-atheist!
 

Alan, you stole my line, durn ya!

I'm stealing it back.
 

I mean, I don't believe in atheists!

Wock-wocka.
 

You'd think the Dawkins bunch would have enough to do elucidating whether the FOXP2 gene was truly truncated in homo egaster, with out 'raiding' honest Christians....
 

"Richard Dawkins' followers stage "raiding parties" on CHRISTIAN blogs." (emphasis added)

So, ER, why are YOU worried?
 

Just went over to Neil's site and read through the posts and comments.
It looks more like they are involved there in the self stimulation of a wanabe victim rather than fending off actual raiders. There did seem to be a few Trojan horses setting up some type of internal attack, but surely Niel would be hip to that?
 

GKS, sorry to hear that the twister came too close to home. We can empathize here, oh yes we can.
 

"...shooting dead fish in a cup"

Wow! Geoffrey and I agree.


On a side note... there's no such thing as an Atheist. Man is hard-wired for religion, and even Atheists live by their own brand of religiosity-- worshiping at the altar of NeoDarwinism... Of course any self-respecting Agnostic* would foam at the mouth and apoplectically deny it.

Smiles everyone.

_____
* There are no Atheists, only Agnostics.
 

Is adeist a valid concept?
 

ELAshley - yeah, we agree, and then you go and ruin the fun. No such thing as an atheist . . .

So, all those atheists are, what, deluded? Not fully human because they haven't tapped into the whole God-hard-wired thing? Science is religion (I've always loved this one, because it shows how ignorant some people are concerning the nature of science)?

I hate to add snark to what has been an otherwise fun thread, but I couldn't resist.
 

ER: Speaking as a UU (atheist), I have to say, that is a great line.
 

I knew knew knew knew knew some smart ass was gonna say something like: "So, ER, why are YOU worried?"

LOL! Glad it was you, DrLobojo.


I almost brought that up myself, thusly:

There's the old saw: If being a Christian were a crime would there be enough evidence to convict?

Couldn't say! If my lawyer could use the voir dire process juuust right, maybe. Definitely enough evidence to get charged and bound over for trial!
 

Geoffrey: I see it like this, myself: All professions concerning God, in whatever form, theist or otherwise, require faith.

Try as they might, there is no proof of not-God. Try as we might, there is no "proof" of God.

Maybe there is a better, less loaded word than "faith," but I can't think of one. Atheists trust in their own selves, their judgment, if nothing else. There is no "empirical" evidence, either way, I don't think.
 

Whoch is why I am an a-atheist.
 

Whoa. Adeism?

Hmm. Well, taking this definition of "deist" and attaching "a," as in "without" ...

"One who admits the possibility of the existence of a God or gods, but claims to know nothing of either, and denies revelation."

Would an adeist be one who denies the impossibility of a God or gods, and does not claim to not know everything of both, and affirms non-revelation?

Ow! I hurt my brain.
 

BB-Idyho, re: "You'd think the Dawkins bunch would have enough to do elucidating whether the FOXP2 gene was truly truncated in homo egaster ..."

If, as Wiki says, "Homo ergaster ("working man") is an extinct hominid species ... " does that explain the apparent genetic tendency of the workin' class to bow and scrape to Fox Noose? Could the extinction be a precursor to the eventual extinction of the workin' man by his own natural selection of Repubs promoted BY Fox Noose? Hmmm ...
 

Oh, wow. It just gets gooder and gooder!

Check this out, where in ER deftly avoids entrapment by Bubba, who gets whacked with the Epistle of James by a Muslim! I love it.

http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/
2007/12/31/christian-
pluralists-self-refuting-oxymoronic-and-arrogant/#comment-19909

(You'll have to copy, paste and scrunch ...)
 

ER,

Well, I once went through what I called an "apatheist" stage - as in: "Don't know, don't care".
 

Ha! Very good!
 

THIS IS NOT A RESPONSE TO ANYONE ON THIS THREAD.

Why does the Body of Christ need so many ASSHOLES????

Arrrrrgh!

END VENT.

Carry on.
 

ER asked (apropos of nothing):
"Why does the Body of Christ need so many ASSHOLES????"

Look closely, they are not really atttached, just hovering just ever so close.
 

ER,

Long day?

Sending you a big cup of virtual coccoa right now...
 

Huh. Here's a wild thought:

Jesus of Nazareth was a man. But Jesus, it is said, as Sophia-Logos, has always existed with/as part of the Father.

We anthopomorphise God all the time. I have been anthropomorphizing the Body of Christ. What kind of body IS that?

Not necesarrily human -- not even as a metaphor.

I think there actually ARE a bunch of buttholes -- probably to rid the Body of all the CRAP produced by some of the other parts.

Might be a whole post in the question: What kind of body actually best represents, ideally, the Body of Christ?


Teresa: ((virtual slurp)). Thanks! :-)


Going to bed now to argue with St. Paul in the "pastoral letters" before sleep! Nite all!
 

"So, all those atheists are, what, deluded?"

No. Just Agnostic.
 

ER, been reading your comments over in the ortho-orthodox country.

Why are you fooling with those purveyors of temporal authority and linear testimonies of Jesus as a single historical event? You need to move on.

Where is the guy that has flirted with the understanding of Jesus as a new manifestation of eternal truth or of perennial wisdom. Study the ahistorical Christ of the eternal Logos and the limitless Kosmos. He is in the Gospels, even more so than the orthodox one. The Logos can assume as many forms as there are people (has been or will ever be) on this planet. However many forms that are needed to provide his grace to each soul, he will take and yet still be the only way. The congealed orthodx individual's vision of Jesus is the only one he can see or understand. For that person, it will be what it is, but for you..... stop slopping the swine and go on home. The fatted calf awaits.


OK,OK,OK I'll go take my meds now.
 

Glad I saw this before retiring to argue with Paul! Thanks. It's that diabetic-in-a-candy-store thing again!
 

The "raiding atheists" won't post on your site. It would not serve their evangelical purposes. They only want the flat earth crowd, so they can make hay with these (unecessary) God vs. Science arguments.

The poor guy who posted on Mark's Godway site is just an (understandably) disillusioned seeker who greatly needs our prayers and expressions of love.


Blogdom will never capture the true essence of Christianity, which
is a long way from theological arguments: It resides in the care and concern people of my church have expressed for my close friend whose father died just a few days before Christmas, or in the prayers and expressions of love for a member of our small group who is battling cancer, or the homeless man who hugged me after I gave him a shirt that fit him, minutes after his cardboard
home had been bulldozed by the police.
 

Hello everyone... Erudite Redneck made an invite on http://4simpsons.wordpress.com saying this site was looking for atheists. (I wonder why?)

Well, I'm not part of any raiding party... just wondering if there is a debate going on here about the existence of a theistic god or not.

If people are interested in entering into a debate - I will more than try to give it a go here.

I am an atheist… attack away.

Lee
 

Oh... I'm not a biologist and never been religious - so go easy on me.

Lee
 

Howdy, Lee.

Re, "If people are interested in entering into a debate - I will more than try to give it a go here."

Then start one, and we'll see what happens!
 

But then, if you're not a biologist, then you have no expertise there, and if you've never been religious, you have no experience there, so I'm, not sure, sans expertise or experience, what you'd bring to such a debate. But really, start a debate. Maybe I'll put it up on a fresh post.
 

ER,

Silly ER, You say you don't know what Lee would bring to the debate...but you know perfectly well that part of the reason for debate is what you bring AWAY from it, as well as what you bring TO it.

You ARE, after all, the Erudite Redneck... :-)

You don't need proficiency with ideas to play with them.
 

Ya got me! But I wonder if Mr. Lee has tipped his hand right off the bat, though. What does biology have to do with a discussion of theism? I mean, it could be a strand of such a discussion, and might even be the basis of one's original position. But it doesn't have to be part of such a discussion at all. If evolutution is what he wants to argue, or discuss, I'll sit out the science part as irrelevant to my personal faith and my concept of God and creation. And I say discussion because I am not formally schooled in "debate." Dang it, I got to get to work!
 

Well, clearly biology is important to the debate because these folks are only interested in "debating" with folks who don't believe in evolution, who think the earth is 6000 years old, etc. As I said, the low hanging fruit.
 

Teresa said: "You don't need proficiency with ideas to play with them."

That sure the hell is the rule here. Welcome Lee.
 

ER said: "I'll sit out the science part as irrelevant to my personal faith and my concept of God and creation."

So you subscribe to Stephen Gould's "Nonoverlapping Magisteria" of Science and Religion?
I can't buy that. Well, maybe I can when the Dogmatics of Science intersect with the Dogmatics of Relgion, but even then only as a containment issue.

There ain't hardly any religious issues as far out and as mystical as theoretical cosmological science is. As an old book said they are out there dancing with the Woo Ling Masters.

Or say, try String Theory with drinking a quart of wine from the communion table first.
 

Re, "That sure the hell is the rule here. Welcome Lee."

LOLOL -- hazelnut coffee RIGHT up and into, but not all the way out of, the right nostril!

On science: Well, as I AM an erudite redneck, with two bachelor's of SCIENCE degrees under my belt (journalism and political "science," which usually are B.A.s but not at land-grant A&M type universities), sure, I reckon I might can play. Just don't ever accuse me of doin' moe than playin' with science, especially the details of evolution.

Now, I AM going to work. I HATE when my work habit gets in the way of my blogging.

(Somebody better say something nice about Miss Lexi upstairs or Bird's fellers will be hurt! Hey, maybe Miss Lexi could be a starting point for a discussion. She IS a dadgum pre-historic-lookin' critter!)
 

Bird's feelers, not fellers. She ain't got but one of those!
 

To me, it seems like the reason atheists, materialista, and scientists "pick on" the "lowhanging fruit" is because those are the peopel who are going after them.

Generalizing to all theists seems to be because even moderate or liberal theists have a tendancy to support their more fundamentalistic brethern over science and reason.

The dabte ranges into the "Well, at least they believe in God, if not in the right way".

I don't see believeing in God as a virtue in and of itself, and I certainly understand why the muddle of theology frustrates those who reject it.

For instance, more moderate Calvanists who still subscribe to the five points of Calvanism will say that the more extreme Calvanists are "wrong"...but can't come up with a coherant argument for why (for instance) drunkards should not be put to death. without departing from Calvanism.

It does sort of sometimes feel like someone is beating you up, and a member of their family comes along and points out that they have a reason to be angry at you, but are wrong to beat you up, stands around clicking their tongue while they watch, and then gives their family member a hug afterwards...and then they go to the police with a full report of everything that you did wrong, but leave out the beating.

Sort of like how Neil moans about these "raiding parties" when theists have been harassing blogs and newsgroups for some time.

You'd be shocked and appauled by theist behavior I could tell you about from moderation of the Babylon Five news group...and THAT show didn't even promote atheism...It was just written by an atheist who was friendly to spirituality, and frequently portrayed religion in a favorable light.
 

Teresa, I plead " no contest" to this: "even moderate or liberal theists have a tendancy to support their more fundamentalistic brethern over science and reason."

But I do so not because they believe in God, but because God believes in them. God's Grace applies to ALL who seek it -- even the "low-hanging" ones. And if that perpetuates intolerance, ignorance and etc., well, I don't know what to do about it other than maintain my own not-fundy voice as part of the Christian cacaphony.
 

teresa wrote, "Generalizing to all theists seems to be because even moderate or liberal theists have a tendancy to support their more fundamentalistic brethern over science and reason."

Meh. Never seen that. I've got little in common with any kind of fundamentalist, Christian or atheist. I think it makes a nice rationalization, but I'd wager that, like the fundies they're raiding, they mostly like to hear the clickity-clack of their own keyboards, and enjoy the backslapping congratulations from their own group of ditto-heads as they trot out yet another argument that's at least 500 years old. From what I've seen over there so far, they're no different than the fundies they're arguing with. The similarities are pretty hilarious actually.

Last debate I had with an atheist, standing outside my favorite wateringhole ended rather abruptly. He'd been going on for some time talking about how rationality governed his life, rather than irrational faith, rationality and evidence, blah, blah, blah. I asked him why, if that were true, he was standing outside in the freezing cold middle of a Michigan winter, smoking a cigarette.

People don't base their beliefs or decisions on reason or evidence, whether they're theists or atheists, but fundies on both sides believe that they do.
 

Alan, re: "Never seen that. I've got little in common with any kind of fundamentalist, Christian or atheist."

Come on down to the South/Southwest/rural West, where you can't sling a cat without hittin' a fundamentalist and where the commonality we'uns share is the kind that stronger even than religious conviction: Culture. :-)
 

LOL. I'll pass. One of the unbreakable rules I live by is to never, ever cross the Mason-Dixon line. I prefer the relatively fundie-free People's Republic of Ann Arbor. :)
 

Alan,

Neil is an excellent example, actually. He will up-and-down assert that the does not believe that homosexuals should be put to death, for instance, but he promotes the same "Sound Doctrine" that says they should be put to death...right up to the point, and in practically the same words as those who say they should be put to death.

When probed for his reasoning why he stops short of their conclusions that homosexuals should be killed, he rejects the question as a "straw man". As a moderate, he seems to know that it would be wrong to have the death penalty for homosexuals, but he refuses to attack the "Sound doctrine" arguments that support the fundamentalist argument that they should be...and escapes the request for an explination by calling the request a "straw man".

But he is VERY avid about attacking the mistakes and even heresies (from his perspective) of theological liberals who diminish the importance of or even negate homosexuality as a sin deserving death.

In the mean-time, people are dying, and the movement that is killing them is growing. While theists smugly proclaim their reasoning to be no less sound than non-theists. While that maybe true, and we can argue the particulars of it all day...and you probably can better than I can...I don't see how it really helps anyone. It kind of gets us non-theists a little worked up.

With regard to evolution, Evolutionary biology has produced knowledge that actually makes a difference in the world. Theistic Biology has not, and has given no indication that it ever will, so once again, while they may or may not be equally "valid"...I'm going with the one that gave me penicillin, and I'm going to oppose the one that wants to drain resources and credibility from it.

Not that mass-trolling is excusable, logical or right. Just maybe somewhat understandable.
 

ER said: "Come on down to the South/Southwest/rural West, where you can't sling a cat without hittin' a fundamentalist and where the commonality we'uns share is the kind that stronger even than religious conviction: Culture."

CONFEDERATE ALERT!

"We'uns"? Leave me out.
 

IMO, you proceed from a false assumption. I don't think even the most expansive definition of the term "moderate" would apply to Neil. He seems to dislike the term, but he's clearly a fundamentalist (and when I use that term I mean it in the historical sense of one who believes in the 5 fundamentals.) So, why would anyone be surprised if he doesn't like the theory of evolution and/or teh gays? So, yes, I think he's a good example ... of the "low hanging fruit" I mentioned earlier.
 

Dadgum it, DrLoboJo, don't fergit: Yer a western Okie, I'm an eastern Okie. Different histories, different cultures, different peeps. Yer already out!

I read something the other day that puts some transportational history into it:

In my part of the state, we had more mules than horses, a la the South. In yer part of the state, they had more horses, a la the West.
 

Alan,

You could be right. Definitions such as "Fundamentalist" and "moderate" are always open to interpretation.

I view Neil as a moderate because his actual positions are quite moderate compared to the ultimate expressions of the five fundamentals. He seems to subscribe to them and promote them...but he stops short of their ultimate conclusions.

By way of example, he seems to have backed off on the doctrine of total depravity, by publicly stating that atheists (as well as Hindus, etc) can behave morally, but are not saved.

Strict adherance to the doctrine of total depravity would imply that it is impossible for anyone to behave morally without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, because their humanity taints every action. Thus, only those who are of the elect can be saved, and only they can behave in a truly moral fashion.

By the standards of some of the Christians involved in my spiritual training, he's a moderate, but only in that he stops short of the ultimate expressions of the doctrine without seeming to have a clear reasoning for doing so.

And that is kind of my point, he says that he is nothing like those who are more fundamentalist than him, but has not given a "sound Doctrine" explination of where he differs from them.

While I think that people in that position really believe that the five fundamentals are true...I think that their genuine humanity and love moderate them away from fundamentalism, and stick them in a difficult spot. It can't be comfortable or fun to be there.
 

In my part of the state we had Kiowas and Comanches.

"low hanging fruit"
Some of that is ground spoilage from last season.

So let's up the ante.

Before biological evolution there must be the "elements" that can form biological life. It reportedly takes a third genration star to have formed those elements. That is a star must be formed, cooked its elements, died & exploded, reformed, recooked the elements, died & exploded, reformed and recooked its elements. Then and only then is there stuff with which to start the evolution of biological life.

Our sun is a third generation star.

So evolution is not a matter millions of years but of tens of billions of years.

In that view evolution has be going on since creation or let's say the big bang of the singularity. On that scale you need the Logos to understand the "God" in it.

comments?
 

Hi Erudite Redneck,

Wow… a lot of comments over night. (I live in Australia BTW).

I posted a little “hello” and now have so many relies… thanks

Then start one, and we'll see what happens!

OK…. I’m particularly interested in looking at the evidence for the existence of the theistic god (and since you are all probably Christian’s here, we could just call Him God if you like, but I need to know then why you have limited yourself to just this single possibility)

Now please do not make the same mistake as some have done by building a straw man against me before we have even started. As I said, I am first interested in the evidence, then I will look at the quality of the evidence (shouldn’t we all?)

But then, if you're not a biologist, then you have no expertise there, and if you've never been religious, you have no experience there, so I'm, not sure, sans expertise or experience, what you'd bring to such a debate.

No, I am not a biologist – I stated this at the beginning in case you think I was “one of those” from the RD site… looking merely to attack the fundamentalist Young Earther’s. Again, I seen too many times the theist dismiss the debater before the debate has even started.

As for expertise… well, try me out – take me for a test drive. I’ve been looking for a god all my life, but never found convincing evidence for a particular god… I look in the strangest of places, such as blogs like these – you never know do you? Though having looked for so long – I doubt very much a theistic god exists, just wanting to be clear on my position.

Also, I didn’t know you needed qualifications to enter into such debates, so the only think I can offer is the fact I got myself a degree some 10 years ago – does that help? (FYI it was Physics with Astrophysics, but I do not want a science debate unless you do)

Alan wrote:
these folks are only interested in "debating" with folks who don't believe in evolution, who think the earth is 6000 years old, etc. As I said, the low hanging fruit.

Not so… I am here am I not wanting to debate with you guys? Though I do focus at the “roots” of religion i.e. God

D’oh… I notice a lot of people mentioned work… I have to go myself.

Back later

Lee
 

"Strict adherance to the doctrine of total depravity would imply that it is impossible for anyone to behave morally without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, because their humanity taints every action. Thus, only those who are of the elect can be saved, and only they can behave in a truly moral fashion."

Nope, I think you misunderstand the doctrine of total depravity. Total depravity does not mean that a person cannot do any good whatsoever. It just means that the good a person does is always somewhat tainted by sin. That's true of both the elect and the non-elect. As far as I know, nothing about the doctrine says that only the elect can behave morally.
 

Lee wrote, "I’m particularly interested in looking at the evidence for the existence of the theistic god..."

In order to have such a discussion, we'd have to know what you count as evidence. This is where these debates always fall apart. Asking for empirical evidence of a super-natural being (or a super-natural anything) is obviously bound to fail, by definition. Heck, I can't even provide empirical evidence that my Mom loves me. I could provide all sorts of examples of ways in which she has demonstrated that love over time, but any one of those examples can be easily refuted as clever acting on her part, or wishful thinking on mine.
 

Howdy, Lee.

Re, "OK. I’m particularly interested in looking at the evidence for the existence of the theistic god (and since you are all probably Christian’s here, we could just call Him God if you like, but I need to know then why you have limited yourself to just this single possibility)."

I would say that the main evidence I use is my own experience, supplemented by the testimony of others about their experience, which includes some claims to eyewitness accounts. Some of it's hearsay.

(Should I make this a separate post now? It's not gonna be much fun though if Lee just parachutes in and leaves a comment and goes to work and it's another 24 hours before he can respond ...)
 

Even in Australia they probably only work 8 hour days.
 

D'oh. Good point.
 

Doctrine of "Total Depravity",This would have been somewhat of a problem to even the early church. Back when Justin Martyr was writting his Apologia he pointed to Jeremiah 31:33 (the so called prophecy of the new covenant): "I will write my law on their hearts."

Justin Martyr's contention was that those who have never heard of Christ or have not accepted him in the traditional orthodox sense but follow the moral law of their hearts, follow God. For it is God who has written those laws in each heart. Though a person can not explicitly recognize God he can still be God's own.

More on this latter, I'll bet.

Careful though, they did chop off his head in Rome.
 

Hi all,

Erudite Redneck wrote...
(Should I make this a separate post now? It's not gonna be much fun though if Lee just parachutes in and leaves a comment and goes to work and it's another 24 hours before he can respond ...)

It could be a good idea, at least if any other “atheist” walks along they can just straight into a debate.

Though I cannot really reply from work, I can read your posts during the day. I will certainly be back before 24 hours has elapsed (if I can convince the wife)

Most of my posts normally come every 24 hours when I post in the evening; (10 to 12 hours from now) however, on a long train journey I have time to think about what has been written during the day.

Drlobojo wrote...
Even in Australia they probably only work 8 hour days.

It feels longer, but you are right! Just the clocks are upside down – 6 at the top, 12 at the bottom.

However, a quick comment on the “debate” then I have to do some work.

Erudite Redneckwrote...
I would say that the main evidence I use is my own experience, supplemented by the testimony of others about their experience, which includes some claims to eyewitness accounts. Some of it's hearsay.

The first part seems subjective… but I am interested how you test it and convince others of your experience.

As for eyewitness accounts… does this mean you also believe in alien landings and ghosts? (A question I asked on Neil’s blog.) I do not have a problem with eyewitness accounts, I would take some to prove the bible (but is it ever enough to convict a criminal in a court of law?)

Alan wrote:
In order to have such a discussion, we'd have to know what you count as evidence.

Good point, but I have asked what you, the believer, what you have chosen as good evidence for your god.

By “definition”, being an atheist, I have rejected all the “evidence” for a theistic god that has already been presented to me as “weak”. This does NOT mean I have seen ALL the evidence.

I am very evidence based, but I am NOT stuck in the “only empirical evidence” will do… lets think of it as a “court of law” for the soul.

This is where these debates always fall apart. Asking for empirical evidence of a super-natural being (or a super-natural anything) is obviously bound to fail, by definition.

Why?

OK, to be clearer, I do NOT expect direct empirical evidence for the existence of God. God can, of course, hide His true presence – If He wanted.

However, I understand that most definitions of a theistic god state the God takes an interest in current affairs.

Do you pray to God? Why?

If God was to listen and act upon your prayers, do you think that this interaction from God could be measured, empirically? If not, how do you know that God has interacted in anyway?

Heck, I can't even provide empirical evidence that my Mom loves me. I could provide all sorts of examples of ways in which she has demonstrated that love over time, but any one of those examples can be easily refuted as clever acting on her part, or wishful thinking on mine.

Why would your mother hide her love from you? Why would you mother trick you into making you believe she loved you when she did not? If she tricked you, than she is not really loving you is she?
(I am not questioning your mother’s love for you here, merely using it as a example since you brought it into the debate)

Look, I know what you are saying, somethings are hard to measure, but that does not make it impossible.

Certainly not in “thought experiments”

Taken to the extreme, think of a situation (an evil one I know) where you and your mother have been taken hostage by some “evil atheist overlord” planning to take over the world.

He says (from a safe distance of course) that there is a gun with a single bullet in it on the table in front of you.

If one of you takes the gun and shoot yourself (he will be watching) – the other will be released, unharmed with a million dollars for their trouble.

If neither of you take the gun, then both will be shot dead within 30 minutes.

Now in this situation, could love be shown by you or your mother?

I know in such a situation, if it was me and my son (though he is too young at the moment – fast forward 10 years) I would take the gun and kill myself – and as an atheist I do not believe there is a god and afterlife as a prize for coming second.

What do you think… can some things be tested?

I really have to go… back tonight.

Lee
 

Alan,

Actually, you summarize the Doctrin of Total Depravity exactly as I understood it, and as I thought I had presented it. This is not how I interpreted Neil's statement that atheists can BE moral.

Total depravity says that only the elect can truly be moral, because only the Holy Spirit can lift us out of our depravity, and everything we do (even moral acts) are tainted with self-interest.

At the same time, he rejects the idea of universal salvation as heresy...

Which is my point, he doesn't go all the way with the doctrin of depravity...but he rejects half-way measures as heresy.

I never got to press him on that point, because there were so many others...but generally, you do not get a doctrinally consistant answer when trying to figure out a resolution.

This is something I encounter quite a bit. *shrug* which is not to say that it's a conviction of Fundamentalist Christianity on any particular...only that claims of an objective morality are difficult to assess under those conditions...and I think if someone doesn't embrace those fundamentalist tendancies, but stops short of them and moderates them, they qualify in my mind as moderate.
 

Dammit ER, you finally get the kind of debate going that I would love to engage with, just as work reaches its busiest period of the year for me. If I believed in a god I’d say he had it in for me! ;o)
 

Lee, Re, "I have asked what you, the believer, what you have chosen as good evidence for your god."

I have answered this directly, actually.

Re, "The first part seems subjective ..."

Yes.

Re, "but I am interested how you test it and convince others of your experience."

I don't test it any more than I test my breathing. And I don't try to convince others of it, per se. I do talk of it when it seems appropriate.

Re, "As for eyewitness accounts… does this mean you also believe in alien landings and ghosts?"

I am agnostic when it comes to alien landings, based on what seem to be impossible odds against them (at least the existence of other critters out there). I think I do believe in ghosts, based on my own experience, corroborated by others' testimony.

Re, "I do not have a problem with eyewitness accounts, I would take some to prove the bible (but is it ever enough to convict a criminal in a court of law?)"

Oh, if you want to talk about the Bible, lets. But it's a new topic to this thread.

Re, "Now in this situation, could love be shown by you or your mother?"

I would hope, assuming the setup, that I would take myself out as an act of love. But I'm not sure I would. The survival instinct is pretty strong.

Re, prayer: I pray because I can't help it. Any results, to be honest, seem to come in my own mind as a result of the time spent in thought and meditation, which does not preclude the involvement of God.

And I am GLAD I called this a discussion. I'm sure this will be fruitful, but it's no debate.

(BTW: Why the air quotes around "atheist," Lee? You self-identified as such. ... I reckon it might be an Aussie thing. ...)
 

LOLOL! Good to see ya, Liam!
 

Teresa, I'm not sure what Neil thinks, and I wouldn't presume to put works in his mouth. However, he's a Methodist, so my guess is that he's somewhat uncomfortable with real Calvinism (ie. real total depravity) and yet he's not a fan of classical Arminian Universal Election. So, I'm not sure I'd look for consistency there.

I think it's important to actually understand theology to see how such ideas all hang together, rather than picking and choosing which of the 5 points of Calvinism one likes. :)
 

Lee writes, "By “definition”, being an atheist, I have rejected all the “evidence” for a theistic god that has already been presented to me as “weak”. "

Well, I'm a damned cynic, but one could suggest that perhaps any evidence for a theistic god that one would present to you would be automatically discounted as weak. So, simply putting this back on me, isn't really helpful is it? What evidence would you take as reasonable?

I wrote, "This is where these debates always fall apart. Asking for empirical evidence of a super-natural being (or a super-natural anything) is obviously bound to fail, by definition."

And Lee asks, "Why?"

I don't mean to be a jerk, but you're joking right? By definition, empirical evidence cannot account for a SUPER-NATURAL being. If that were NOT the case, then most of the scientific establishment's dislike of Creationism and ID would be moot.

So again, what sort of evidence do you find compelling? Can you give an example of the type of non-empirical evidence that you've found useful?

"If God was to listen and act upon your prayers, do you think that this interaction from God could be measured, empirically? If not, how do you know that God has interacted in anyway?"

That is, I believe, a rather naive understanding of both God and prayer. God is not a cosmic gumball machine. Prayer does not change God. As CS Lewis said, prayer changes us.
 

Go, Alan, go! Of course, this is the classic double-bind that people who think it possible to "prove God's existence" find themselves in. By showing its fallaciousness, Alan probably ticked Lee off, but then again, I wonder if he can answer Alan's question.

This is why I, for one, find Neil so infuriating. He thinks it is possible to do things like this, and make sense, and win the argument.

Me, I wonder what difference does it make? Even if you convince one person that God, Christianity, religion, whatever, makes no rational sense within an agreed-upon set of criteria, will that change the fact that there are billions of human beings who actually do have religious beliefs, and are living them out? Religion, like pretty much every other aspect of human life, is only partly rational, and rests less upon such inquiry and more upon the lived experience of believers. I have seen and heard and read and participated in so many discussions, and none of it means anything, because those who insist they are right have no more substantial defense than those those who disagree with them. Rather than do such pointless things as this (other than they can be diverting at times), why not discuss ways in which we can make our religious traditions more responsive to real human need, rather than say, "All religious people are a bunch of irrational boobs?"

As a United Methodist, Alan, I can honestly say that I have no idea where Neil gets some of his ideas. Jacobus Arminius, John and Charles Wesley, Borden Parker Bowne, and L. Harold DeWolfe are all spinning in their graves, even as we speak. Now, Wesley did once describe himself as "a hairs' breadth away from Calvin", but even a superficial reading of his voluminous work shows him to tread a far different path.
 

Alan, It's wise not to put words in Neil's mouth, and I think I've made it clear that I'm just trying to figure out what he means and making my best guess.

In the end, my impression is that he's a generally nice, generally smart, guy in the middle of a theological muddle, and can't see a way clear of it that doesn't end up in pure Calvanism, or wandering into "liberal theology" so he just tries to dig in where he is.

There are a lot of people who fit that description, and they kind of scare me. Because they are the ones that the more scary people are trying to radicalize, and I can't tell if there is any firm foundation to keep it from happening. There really doesn't seem to be. Neil is the most cogent evangelical conservative I've come across in a long time, the most willing to put himself out there, and the most willing to take risks voicing his beliefs and engaging people...and yet I still come up empty-handed.

It's unsetteling.
 

Gks,

I remember, in a discussion about the IRD, Neil made a number of statements that indicate he believes that the less-Calvanistic interpretations of Wesley are faulty, and the result of the initial "Steeplejacking" of the church by theological liberals.

So HIS brand of UM has the REAL story on Wesley...and the more touchy-feely UM is the branch that has been "steeple-jacked". The efforts of the IRD, then, are just an attempt to put things right.
 

The IRD, for those who may not be aware, is The Institute for Religion and Democracy, funded by Richard Mellon Scaife (who has his own problems right now), and has one agenda - killing mainline Christianity via the constant nonsensical pinpricking a la the fabled, and fake, Chinese death of a thousand cuts. Their "United Methodist Project" is one of the most awful, hate-filled, and usually error-prone projects I have ever encountered. Run by Mark Tooley, who has a specific animus towards the United Methodist Church, it brings up all sorts of issues that are usually beside the point, and quite often false, to paint the church in the worst possible light.

I find it amazing that a church with eight and a half members, has close to a sixty-percent attendance rate nation-wide (that is, on any given Sunday, up to sixty percent of members actually on the roll are at a worship service) and has a history of being non-creedal, could spawn such a hyper-creedal bunch of loons who insist it's their way or the highway. I have no problem with their existence; I do have a problem with their insistence that they are the true voice of lost United Methodism. Even a cursory glance at the history of my denomination shows that is patently false. They are the steeple-jackers, historically, theologically, and denominationally ignorant. I have little patience with them.
 

Richard Mellon Scaife.....IRD...Church reform....his way... who says money can't buy everything?
 

(Bangs gavel).

I'm watching close for signs of "gossip" Neilwise, but to be honest, so far, no one has jumped ugly on HIM, just on his ideas and debating methods. Which, in the opinion of the chair, is fair play even without him present.

Carry on.

(Bangs gavel).
 

And don't forget about Howard Amanson Jr. He's given them loads of cash, and his wife serves on the board of one of those groups...can't remember if it is the actual IRD or one of their alliance organizations...

When I pointed out the close association of Amanson to the IRD, and HIS very close discipleship to R.J.Rushdoony (Ahmanson was at his death-bed, I was accused of "guilt by association" tactics.

I guess that's fair, but it's not a court of law. The Guy's giving habits create a pattern that is most unsetteling, and I tend to cast a jaundiced eye to most groups he gives to, and look deeper for other patterns...like former President Diane Knipper's assertion that the black churches that were burned in th '80's were set on fire by their own congregants.

You add up enough of those little anecdotes, and it creates a picture, that's for sure.
 

GKS,

Regarding your cleverly understated comment about Richard Mellon Scaife's "troubles".

I did a goole search with his name and the word "troubles".

Holy Cow! You ain't kiddin', buddy!

THIS is the guy who knows what "real Christianity is all about?"
 

The IRD is gunning for the United Church of Christ, too. The UCC, because of its congregational polity, might be more susceptible to such a campaign. Basically, one majority vote of a local church membership can cause it to leave the UCC fellowship. And the "extravagant welcome" attitude of many (most?) UCC churches would seem to make them easy pickings for such a campaign.

More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
United_Church_of_Christ#
Criticism_of_conservative_critics
 

ER,

Aren't they pilin' on the Anglicans, too?
 

Hi all,

A couple of “quick” points now… any deeper questions I will leave until later when I have more time tonight I hope – if I missed anything important, just let me know.

Hi Erudite Redneck
And I am GLAD I called this a discussion. I'm sure this will be fruitful, but it's no debate.

I prefer discussion myself, but I’m not sure on the difference. My education in English was never that great.

(BTW: Why the air quotes around "atheist," Lee? You self-identified as such. ... I reckon it might be an Aussie thing. ...)

More of a purest thing on my part, but it was done for speed. I’ll expand here since you asked.

You will probably call me an atheist since I do not believe in god.

The problem is, I am not 100% certain – it would be irrational to take such a position of certainty in my opinion, it would be another “faith claim”. It is similar as when the theist says they “know” God exists – this is done on faith. I do not “know” God does not exist. Just doubt it very strongly, and with reason.

Someone who thinks there may or may not be a god is sometimes called an agnostic. Which strictly speaking is what I am – however, it is not 50/50 with me. I’m a lot closer to being an atheist than being at a 50/50 agnostic.

Makes sense? Not important… just group me an atheist for speed.

I don't test it any more than I test my breathing. And I don't try to convince others of it, per se. I do talk of it when it seems appropriate.

Yet you can test if when you stop breathing – you die. Is it the same when you stop believing? Nope… I know many former believers.

Why don’t you feel you should test your faith – what if the Muslins have it right, and you have it wrong?

If you believe either the Bible or the Koran – getting it wrong could cause problems for your soul. Don’t you want to be as certain as possible?

Why not?

I am agnostic when it comes to alien landings, based on what seem to be impossible odds against them (at least the existence of other critters out there).

I agree, here we can be 99.99% certain aliens have not visited us here on Earth due to these impossible odds and lack of empirical evidence.

However, this leaves a problem for those who claim eye witness accounts alone should be taken as “gospel”… there are many, many accounts from alien believers “confirming” their events. Yet you are able to reject them due to lack of empirical evidence and logical reasoning. (I assume)

Can you start to understand why than eye witness accounts from the bible is not enough on it own for people like me? Also remember, it does not have to be this way – God can provide as much empirical evidence as He wants… He has chosen to provide zero…. Why?

Oh, if you want to talk about the Bible, lets. But it's a new topic to this thread.

I agree, it is a new topic, and I am not that well versed in the bible. Lets come back to it. (Or start another thread later)

Alan wrote:
Well, I'm a damned cynic, but one could suggest that perhaps any evidence for a theistic god that one would present to you would be automatically discounted as weak. So, simply putting this back on me, isn't really helpful is it?

Lets suppose someone told you that your wife was cheating on you – would you believe them and divorce her on this testimony along? Or would you ask for more evidence. Ask more questions? Why wouldn’t you trust the first person’s story alone? Is it that the claim your wife was cheating on you seemed “unlikely” to you and as such you demand more evidence?

So, yes, I ask for more evidence, as I do for the bible and it’s claims for God.

The claim the theists are making is a far bigger claim than my wife cheating on me.

What evidence would you take as reasonable?

Well, here I could state many observations that I do NOT see in the universe.

I see evidence for evolution, a 13.7 billion year old universe. A sun and planet Earth that came about through “evolution” as a result of the physical constants of the universe. (If you would like to move God to be the person who set these constants, then please do… it opens more questions though)

I do not see any evidence for the creation of man, the Earth or the Sun. Yet these are precisely what are claimed in the bible.

Is the bible wrong? Am I wrong on understanding the bible?

Do you believe in evolution and a 13.7 billion year old universe?

OK… of course you cannot provide evidence when it is not there (but have you ever asked why it is not there?)

So how about evidence for some amazing events in the bible – many miracles were written in the bible, any independent evidence (eye witness accounts) for them?
(A new thread I am sure would be needed for this one. I know of two classical pieces normally quoted at this time, but why did so many historians NOT mention Jesus and his miracles – reason to doubt I think)

How about some divine knowledge, something written in the bible that could NOT have been known (or invented or guessed) by a writer of the time?

This opens the door to prophesy (another thread? So many questions, and only one me – can we invite friends?).

However, before any prophecy claim is made for a piece of writing, it first has to be proven (empirically I think would be fair here) to have been written before the event.

Then it has to be shown how each prophecy has been shown and proved to be fulfilled completely and not just “shoehorned” onto history.

So Alan, there is plenty of evidence I would accept and I am looking for it – can you provide it?

Alan wrote:
And Lee asks, "Why?"

I don't mean to be a jerk, but you're joking right? By definition, empirical evidence cannot account for a SUPER-NATURAL being

Which is why I have NOT asked for empirical evidence to directly prove God (the theist long ago moved that goal-post on that one as you have clearly stated.) Merely I asked for evidence for God’s interactions with mankind – indirect evidence. Sorry, I was not clearer.

Is this fair or am I still being a “jerk”?

Alan wrote:
That is, I believe, a rather naive understanding of both God and prayer. God is not a cosmic gumball machine. Prayer does not change God. As CS Lewis said, prayer changes us.

Any evidence that prayer changes the world around you? (I am not asking if it changes God – that would be silly)

I think Jesus and the bible are rather clear on this matter (cannot remember the verse) something to do with prayer and moving mountains? (Let’s leave this to our bible study thread.)


Geoffrey Kruse-Safford wrote:
Go, Alan, go!

Can I bring along cheerleaders as well?

“Go Lee, Go”…. I’ll do it myself instead – it’s quicker.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford wrote:
Of course, this is the classic double-bind that people who think it possible to "prove God's existence" find themselves in. By showing its fallaciousness,

Geoffrey, can you please help me out here to understand your point.

Is it wrong to try and test if God exists? How do you know you are following the right God in the right way?

And what is this “classic double-bind” – I’m not following you, sorry.

Alan probably ticked Lee off, but then again, I wonder if he can answer Alan's question.

Don’t know… you tell me.

I do not expect any single comment will “win the day”, but that isn’t the point of the discussion is it?

I’m trying to answer questions (which come to mind when I think about God and the bible) and maybe some of you can help me.
Maybe you cannot answer the questions, but please say so, or at least tell me why my questions are invalid to ask about God.

Have to go… more later.

Lee
 

EVERYBODY piles on the Anglicans...
 

On the ID, they're after the Episcopals, at least.


Lee: I stopped reading your last when you changed your definition of yourself. I call you "Lee." You called yourself an atheist:

"If people are interested in entering into a debate - I will more than try to give it a go here.

"I am an atheist… attack away.

"Lee"


Pbhthth! Ya blew it! Dang it, we coulda had some fun.

NEXT ATHEIST PLEASE!

And ya better be a real one, or at least a real honest one.
 

BB-Idaho,

Hilarious! Isn't it true! More yet, rthey don't seem to mind much.
 

Grrrrrr.
 

Was it Bertrand Russel that once said "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."?

I think it was...

Anyway, that quote has been running through my head the whole tome we've been having this discussion...so I thought I'd share...
 

Hi Erudite Redneck

You are confusing me... (or am I confusing you?)

I use the term "atheist" as shorthand... I use it when making an introduction to a new blog discussing faith and religion (sometimes with quotes if I am being really honest, sometimes not) - it will be a little heavy you would agree to introduce myself as being 99.99% towards the atheist belief system for the following reasons...

There are a lot of "atheists" and atheists out there...

I doubt anyone who really calls themselves an atheist when questioned. It is, after all another faith position, and a true "atheist" does not go for that sort of thing.

Shall we move on? This cannot be that important can it?

You wrote:
Pbhthth! Ya blew it! Dang it, we coulda had some fun.

NEXT ATHEIST PLEASE!

OK… I’ll get my coat.

And ya better be a real one, or at least a real honest one.

A "real one" what?

I truly do not believe in any gods if that is your point, and I certainly try to be honest.

Lee
 

Teresa wrote
Hilarious! Isn't it true! More yet, rthey don't seem to mind much.

It could be because I do not understand... I am missing the joke somewhere.

Oh well...

Lee
 

Was it Bertrand Russel that once said "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I like that...
 

Does this mean I have a hobby talking about not collecting stamps?

Guess so? Weird...
 

Lee, dude. Teresa and BB are having their own discussion about a conservative group that is disrupting churches in the U.S.

Now. You can't change the very definition of yourself from atheist to agnostic smack-dab ih the middle of a discussion *about athsim.* It's not only important, it's critical -- and if you play that fast and loose with common words, I don't see how I can trust you to be honest about much else.
 

Honest, or sloppy. Either way. Words are all we have to represrnt ideas, and the ideas of atheism and agnostism are distinct.
 

Hi Erudite Redneck,

Now. You can't change the very definition of yourself from atheist to agnostic smack-dab ih the middle of a discussion *about athsim.* It's not only important, it's critical -- and if you play that fast and loose with common words, I don't see how I can trust you to be honest about much else.

Have you heard of the author Richard Dawkins?
(I assume so; these raiding parties which you talk about are coming from his forum)

How would you describe his beliefs? Atheist?

If so, you can call me an atheist. I am the same.

However, if you read Richard's books or listen to his talks, then you will understand where I am coming from.

Neither Richard Dawkins or myself can be 100% certain there is no God (which is the traditional definition of an atheist). This means, by the strict definition of the meaning of the word atheist – neither Richard Dawkins nor myself are atheists.

Honest, or sloppy. Either way. Words are all we have to represrnt ideas, and the ideas of atheism and agnostism are distinct.

Not sloppy... I was being clear, precise and honest.

You wish to shot me down for that?

As you say, words and their meaning are very important in a discussion.

What I understand to be an atheist, is not necessarily the same as yours.

I am not 100% certain there is no god, I am open to the evidence to be shown otherwise.

If I was 100% atheist, then there would be zero evidence you could provide me to change my position because my position would be based on purely faith.

If you go looking for atheists using your definition of an atheist, you will find very, very few thinking ones. Certainly none that would enter into open debate or discussion.

BTW, would you know what I meant if I called myself a "Strong agnostic"? These are all words… how about “Bright”?

Lee
 

Atheism is as much religion as abstinence is sex. They may not belong to the set, but they do define and demarcate the boundary.

Proving or disproving God is a worthy discussion. Religion is good or bad is a good one too.

I haven't jumped back into this because of the convolutedness (that's not a word is it).

There seems to be an inherent drive in humans to believe in "God". Why?
Maybe we could learn something from each other if we stuck to the/a subject. Pick one.
 

Say you guys comment six more times so's ER can break a 100 comments and maybe he'll start a new Post. Please!
 

I have mispoen myself:

"I am agnostic when it comes to alien landings, based on what seem to be impossible odds against them (at least the existence of other critters out there)."

I meant I am agnostic on alien landings based on what seem to be impossible odds ... against ... dang it: I mean I believe there probably ARE other critters out there, and that there seems to be evidence that they've been here.


Lee: I'm using the standasrd dictionary definition of "atheist," which is how ypu intrpduxced yourself' "atheist." Then you muddied things up by changing your self-definition. I didn't shoot you down. You shot yourself in the foot.

Maybe I'll start a post called "Agnostic seeking evidence," and if that fits ya, you are welcome to jump in.

You're welcome to stick around here, too. But you short-circuited a more-or-less serious discussion. But, hey, chatting for the hell of it is fun, too. :-)
 

OK... one last thing.

Erudite Redneck wrote:
You can't change the very definition of yourself from atheist to agnostic smack-dab ih the middle of a discussion *about athsim.*

My views and opinions are the same now as they were when I joined the discussion.

My arguments are here on your thread for all to see and read.

Are you disappointed that there are very few "true" atheists out there in the world? I’ve got news for you… it is also very unlikely there is a theistic God looking after you and listening to your prayers. (Does this help you understand my position any better?)

If you are that worried about how I describe myself, then it could be difficult for the debate/discussion to move forward in anyway constructive way.

Interesting… to be shut out of a religious debate because I am NOT an atheist by your definition

Very strange indeed.


Lee
 

Hmmm, ya know, some Christians don't consider me a Christian. .. But what does the dictionary say?

...

"Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus."

...

Well, that's me, as well as the ones who dismiss me. ... Hmm.

...

Lee, I'll just start another post. Might not be the next one, though. I've got another one or two things I might post first. But, of curse, -- ha! oops! I mean of course! -- yer welcome to
come around anytime.
 

Piffle. First, argumentum ad bullshittum (that's what I call that rapid-fire all topics and subtopics in play all at once style of "debate" or "discussion"), and THEN Lee flirts with pouting? When he changed his colors in the middle of the discussion, pardon the expression, in front of God and everybody? LOL

I tire.

Buenos noches, y'all.
 

And one more makes 100!
 

Hi Erudite Redneck,

One last post then?

Hmmm, ya know, some Christians don't consider me a Christian. .. But what does the dictionary say?

You tell me…

If you want to call me an atheist you can, all I was trying to do was stopping you all making a strawman about my beliefs.

I’ve just heard the “faith” claim shouted at me once too many times. “Your atheistism is just another faith system” – rubbish.

So, sorry if I am not the easy target of the fundamentalist atheist you were looking for when you invited atheists here over at Neil’s site.
(However, wasn’t it a claim some of the comments here were making against the “raiders” – picking on easy targets? I am an atheist, but not everyone would agree (including myself).

Sorry if this clouded the debate/discussion today, but my opinions on the non-existence of God, have not changed in the last 15 years or so (probably longer).

Would this make me an atheist in your book? Then call me that if you like. Call me “surely” if you like.

Lee, I'll just start another post. Might not be the next one, though. I've got another one or two things I might post first. But, of curse, -- ha! oops! I mean of course! -- yer welcome to
come around anytime.


I would welcome a debate/discussion – but not if time is wasted on definitions of words. Take the “meaning” from what I say and write. (Isn’t that what a lot of Christians say we should do with the bible?)

On the subject of words though… would you call yourself a “moderate” Christian or does this description offend?

Lee: I'm using the standasrd dictionary definition of "atheist," which is how ypu intrpduxced yourself' "atheist." Then you muddied things up by changing your self-definition. I didn't shoot you down. You shot yourself in the foot.

This is why I hate words and labels… just call me a “limey” – makes as much sense.

Shot myself in the foot with a label? What has that got to do with ANY of my arguments or questions against God?

This is a strange argument defence technique I confess I have not seen before… I hope it does not continue.


drlobojo wrote:
Atheism is as much religion as abstinence is sex .

So far, so good.

They may not belong to the set, but they do define and demarcate the boundary

Is this the same as the outside isn’t in, but without the outside there could be nothing on the inside?

Proving or disproving God is a worthy discussion. Religion is good or bad is a good one too.

I like both of them… however most religions rest on the belief of the existence of their God. So does it just come down to the first one?

We would also have the problem of proving or disproving God. No religion gives a definition where this would be possible.

I haven't jumped back into this because of the convolutedness (that's not a word is it).

My spell checker does not like “convolutedness”… but I know what you mean.

I have a habit of typing a lot… story.

There seems to be an inherent drive in humans to believe in "God". Why?
Maybe we could learn something from each other if we stuck to the/a subject. Pick one.

Another interesting question… can I suggest the book by Dan Dennett called “Breaking the Spell”

Personally – I’m more interested in the debate regarding the evidence for the existence of the theistic god.

Though after 2,000 years, mankind has not made a very convincing case for the belief in the one true God.

Erudite Redneck wrote
Piffle. First, argumentum ad bullshittum (that's what I call that rapid-fire all topics and subtopics in play all at once style of "debate" or "discussion"), and THEN Lee flirts with pouting? When he changed his colors in the middle of the discussion, pardon the expression, in front of God and everybody? LOL

If by colours you mean beliefs… then I would like you to show me where.
Time to go. Today has been fun.

Lee
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

ER-

I think I have to defend Lee here. I've been debating with him for a while, and he's a regular commenter on my blog. You certainly couldn't describe him as dishonest, in fact he freely admits when he doesn't know much about something. For instance on your own blog he said he didn't know much about biology.

Personally, I would describe myself as an atheist in that I think on the whole, the evidence seems to demonstrate that there is no God, or at least not one in the interventionist religious sense. However, I am open to evidence that might change my mind. Perhaps that definition better fits agnosticism, but an atheist is what I choose to describe myself as.

Loath as I am to speak for Lee, I think the above definition is a fairly decent summary of his views (and I'm sure he will indicate if I am wrong). That defiintion doesn't strike me as being at all dishonest.
 

Lee wrote, "Lets suppose someone told you that your wife was cheating on you – would you believe them and divorce her on this testimony along? Or would you ask for more evidence. Ask more questions? Why wouldn’t you trust the first person’s story alone? Is it that the claim your wife was cheating on you seemed “unlikely” to you and as such you demand more evidence?"

and then he wrote, "I see evidence for evolution, a 13.7 billion year old universe. A sun and planet Earth that came about through “evolution” as a result of the physical constants of the universe. "

But, then he wrote, "Which is why I have NOT asked for empirical evidence to directly prove God"

Well, clearly you have asked for empirical evidence. Your example above of a cheating wife can be demonstrated simply by following her around, taking pictures, etc. You're evidence for evolution comes from empirical evidence as well.

So it seems disingenuous to, on the one hand claim you're not looking for empirical evidence of God, and yet only argue based on empirical evidence. Again I ask for the 3rd time, what sort of non-empirical evidence would you consider valid? Let's use my example of my Mom loving me. What sort of evidence would you find persuasive in order for you to come to a reasonable level of certainty that either 1) she's not just acting, or 2) i'm not delusional?

"The claim the theists are making is a far bigger claim than my wife cheating on me."

Actually it's not the size of the claim, it's a completely different type of claim.

"Any evidence that prayer changes the world around you?"

Already asked and answered. Prayer changes us. And if you're going to quote Jesus, you'd better learn about the concept of hyperbole. :)

"I would welcome a debate/discussion – but not if time is wasted on definitions of words."

This is silly. It isn't wasted time to actually try to understand what other people mean by the words they use. Clearly everyone here understood the word atheist to mean something other than what you meant (sorry, don't mean to speak for everyone else, but that certainly seems the case to me.)

In any discussion it's important to actually understand the person with whom you're having the discussion. We're a group of very different people from different states, different areas of the country, and even different countries! (Heck, ER and I live in the same country and I don't understand half of what he writes most of the time.) :) To believe that we can have a discussion without occasionally having to clarify definitions is silly. That doesn't even work when you know someone well, it certainly doesn't work when you don't.

Like defining what does and what does not count as evidence, clarifying the definitions of words is crucial to any debate or argument. Theology, like any other field that has developed over hundreds of years, has a specialized language. If one doesn't understand that language and/or misuses it, it's pretty difficult to gain any understanding of other people's comments.
 

BTW, somewhere in the last 3 bazillion comments someone mentioned that I may have pissed Lee off. That wasn't my intention at all, and hopefully you recognize that, Lee. I'm trying to have a friendly discussion.
 

All I'm saying, and this is my last word on this particular tempest, is that he asserted his atheism, on a post about atheism, and then changed his self-definition to agnostic, which is not the same thing, without explanation -- and only explained it after I called him on it.

That is NOT OK, words ARE important, and while meanings might be fluid they are NOT ethereal.

I do not understand why my objection seems unfair. If Lee is unsure of his thinking, then I think it IS less than honest for him to come into any forum and declare, "I am an atheist," and then recant, or only acknowledge his doubt, as the discussion progresses.

It's as if I went into a forum about Christians, self-identified as a Christian, but then modifed my self-definition to deist. They are not the exact same thing, no amount of fudging can MAKE them the same thing, and if I were to have done something like that I rightly could be thought of as dishonest. Or at the least, not very handy with words, which can kill or cripple communication. Clearly.
 

Alan, re: "Heck, ER and I live in the same country and I don't understand half of what he writes most of the time."

Now wait a dadgum, cotton-pickin' minute. This ain't my first rodeo. I might be fixin' to have to come up there fer a spell and set you down fer a talkin' to. :-)

BTW, full day. I might not get to post until tonight. Y'all knock yourselves out on this one.
 

OK, I'm gonna be late for work and behind all day, buit I posted! I am SUCH a blog addict ..
 

"Now wait a dadgum, cotton-pickin' minute. This ain't my first rodeo. I might be fixin' to have to come up there fer a spell and set you down fer a talkin' to."

See what I mean? I'm not sure what that means, but I think ER is hitting on me. LOL
 

You wish.

LOLOLOLOL. :-)
 

Answering at least one of Lee's questions directly:

No evidence what-so-ever that prayer changes the world around us, except for one study that suggested prayer for hospital patience may have made them worse off because they new everyone were expecting them to respond to prayers for them and thus were stressed by it.

However, as the form of your question implies, prayer and prayer like activity has long been proven to help the one praying. That could be seen by believers as a "proof" and by non-believers as a byproduct or simply a mislabeling of the process. Even avowed atheist can find benefit from prayerful meditation, and many do.

So, no proofs in prayer.
 

On the point of agnostic vs. atheist. If Bart Erhman can't make up his friggin mind which he is and he has PeeHdees in Theology and writes books upon books about it then why rag on Lee.
What's the score here?
 

One more specific reply:

Lee/me exchange:
me: "Proving or disproving God is a worthy discussion. Religion is good or bad is a good one too."

Lee: "I like both of them… however most religions rest on the belief of the existence of their God. So does it just come down to the first one?"

I seperate God from Religion it that I see God as "Truth" or "Reality" and Religion as an always flawed model of what that means.

Religion is an attempt to either understan or in many instance to box up God at a human level.

In that view God exist independent of relgion, but all religion claims to exist because of God.

So I see a seperation of subjects there.
 

vbacI have to rush for the train, I will be quick.

First, thanks Jonathan… you know me… always rubbish with words – but I was trying (probably too hard) to be nice and to explain my position clearly – next time I will just stick to atheist label – and see where it takes me. (However, I thought a straw man argument of “atheistism is just another faith” would come up which I was trying to avoid… sod it)

Alan wrote:
“Well, clearly you have asked for empirical evidence. Your example above of a cheating wife can be demonstrated simply by following her around, taking pictures, etc. You're evidence for evolution comes from empirical evidence as well.”

Firstly, have you thought about the possibility of asking your wife? Asking where she was on the night in question… and by knowing her, trust her answer? This is not empirical evidence, but it IS asking more questions and NOT trusting just the first.

And yes evidence for evolution comes from empirical evidence, the same as medicine, cars and flights to the moon.

However this is evidence of how the universe IS and WORKS… not about God Himself. So again, I have NOT asked for empirical evidence for God Himself.

But you do have to explain the universe within your religious framework… or should I ignore empirical evidence on God’s creation?

Have to go… late.

Lee
 

Wow! You go away to take care of personal business and look what happens.

First, Alan, it was I who made the comment, a bit over the top, about you ticking Lee off because in your first or second exchange you managed to push through a counter-question concerning evidence, which is always a question begged in these kinds of discussions. It was wrong of me to say such a thing, and I apologize to all involved.

Second, Lee, you addressed a question to me concerning what I called "the double-bind" rational apologists find themselves in concerning "proving" the existence of God. The double-bind, as I see it, is this: on the one hand, they enter an argument with poorly defined parameters concerning such things as evidence, the definition of such words as subjective and objective, and so on. As there is no way to ascertain a definition of such slippery terms, very often people discuss these issues while actually talking past one another. The demand to come to an agreement concerning the definition of terms is one of the first things necessary in any argument, otherwise it's a Tower of Babel in which people are speaking different languages.

So, that's the first bind. The other is that, if agreement is reached, and the argument moves forward, one or the other party will most likely end up disagreeing upon a point directly related to such definitions, criteria of evidence, and so forth. Your description of ER's argument for his faith as "subjective" misses an important point - what does the word mean for you, and what does it mean for him? I, for one, do not use such terms, because they really don't mean anything except as terms to be used as bludgeons.

I will reiterate my belief that discussions such as this are meaningless, not because they aren't earth shattering, but because they ignore the fact that religion is a lived reality for the vast majority of the six and a half billion human beings on the planet, to some extent. Even if you show, through some heretofore unknown argument, that the God of Christianity is an impossibility, what of the God of Islam? What of a non-theistic religion such as Buddhism? What of polytheisms such as Hinduism? What of ancestor worship in China? As these work by logics that are completely different from those that govern Western theistic religions, it seems to me a bit parochial and even naive to assume that "disproving" one God somehow invalidates all religions at all places and in all times.

If Russell didn't say what is put in his mouth concerning atheism and stamp collecting, he should have.
 

One comment, then I have to work…. I’ll read the rest of the posts later, but one section caught my eye.

To believe that we can have a discussion without occasionally having to clarify definitions is silly.

I have no problem with that, and I have asked, on this thread, for people to explain what they mean when I do not understand.

I was trying to clarify my position on God and religion. The term atheist is a well known word, but it means many different things to different people. Just look at the mess I got into trying to clarify my position. I used the word in my introduction, but realised I was being “false” with many peoples definitions. Especial those who are not familiar with talking to European “atheists” (and yes, I am a limey living in Oz – I’m hated by the people in the country I live as well)

I agree that the definitions of the words is important, and it should be clear and agree what we are discussing about. If not, we could be taking about completing different things – both missing the point.

So can we just move on?

If I am to debate/discuss here, the one promise I can make is it will NOT be my last mistake using words… however, I hope the meaning of my argument will come across in my use of sentences and paragraphs (when I remember how to use them)

If one doesn't understand that language and/or misuses it, it's pretty difficult to gain any understanding of other people's comments.

I agree, but we all make mistakes… please forgive me.

I’ve been “debating” for a few months now on various blogs and forums sites (both Christian and atheist (I’ve just made my first comment on a muslin site as well) – people seem to get to understand my message once they get to know me… all I ask is that no one goes all “crazy on me” when I try and clarify a position or meaning of a word. It really should not be that important once it has been made clear.

The discussion will not rest on my “atheistism” or atheistism… my arguments are what they are… if these are not clear – just ask me. This is, after all, the point of a discussion. If I was intelligent enough to be clear and precise on all my views on my first comment, then there would be no need for a second one – no discussion – no debate. It would be there for all to see and read.

BTW, somewhere in the last 3 bazillion comments someone mentioned that I may have pissed Lee off. That wasn't my intention at all, and hopefully you recognize that, Lee. I'm trying to have a friendly discussion.

I am all for the friendly discussion… this is why I am here.

It is hard to piss me off, and no one here has….
(It will take more than that to get rid of me – though debates that are stuck and going around in circles does bore me after a time… this thread is in danger of doing that – can we start a new thread and forget about all this mess on a single word? Some other good points are being missed as a result)

OK… I will now read the posts in more detail. I will not be posting as much today, but I will try and respond to all comments aimed at me (so my posts will just be longer.)

See ya

Lee
 

"However this is evidence of how the universe IS and WORKS… not about God Himself. So again, I have NOT asked for empirical evidence for God Himself."

Sorry Lee, I'm sure you're not trying to weasel around my question, but I still have no idea just what kind of non-empirical evidence you'd accept in this discussion. Revelation? (Supernatural evidence for a supernatural being seems pretty reasonable to me, since science relies on natural evidence for natural phenomena.)

"Firstly, have you thought about the possibility of asking your wife? Asking where she was on the night in question… and by knowing her, trust her answer? This is not empirical evidence, but it IS asking more questions and NOT trusting just the first."

An interesting response. However, no matter how many people claim to have experiences with God in some way, shape, or form, no matter how many eyewitnesses claim to have hung out with Jesus, for example, I'm guessing you'd not consider those things valid pieces of evidence? And I'm really guessing that you'd not consider, as I do, my faith in God to be evidence itself of God.

Perhaps you can give concrete examples of the type of evidence you'd accept...maybe that would clarify things. Because otherwise I'm just going to have to ask the same question again about what sorts of evidence you'd accept, and I'm guessing you find that as annoying as I do. :)

So you see, this is why I suspect we're stuck. I'd wager you'd rule as out of bounds the most convincing evidence I can think of: the gift of faith through God's good Grace.
 

Alan, you are sounding like Karl Barth, who said of faith, "it is the thing that proves itself", which is merely a gloss on Hebrews' definition of faith as evidence of things not seen. Of course, this is, in a way, a dodge. It is also something that resounds deeply for many Christians; we believe, and our belief becomes manifest in a hundred ways, big and small, mundane and dramatic, throughout our lives. So many of these manifestations are almost impossible to relate to others. Others have plausible explanations that we may ignore.

To use Lee's example of a cheating wife - this assumes that human beings are relying upon a single profession of something that is uncanny, remarkable, or otherwise outside our experience. This is simply not the case. To take the example of Christianity, we have two thousand years of history, and all the writings of the faithful wrestling with the faith in so many of its dimensions. I wouldn't necessarily call this "evidence"; it is, however, notice that witnesses abound, some of whom resonate and some of whom do not. It misconstrues faith to characterize it the way Lee has done. To use his metaphor, I would respond by saying, "No, if there were only one witness to such an indiscretion, I would discount it. If there were thousands, and their tales, for all their divergences in detail, seemed to tally up on certain key factors, I might have a question or two to ask her."

BTW, ER, I have been listening a whole lot to that classic country station I programmed over at Pandora. You know what? I'm buying some boots, and I might just take the wife out steppin' some time.
 

(falls plumb out of his chair)

:-)
 

"Alan, you are sounding like Karl Barth, who said of faith, "it is the thing that proves itself""

Dang... and I thought I was sounding like John Calvin. :)

See Lee, the real problem I have with this discussion is that I don't believe we "create" (for lack of a better term) faith based on evidence (empirical or otherwise). That's the heresy of Pelagius (a trap that the fundies fall into all the time without even realizing it.) But again, while I believe that's the most convincing evidence, as Geoffrey points out, it's not the only evidence available.
 

Sorry Lee, I'm sure you're not trying to weasel around my question, but I still have no idea just what kind of non-empirical evidence you'd accept in this discussion.

I’m not – so to try and be clear.

Empirical evidence in my opinion is the best form of evidence (another debate perhaps). However, it is not the only form of evidence.

I would accept for example, eye witness written accounts from 2,000 years ago. However, I will be sceptical, at first on any such evidence alone (this is not the same as rejecting it). It would also require “weight in numbers” – I do not accept just a single empirical measure (it has to be repeated). Equally, I would require more than just one eye-witness written account if this is the only type of evidence.

Also, we need to know something about the writer, and the purpose of the writing. When was it written and why?

I have an interest in English medieval history, and I could probably dig up some examples where 2 people spoke about the same battle. From such accounts we might be able to agree that the battle took place, but the finer details on, say numbers, who fired the first shoot, who was at fault etc would differ depending on which “side” they were writing for… also, it has to be remembered in my example, WHO actually won the war – since history is written by the victorious after all. Take Richard III as an example of this. Shakespeare did not write about him in a good light, but he was living in a time when anything else would be probably be treason.

Makes sense?

I do doubt the “subjective evidence” greatly – if provided on its own. It is just the way I am. You would have to convince me using other methods as well.

You could tell me you are feeling cold for example. This is subjective. (It is not to say you are not actually feeling cold though, but I need more evidence)

If maybe I could see your “breath” and the ice forming around your face, and your skin turning blue… maybe I will believe you – but you will probably cry “foul” since this is me turning to empirical evidence again.

Can you give me some examples of what you consider “good” evidence and “bad” evidence so we can see if we agree?

I am also interested in how you know your subjective evidence is correct, and how do YOU test it for yourself.

Cheers

Lee
 

Alan,

See Lee, the real problem I have with this discussion is that I don't believe we "create" (for lack of a better term) faith based on evidence (empirical or otherwise).

So are you saying faith is created because of lack of evidence? (I doubt it, I read too fast sometimes)

But please read Dan Dennett "Breaking the spell" - he talks about possible reasons for faith, religion and belief (and belief in belief).

He is, of course, an "atheist"

Interesting stuff though.

However, I wish to talk about the existence of God, and you wish to talk about faith.

Can we join these two discussions?

Who is the God you have faith in? Can you tell me anything about this God? How, from what source?

Cheers

Lee
 

Re, "Also, we need to know something about the writer, and the purpose of the writing. When was it written and why?"

This kind of stumbles into discussion of how to deal with the Bible, which, of course, can be part of a discussion about the existence of God. But it is a whole nuther discussion. :-)


Of course, if I had any "hard," that is, "scientific" evidence, I'da brought it out by now. And if I felt a need to test my conclusions for accuracy, I might could tell you how I do so.

But the insistence on "accuracy" and exactitude escapes me. It's the same thing most fundamentalists insist on.

I do not have to be right. I just have to be close.
 

Hi ER,
This kind of stumbles into discussion of how to deal with the Bible, which, of course, can be part of a discussion about the existence of God. But it is a whole nuther discussion. :-)

You may be right, but I was asked a question and I answered it the best I could.

Of course, if I had any "hard," that is, "scientific" evidence, I'da brought it out by now.

Yes… this is a very good point. It can take the discussion down a few paths though.

And if I felt a need to test my conclusions for accuracy, I might could tell you how I do so.

Now this is interesting… So you are not saying that you do not test your conclusions at all but merely “accuracy” is not important?

Can you define accuracy here? How do you know the Christian’s have it right and every other believer has it wrong?

But the insistence on "accuracy" and exactitude escapes me.

My education/degree was in physics as I said. The one of the first things you learn in experimentation is the quality of your data and therefore possible conclusions depend on the margin of error in the experiment.

However, I have not asked for “accuracy” (have I?)

Merely evidence... and I have given an example of one that is not empirical.

10 (say) different ancient documents from independent eye witnesses who saw (or even heard) of Jesus in his lifetime would be great evidence
(Is this too much to expect for the son of god? Why?).

I am not demanding that they have to all agree on the eye colour and height of Jesus… this is not important, but they should agree on a few important “facts” I’m sure you would agree to that?

Yet the historical record (outside the bible) is very, very sparse when it comes to Jesus. I’m aware of just a couple of documents and these seem to have been doctored a little by the Christian over time. However, even IF I take them as truth, why no convincing historical account on the crucifixion and all the miracles that we supposed to have happened on that day?

Surely a lot of people would have noticed… This seems odd – but, maybe this should be for a bible thread.

It's the same thing most fundamentalists insist on.

I do not have faith… is that such a crime? Does that make me a “fundamentalist”?

I do not have to be right. I just have to be close.

I agree to that in spirit – I’m all about probability and what is likely and unlikely - but I would like to know how you confirm that you are close.

Lee
 

Oh my word, E.R. Your comments exploded.

You know me, though, I'm not a believer, but far be it for me to tell you that anything you believe is wrong.

Hope you're not buried too deep under here. And I was worried about you getting beat up on over the Historical Society thing! Imagine.
 

Re, "Now this is interesting… So you are not saying that you do not test your conclusions at all but merely “accuracy” is not important?"

That's a little mixed up, so I'm not sure what you're asking.


Re, "Can you define accuracy here? How do you know the Christian’s have it right and every other believer has it wrong?"

I don't think I said that. ... I probably am the wrong person to ask this. I don't think in terms of such a clear dichotomy when it comes to the rightness or wrongness of "religious belief." So, the answer is: I don't know. (I have considered whether to self-identify as an agnostic Christian, actually, which is NOT the oxymoron some of my more conservative brethren think it is.)
 

Thanks for the karma DCUP!
 

Re, "I would like to know how you confirm that you are close."

Hmmm. After 37 years of conscious Christianity -- and despite threats, in the face of fundamentalism, to identify as a Jesusian -- I have to say by reading Scripture, what others have written about Scripture, history both "secular" and church, thinking, meditating, ruminating -- and not getting hung up on whether I get it exactly right or not. Since my concept of God is not rigid, I don't know how I could have any kind of rigid test to confirm much, in the sense that I think you mean it.
 

As a Ferroequinologist I just have to ask Lee what train he is own and where he is going.
 

OK, it is 1963 and I'm back at my old Southern Baptist University getting the spiritual shit kicked out of me cause I'm quoting Paul Tillich to a couple of upper classman fundamentalist called the Justice brothers. All my supporters have physically moved away from me and looking at me as though I had asparagus growing out of my ears.

So Lee et. al. here, from my past, is my slightly updated take as an existential enigmatic christian on God's existance. First the definition of the type of theologian Tillich was and then Tillich's reply to proof of God.

"Existential theologians do not try to base religion on rational demonstration. They argue that the problem of religious belief is not a problem involving proof or disproof, but a decision, which, like other human decisions, must be made separately by each individual in the absence of conclusive evidence. The existentialist’s interest in religion is primarily an interest in human religious experience..."

and:

"God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him."
---Paul Tillich
 

Ooooooh, that's wack! And I LIKE IT!
 

Dang it, I have this in "copy" and I need to put it somewhere. The remark about human decisions made in the absence of conclusion evidence makes this as good as place as any to plop it. ... Neil told one o'them atheists that he might have fun over here but that my doctrine was "not very sound."

I wrote in response, an account, it turns out, of a series of decisions:


Neil, ol’ buddy. I wish you would explain to me how this doctrine, which is about the only one I accept because it is the only one that matters, is “not very sound.” You may recognize it, although it may not be your translation of choice:

4(God) wants all people to be saved and to know what is true.

5There is one God. There is also one man who can open the way between God and all people. That man is Christ Jesus.

6He gave his life to set all men free. This matter was told at the right time.

That would be 1 Timothy 2: 5-6, but you knew that.

Now, we can argue, cuss and discuss what every single word of that means exactly — every single word — and neither of will get it exactly right, but both of us, by the Grace of God, will get close.

We can argue, cuss and discuss the admitted inconsistencies I utter. You can be aghast that I dare admit that I doubt. You can be mad that I, in Christian liberty, question it, and everything else, including myself, and yourself.

But you cannot, actually, argue with the doctrine itself without arguing with Paul, or his close follower who wrote it. And I will gladly argue with you if you add anything to it and insist that I agree with you in order to be a Christian.

I accept that doctrine not “because it’s in the Bible and the Bible is God’s Word,” but because 1., I accept the testimony of Christian scholars that Paul or a close associate wrote it; 2., I accept, also attested by Christian scholars, that Paul said that he encountered Christ and was commissioned to go and tell that doctrine as the truth, and I believe Paul meant it when he said it; 3., I accept that, while the details are arguable, it is the central tenet of the faith; and 4., I accept it because I seem to know to the root of my being that 4.a., there is God; 4.b., I am not him; 4.c. I want to have communion with God; 4.d., I cannot by myself; 4.e., God must have bridged that chasm somehow if God loves me; 4.f., I seem to know to the root of my being that God loves me; and 4.g., the testimony of the ages and a greast cloud of witnesses echo in my mind and heart that Jesus of Nazareth is that bridge; and 4.h., I relax, that is, I rest, in repose, in all of that.

None of *that* is “not very sound.” Take it or leave it.

...

Of course, Neil's head would explode at some of my fluid notions of some words, like "God," "Jesus," "saved," and "true," etc.

But I do rest in it.
 

Your point is well made, but not trying to be a wise ass, you could have picked better than First Timothy to make it with. It has been in question as Paulian since 1835, when analysis of the Greek showed that about 30% of the words used in the letter were not used in any of the other Paulian letters, plus the phrasing was off in several instances. Later scholarship showed it to be written about 100 years after Paul's genuine letters(in 165 A.D. as opposed to 60-65 A.D.), and as an attempt to use Paul's authority to discredit some of the various gnostic theology and practices that were beginning to irritate the proto-orthodox. It is so blatant that this moves it out of the catagory of psuedographia to fraud.
Check me out on this.

I'll go away now.
 

Hi all,

Only brief tonight… it is Friday night, so it is movie night with the wife.

ER wrote:
Re, "Now this is interesting… So you are not saying that you do not test your conclusions at all but merely “accuracy” is not important?"

That's a little mixed up, so I'm not sure what you're asking.


You’re right… I posted without proof reading sorry. I was being too quick and not clever at work.

I was merely trying to say that you do not seem too concerned with the accuracy of your conclusions… which begs the question, where do you draw the line?

ER wrote:
Re, "Can you define accuracy here? How do you know the Christian’s have it right and every other believer has it wrong?"

I don't think I said that. ... I probably am the wrong person to ask this. I don't think in terms of such a clear dichotomy when it comes to the rightness or wrongness of "religious belief." So, the answer is: I don't know. (I have considered whether to self-identify as an agnostic Christian, actually, which is NOT the oxymoron some of my more conservative brethren think it is.)


Sorry about my sloppy wording again… same reason of course.

Interesting reply though… so you do not think you are right with Christianity? Or at least open to the idea it is not 100% correct?
Have I read that right?

As for “agnostic Christian” - like it - there is an old Irish joke that comes to mind (not very funny… but hey)

A man is driving late at night in Belfast and two large men jump into his car when stopped at some traffic lights.

The one of the men asks the driver… “Are you Catholic or Protestant?”
… the driver, scared how to reply to this type of question in the fear of getting it wrong answers – “Atheist”

The other man asks… “Would that be an Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist”?

On that bad note… I have to go.

Lee
 

DrLoboJo:

Not to be a wiser ass (wise asser?), but:

"psuedographia to fraud"

Tomayto, tomahto?

Maybe that's too harsh.

I think I said the writing was by a close follower of Paul, not Paul hisself. It doesn't seem to be anti-Paul. In fact, some might see that simple statement of faith as a watering down of some of what Paul seems to say in other letters.
 

Re, "so you do not think you are right with Christianity? Or at least open to the idea it is not 100% correct?"

No mere religion is 100 percent right. I think Christianity is righter than others. But no human being can get God, or faith in God, or anything else for that matter, 100 percent right.
 

Lee wrote, "However, even IF I take them as truth, why no convincing historical account on the crucifixion and all the miracles that we supposed to have happened on that day? "

As you admit, there are indeed other documents in addition to the Bible, though again, you seem to be picking and choosing which evidence you'll take as eye-witness accounts. Apparently those eye-witness accounts written in the Bible are out of bounds. In other words, all the best evidence is declared out of bounds, and then you get to claim there is none. That's like saying, "Well, if we ignore biochemical evidence, genetics, and the fossil record, there's really very little evidence for the theory of evolution." :)

Am I surprised that the Romans didn't write detailed histories about a Jewish insurrectionist, who, like many criminals at the time was crucified? Nope, not really. How many detailed accounts do we have about civilian casualties in Iraq, for example?

Now we do know that there were several other Jewish insurrectionists who were rising up at approximately the same time, from various historical accounts. And yet no one remembers or worships them. Something clearly made this guy different.

But we don't even have to go that far. Just how much evidence do we have for the existence of many secular figures of that time, even Roman leaders and regional governors? Very little. Seems unfair to expect more evidence for the existence of Jesus that you'd be willing to accept for the existence of say, Herod.

"So are you saying faith is created because of lack of evidence? "

No, I'm saying we don't create our faith. It is a gift of God's good grace.
 

Alan's observation "And yet no one remembers or worships them. Something clearly made this guy different." argues that the very success of Christianity verifies it. Dr. Lobojo hints at another line of argument: good press..eg
the New Testament was written after the fact, the church fathers
hammerered out orthodox belief and most 'heretical' documentation was destroyed. Were we to either include Porphyry, Celsus, Marcion et. al. or delete Justin, Ireneus, Tertullian et. al we might view christianity differently. It would seem perhaps we do, given the range from Nestorian (yes, there are still a few), Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, Jehovah Witness, Coptic (yes, still).
etc. Apparently we all possess
VMAT2, the God Gene...although it
seems expressed in current sapiens all the way from atheist to berserker.
 

Like a bear drawn out of his den, I will finally comment on this debate. I was lured out by the mention of physics, which as y'all know, I love the way some people love chocolate.

However, this debate, to my disappointment, has no physics in it. Sigh. Since I'm already awake, I'll throw in and hope that if I can't inject clarity, I will at least not increase the muddiness of the water. I won't promise to reply to any comments, but I might, although if my past behavior is a good indicator of my future behavior, I won't.

As I understand it, Lee is asking Christians to prove there is a God of some sort. That question cuts both ways: Lee could be asked to prove there isn't one. Either way, the answer is the same. You cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God in a concrete, scientific fashion. Many intangibles fall into this category. And since they can't be proved, it is certainly within rational limits to decide for yourself that they don't exist. I don't agree with that decision, but I can understand the reasoning behind it.

Let's not fault science in this. Science isn't meant to prove or disprove matters of faith. This recent incursion into the religious arena is only because religion decided to insert itself into science. The scientists have responded in depressingly like fashion to the attacks that zealots have inflicted on their ranks. This is not to say that science is blameless. Many scientists' obvious contempt for religion only infuriates their opponents. I well remember my college biology profession telling my entire class that "Evolution proves there is no God." Why, no, that's not what evolution proves. That's not what it was meant to prove. You can use it in that way, but it demeans the science involved. Science is supposed to be about facts, not beliefs. But science is done by people, and every person carries a burden of beliefs. Those beliefs influence science. Science, however, tries to be -- and mostly is -- a self-correcting process. New knowledge informs previous theories, and the theories are adjusted. Sometimes this adjustment takes years because scientists like to hold on to cherished beliefs as much as the next person, but the process is unrelenting, unforgiving, and uncaring in its progress. Eventually a new, better theory results.

Frankly, the battle between science and religion is a poor use of time for both sides. People will believe what they choose to believe and then find the reasons to justify that belief, despite all evidence to the contrary. Humans have always been that way, and I don't see us changing any time soon. All that really happens when science and religion clash is that a lot of rhetoric is generated; both sides get to score dubious points; the worst among us insult people of differing beliefs; etc. That doesn't mean that people can't or shouldn't share how they view the world, but as soon as voices are raised and potshots are hurled, it's simply not productive. There are people who make it their hobby to generate noise and fury. I generally find them to be a waste of breath and often think their bodies should be painfully recycled into the earth.

As most of you know who read my blog -- and if you don't, you can bite me -- I love science and the church equally. I am a cantankerous Christian, a Southern Baptist with Pentecostal roots with a toe in Buddhism and Xiangua. My parents raised me and my siblings to be rational Christians. How this translates into behavior is as follows: To pray for healing and to use doctors. To believe God created the heavens and to accept the latest findings about how the cosmos formed. To acknowledge the limits of faith as well the limits of science. To remain grateful for the gift of intellect and the gift of life in which to use it. To believe that life is too precious to waste since we will be dead infinitely longer than we will be alive, and while we believe in an afterlife, we also know that we won't be here on earth to help those around us.

I am quite sure this all sounds too depressingly adult. It's much more fun to wave our arms around wildly and claim the earth is 6,000 years old or that the dinosaurs were killed by the Flood or that string theory proves the nonexistence -- or existence -- of God or that God is merely a higher dimensional being (as per Flatland) or that cargo cults are a good analogy for all religious behavior, and so on and so on.

For me, it comes down to this: I know that God exists. He loves me. He sent His Son to die for me. He found me worthy of such a sacrifice. I wish and pray more people had that belief. I think they would be happier if they did. But they have the right not to, and I will not gainsay that. I only require that they grant me the same indulgence as I grant them.
 

Wow. Bravo, Tech. Brav-O!

I like to debate, er, discuss things that are important to me, obviously. It turns out that arguing, er, discussing the existence of God isn't that interesting to me. Kinda like arguing, er, discussing whether I exist my own self.
 

Excellent, TECH. I've kept the physics (and my field, chemistry) out of the discussion so as not to complicate things any more than they are.

Could someone else let me know if I'm just being dense, or have I still not gotten a straight answer to my question about what sorts of evidence Lee would find compelling? He says he'd accept something other than empirical evidence but then he says, "Equally, I would require more than just one eye-witness written account if this is the only type of evidence."

Now I'm no expert ... oh, wait ... I am :) and I'm pretty sure "empirical" means "dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses" So I'm not sure how eye-witness accounts are not empirical.
 

Like any evidence, testimony is subject to interpretation and evaluation.

Some evidence is considered to be more reliable than other evidence, and there are rational and irrational resons why people choose one kind of evidence over another.

Which is why there are 12 people on a jury rather than 1, and why we have peer review, and why consensus science is not the same as "having everyone vote on what's right", and why "both sides" don't have an equal voice in every venue.

Having a theologin decide what evidence a Biologist should give the most weight to is as rediculous as a physicist demanding that only measurable results govern theology.

Trying to keep these things completely seperate doesn't work in practice because they are competing ways to describe the same reality.

On the other hand, mixing the rules for the diciplins up together and demanding that one be applied within the other leads to lunacy ala the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis...

Which we all might want to dismiss as unimportant, but in the end, the above groups are knocking down School districts in Florida and Texas like bowling pins, so the question is sort of important if we want to move forward and stay competative as a superpower.

The fact that a few unresonable people are advancing an agenda of ignorance is alarming, and there doesn't seem to be that much will to stop them outside of the atheist circles...
 

Teresa said:
"The fact that a few unreasonable people are advancing an agenda of ignorance is alarming, and there doesn't seem to be that much will to stop them outside of the atheist circles..."

Well I'm kinda of the opinion that all of this has happened before. See Lysenko-ism and the Soviet Union. The problem with bad theory is that reality has a way of ruining it. Of course a few million people may starve in the mean time. Now in America, I trust that the good old Corporate Capitalism will do away with Intelligent Design Creationism the minute that it is seen as hurting their bottom line.
 

In a Dogma to Dogma fight only the one with the best sword wins.

If you use dogmatic proofs it will be a Dogma to Dogma fight.

If you pit the rarefied atmosphere of an Einstein level thought problem about the singularity against Clement of Alexandria's seeking gnosis of the dazzling darkness of the point that is the Being then you don't have much to argue about.

You got to keep the battles down low and dirty for victory.
 

OK. That seals it. Despite its rambling convolutedness, this thread is now within striking distance of "interesting."
 

ER said:
"DrLoboJo:
Not to be a wiser ass (wise asser?), but:
"psuedographia to fraud"
Tomayto, tomahto?
Maybe that's too harsh."

It is not that particular passage that is problematic in I Timothy but all of the other crap later on. That level of contradiciton to Paul is lying straight out to obtain a result that Paul would not have approved of. That is fraud. Now the real crime is that for almost 200 years theologians both orthodox and free thinking have know that this was not worthy of cintinued inclusion in the Bible and have left it there and almost never say anything to the layman about its fraudulent nature. It is these little hand grenades that blow up in the faces of these same pious people when they are trying to convience others that what they are saying is true. What does your trusty Bible Study Bible say about I Timothy?
 

It basically says something like this, which is from Wiki:

The Pastoral Epistles, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus have likewise been put in question as Pauline works in modern times. Three main reasons are advanced: first, their difference in vocabulary, style and theology from Paul's acknowledged writings; secondly, the difficulty in fitting them into Paul's biography as we have it.[48] They, like Colossians and Ephesians, were written from prison but suppose Paul's release and travel thereafter. Finally, the concerns expressed are very much the practical ones as to how a church should function. They are more about maintenance than about mission.

IN OTHER words, whoever wote it, it wadn't Paul, but somebody ridin' his coattails for his own purposes. ... I personally have no doubt that the anti-woman stuff is totally at odds with the gist of the Jesus messazge-experience. WOULD THAT more churches would admit the the Bible is not what the average layman supposes it to be -- and use scholarhip to tell the story of how real people reacted over time to the phenomenon! The truth will set you free, indeed.
 

Hey, DrLoboJo, seems like you've talked about this before ... what could I search for to find some physics about ... I don't know, how something can be "there but not there"? ... phasing ... dimensions ... dark matter ... ? I might be mixing something up with a Star Trek episode ...


Then, there's this, which is a little long but pretty interesting and related generally to this out-of-control thread: :-)

http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/
2007/09/speaking-truth-to-
unknown-powers.html
 

I had a couple of post in November talking about the fact that what we thought was the whole cosmic shebang, stars, planets, gases, and energy now turns out to be only 4% of of what's out there. The rest is Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and nobody, no-one, nary a soul knows what the hell that is.
So if you were feeling small before we just shrunk cosmically by a factor of 25 times.
Start with Wikipedia and track sources from there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

The other wierdo thought problem was at Hapa's. That was Schrodinger's Cat.
 

Hi Alan,

As you admit, there are indeed other documents in addition to the Bible, though again, you seem to be picking and choosing which evidence you'll take as eye-witness accounts. Apparently those eye-witness accounts written in the Bible are out of bounds. In other words, all the best evidence is declared out of bounds, and then you get to claim there is none.

Not so… I said eye-witness accounts are not the best form of evidence, but I will accept them – however I will also test them with reason and logic, isn’t this fair?

I am NOT picking and choosing my evidence either. I am trying to validate the bible claims… this means I have to place this evidence from the bible on one side and look for independent evidence to validate its claims.
Why is that wrong? Please give me a good reason if you think it is wrong and we can think about it.

To illustrate when I mean, I try and think of examples in a court of law.

A man has been accused of a murder.

He says he did not do it, he has written a signed statement stating just that. His mother has also written a signed statement stating that her son did not do the murder.
OK… is this man guilty of innocent?
We have two written pieces of evidence saying that he is innocent? Should we believe it? Or investigate more?

I think we should test their statements a little bit more don’t you? This is not to say their statements are wrong, but independent evidence from other eyewitnesses would be useful (Certainly further evidence would be required to convict them)

This is what I am trying to do with the bible… investigate a little further. I am not saying the bible is wrong just out of hand, I merely want to test it. I will read it claims, and then try and find evidence for those claims from an independent source. Of course, some events in the bible are unlikely to have independent evidence (a private conversation between Jesus and his friends say) but other events such as those described at the time of the crucifixion should have evidence – it would be the talk of the town so to speak. Not finding independent evidence for such an event, if it happened, would be strange and unexpected (why do you think otherwise?).

Not finding evidence when it didn’t happen, well… what would you expect?

Am I surprised that the Romans didn't write detailed histories about a Jewish insurrectionist, who, like many criminals at the time was crucified? Nope, not really.

Well, as you may know, the Romans DID write in details about such a Jewish insurrection… they also “crucified” the “King of the Jews” and everything in this account… shame for the bible claims it happened about 30 years before Jesus was born.

I assume you have you heard of Cassius Dio?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassius_Dio

“The Jews, indeed, had done much injury to the Romans, but they suffered far more themselves. The first of them to be captured were those who were fighting for the precinct of their god, and then the rest on the day even then called the day of Saturn. And so excessive were they in their devotion to religion that the first set of prisoners, those who had been captured along with the temple, obtained leave from Sosius, when the day of Saturn came round again, and went up into the temple and there performed all the customary rites, together with the rest of the people. These people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,— a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans,— and afterwards slew him.”

Source:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/49*.html

This is the type of historical writing that does NOT exist for Jesus, but it does for somebody most people have never heard of, i.e. Antigonus

Why is that?

Cassius Dio wrote about this event, but not Jesus – who it was written had 3 hours of darkness, earthquakes and dead man walking around as a clue of the importance of the event… why didn’t Cassius know about the event? You tell me.

Now we do know that there were several other Jewish insurrectionists who were rising up at approximately the same time, from various historical accounts. And yet no one remembers or worships them. Something clearly made this guy different.

You are not wrong there… although could it be the “victorious” Christians tried to suppress any such writings? (A conspiracy theory I will not waste too much time on). After all, for the first 200-300 years there was not just one Christianity, but many – the Gnostic gospels are just one example of a text that the main stream Christians tried to suppress.

Lee
 

Hi Tech,

Like a bear drawn out of his den, I will finally comment on this debate. I was lured out by the mention of physics, which as y'all know, I love the way some people love chocolate.

However, this debate, to my disappointment, has no physics in it. Sigh.

I think it was me who said physics… sorry for shouting and waking you up.

I could always start adding physics into my comments… just didn’t know anyone would be interested. I normally only use it though when people start talking about creationism and a 6,000 year old Earth – I didn’t think I was in such a debate.

Lee
 

Alan wrote:

Could someone else let me know if I'm just being dense, or have I still not gotten a straight answer to my question about what sorts of evidence Lee would find compelling?

I have given answers, and also asked for examples what YOU would consider good evidence.

Have I missed these examples? A lot has been written here, so sorry if I missed it.

Now I'm no expert ... oh, wait ... I am :) and I'm pretty sure "empirical" means "dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses" So I'm not sure how eye-witness accounts are not empirical.


OK... once again - please give me examples of evidence that YOU accept that can use to convince others like me.

An example of a non-empirical source would be a good as well, since it seems clear I misunderstood this.

What is the type of evidence do you have that the bible is true and the koran is false?

Thanks

Lee
 

drlobojo,

You said:
"Now in America, I trust that the good old Corporate Capitalism will do away with Intelligent Design Creationism the minute that it is seen as hurting their bottom line."

That may be, but given the support for ID from certain fundy disciples of the Austrian school of economics...I think it might be quite a while before they admit any link between a falling bottom line and a loss of good science...
 

Tech wrote:
As I understand it, Lee is asking Christians to prove there is a God of some sort.

No, I am asking for evidence FOR God. That is all. Then I will weigh up the evidence.

I don't think you can prove anything 100% true, merely false (this is what science does - it falsifies theories) Showing a theory is "right" in some examples does not mean it cannot be falsified at a later date.

That question cuts both ways: Lee could be asked to prove there isn't one.

You could, but it is not me who is making the claim that God exists. Now is it?

Should I also have to falsify fairies at the bottom of my garden? NO... of course not. (Lets get away from this straw - fast)

Besides, for every falsification that I could perform - the theist could (and have) move the goalposts. Maybe claim that God cannot be tested in such ways, or cannot be measured by my empirical methods… erm – sounds familiar?

So, as an example, here I will make a claim...

I can fly... really.

No mechanical aid required. I just need to wave my arms up and down and away I go.

Now... do you believe me? Why not?

You have not proven that I cannot fly have you... this would be impossible. Yet, you would still reject my claims - why?

Maybe you should ask me to prove it to YOU... now we are talking.

I make a claim, and so I have to prove it. Makes sense

It is NOT for you to prove that I cannot fly. Neither is it for me to disprove God... I do not believe in god due to lack of evidence, it is not really for me to find the evidence (though I am looking anyway to be sure I'm on the right path)

I well remember my college biology profession telling my entire class that "Evolution proves there is no God." Why, no, that's not what evolution proves. That's not what it was meant to prove. You can use it in that way, but it demeans the science involved.

I agree… 100%. All that evolution shows is that life evolved from similar forms (so I am told)

Though, you have to admit, it makes reading the bible more interesting with regards to Adam and Eve, original sin, and why Jesus had to be nailed to the cross for sins that didn’t need to be forgiven?

Also makes me wonder what most of Genesis is actually about… another time perhaps.

From your comments, I notice you have resolved these problem in your own mind - can you please help me understand how. This is a major hurdle for me and the Bible.

Sometimes this adjustment takes years because scientists like to hold on to cherished beliefs as much as the next person, but the process is unrelenting, unforgiving, and uncaring in its progress. Eventually a new, better theory results.

Yep… I’m sure you can think of example such as Einstein and his belief that quantum mechanics was wrong…

I heard it somewhere that new ideas in science move forward because the old scientists retire or die. A little unfair, but there is some truth in it.

I wish and pray more people had that belief. I think they would be happier if they did. But they have the right not to, and I will not gainsay that. I only require that they grant me the same indulgence as I grant them.

Some people, it seems, need a god, others do not. For those that chose a god, I just hope it is a nice religion that does not interfere with the rest of us and lets us go about our business. It seems you have found such a religion and belief

I think I wish more of the faithful had your beliefs from what I have just read.

Thank you.

Lee
 

Teresa wrote:
The fact that a few unresonable people are advancing an agenda of ignorance is alarming, and there doesn't seem to be that much will to stop them outside of the atheist circles...

Have I found someone on my side of this discussion?

ER wrote:
OK. That seals it. Despite its rambling convolutedness, this thread is now within striking distance of "interesting."

I've better stop posting then, it only got interesting when I was not writing...

Lee
 

drlobojo wrote:
I had a couple of post in November talking about the fact that what we thought was the whole cosmic shebang, stars, planets, gases, and energy now turns out to be only 4% of of what's out there. The rest is Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and nobody, no-one, nary a soul knows what the hell that is.

I thought it was 5%… but hey, I’m probably wrong.

Isn’t this just the great thing about science and the universe? It is HUGE and we know so little.
Having said that… Dark matter doesn’t really do “much” of interest (OK, it’s gravity is very, very important, but it doesn’t interact in anyother way – maybe the weak nuclear force I hear from some theories)

As for Dark Energy – again, doesn’t interact much (probably – at least no evidence for it – still early days though)

So 96% of the universe is boring… the 4% we know rather well physically… add to this life – and the universe is a great place to be.

Have to go...

Lee
 

Lee,

I do not mean this as a swipe or an insult, but I do mean to say it: You seem to know about as much about the many shades on the spectrum of Christianity as I know about atheism. I can count the fundamentalists who hang out here -- who show themselves anyway -- on less than one hand. And the one real mouth-breather who used to come around hasn't been heard from for months.

Google "liberal Christianity" and Wikipedia and noodle around in there and follow some of the links. Somewhere in there you will find most of us here, I think. Not all, but most of the ER regulars. There also are some agnostic Christians about, as well. And some flat-out agnostics. And one or two other atheists. It is a wonderfully diverse bunch.

Also, I suggest you develop a more thorough awareness of the many different ways the Bible is understood. Google "higher criticism" and Wikipedia for a good start.

You'll also find that many of us have a good layman's grap -- and some a better than layman's grasp of how the canon of Scripture was formed, especially as regards "could it be the 'victorious' Christians tried to suppress any such writings? ... After all, for the first 200-300 years there was not just one Christianity, but many – the Gnostic gospels are just one example of a text that the main stream Christians tried to suppress." Do tell! :-)

My own attitude toward the Bible can be summed up: Take it seriously; do not take it all, or even very much of it, literally. Its truth, I think, are in it as a record of humankind's search for God(s), encounters with the Divine, and their responses to it and attempts to explain it within a pre-modern world view.

My own faith is based on my understanding, such as it is, and acceptance of the gist of the Christian message (the devil, as they say, is in the details), my personal experience and my shared experiences with others.
 

Hi ER,

You seem to know about as much about the many shades on the spectrum of Christianity as I know about atheism

You are probably right there… at least with regards to my ignorance on Christianity – I freely admit that. I did state at the beginning that I have never been a believer, so never really did the church thing. I did go to a Catholic college for all the good it did me.

However, I missed your point… have I insulted someone, or just made a fool of myself with my ignorance?

I can count the fundamentalists who hang out here -- who show themselves anyway -- on less than one hand.

Excellent stuff… I didn’t think anyone here was a fundamentalist – it is difficult to have a debate/discussion with someone who “knows” the world is 6,000 years old. They have already chosen to ignore all forms of evidence that I hold dear…

Also, I suggest you develop a more thorough awareness of the many different ways the Bible is understood.

I am trying to understand this… so thanks for the links.

You'll also find that many of us have a good layman's grap -- and some a better than layman's grasp of how the canon of Scripture was formed,

Sorry, I didn’t mean to insult anyone’s intelligence with that comment, but is was in direct rely to a question to why are certain texts “missing” in the historical records. I also stated that it was a “a conspiracy theory” so showing I didn’t put too much weight behind it.

Do tell! :-)

You probably know more than me it seems. However, that does not change the question raised. Why did it take over 200 years for the “one true Christian religion” to emerge? I thought it was a interesting topic – I certainly do not state I know the answers. I bring more questions than answers… actually probably zero answers to be honest.

My own attitude toward the Bible can be summed up…

My own faith is based on...

You hold a very different position on Christianity that anyone I have debated/discussed before (and no, it is not just the fundamentalists I’ve debated with, they can be fun for a while, but very dull in the long term). It will take me a little time to “catch up” with your beliefs…

However, taking a few steps back… it was you who invited me, and all “atheists” to your blog from over at Neil’s place.

Why was that?

Maybe I’m not the type of atheist you are looking for?

Lee
 

Re, "However, I missed your point… have I insulted someone, or just made a fool of myself with my ignorance?

Your assumptions indicate that you have limited exposure to the myriad expresssions of the faith.

Re, "However, that does not change the question raised. Why did it take over 200 years for the “one true Christian religion” to emerge? I thought it was a interesting topic."

Yes. If you'd pick a topic, or even just a few, this would be more interesting. My patience with what I call "argentum ad bullshittum" -- that is, throw-everything-including-the-kitchen-sink into the air and trying to keep it all juggling at once -- is nil.

Also, the discussion ostensibly is about evidence of God, yet it keeps veering off what I and others here believe and what you don't believe, which is irrelevant until some evidence has been presented. Evidence has been presented, and you've rejected it. We could keep talking about the "forms of evidence that (you) hold dear" but I'd really rather not. The fact that you hold some forms of evidence in high regard and other forms in low regard indicates that you're not looking for "evidence," but for certain kinds of evidence. Nah. It think that means we're done, and were done 100 comments ago.

Re, (on the atheist invite), "Why was that?"

I thought it would be interesting, and for all the talk over there of reliance on logic, systematic analysis and the scientific method, I wanted to see how it would hold up against the formidable abilities of some of the ER regulars. But I haven't seen any.


Re, "Maybe I’m not the type of atheist you are looking for?"

Possibly, not that I was looking that hard. I rolled my eyes at the notion of atheist "raiding parties" and tossed up this post. It wasn't planned.
 

Hi ER,

First… is the time on this posts the local time where you live? If so, what are you doing up and posting at 5:30am?

Your assumptions indicate that you have limited exposure to the myriad expresssions of the faith.

You got me… however I made this clear at the beginning – I’ve never had faith in God – ever.

Some atheists I debate with have had faith in God and lost it, others have looked really hard, prayer and all that but never found God – not me. Never prayed, never lost faith.

I’m looking for evidence as a detective might… but I do not assume God exists first and then look. I’m neutral on the matter.

However it seems to be a Christian you have to accept God first, and invent evidence.

“Oh… what’s that noise? It must be God”

Yeah, and I know it is a straw man argument… but time is short and my welcome here is clearly coming to an end.

Yes. If you'd pick a topic, or even just a few, this would be more interesting.

I agree… you could have chose one. It is your blog, you have control of the flow of debate. Don’t blame me on this one…

I have been trying to answer everything that comes my way, but it is far too many for me to answer any one in any detail. I would have preferred one topic at a time. I asked and suggested topics of interest…

Also, the discussion ostensibly is about evidence of God, yet it keeps veering off what I and others here believe and what you don't believe, which is irrelevant until some evidence has been presented.

And there is the main point and problem.

There is zero evidence for God… you have said as much yourself if you re-read your posts. No, sorry – you said there was no scientific/empirical evidence you could provide… to me the same thing until you can state why this type of evidence is wrong to demand. I’ve not asked for direct evidence, (though it would have been nice.) indirect evidence would have been good enough for me. Evidence that God interacts with mankind would be pretty good to me… yet none is known.

Is there any evidence that praying to God, following a “good” Christian life makes a difference when it came to God “showing favour”… no – of course not, Christians die in just as many numbers in natural distances, wars, famine and disease… So there is no evidence that it does you any good in this world. (And of course, you have zero evidence of the next.)

Also, it is not for me to provide evidence for your God – it is you, the Christian, who is making the claim. Remember, I am looking FOR a god… not trying to disprove one.

It would also seem people here wish to say that I do not accept a “certain type of evidence” – well, what is it? Can anyone tell me? I’ve asked to see it (or at least have it described) but no one wishes to put it into print.

More importantly…. Why would God choose to hide from us these last 2,000 years and force believers to invent evidence? Why is there no independent evidence to back up the bible? How do you reject the Koran, but accept the bible?

These questions have been ignored… shame. It could have been interesting.

It seems people here accept a 13.7 billion year old universe, 4.6 billion year old Earth and evolution… meaning, as evidence shows, mankind as we know it, has been walking around the planet for over 100,000 years… why did God wait so long to send down “His only son”? And what sins did Jesus die for if mankind got here through evolution? Evolution is a cruel ”dog eat dog” method… we have not choice in being what we are?

More interesting questions ignored…

Evidence has been presented, and you've rejected it.

I missed it… could you please point me too it? I remember something about “feelings” and the subjective but that is about it.


We could keep talking about the "forms of evidence that (you) hold dear" but I'd really rather not.

This is your choice of course to ignore these problems.

It is not just me that “hold them dear” – the courts of law in most Western countries back me up on the strength of the evidence I hold “so dear”. Yet you reject them… you reject the problem that no empirical evidence has been seen for God, and so accept “feelings”.

The fact that you hold some forms of evidence in high regard and other forms in low regard indicates that you're not looking for "evidence," but for certain kinds of evidence.

I am looking for good evidence. Some are accepting wishful thinking.

Again, why should God only leave “feelings” and other subjective sources as the only form of evidence for His existence?

Makes you think? Maybe not.

Nah. It think that means we're done, and were done 100 comments ago.

It would seem so… it is a shame. I really wanted a debate with non-fundamentalist Christians. It could have been interesting.

I thought it would be interesting, and for all the talk over there of reliance on logic, systematic analysis and the scientific method, I wanted to see how it would hold up against the formidable abilities of some of the ER regulars.

It could have been, more would have followed. However, you have convinced me of someone.

I rolled my eyes at the notion of atheist "raiding parties" and tossed up this post. It wasn't planned.

So did I, but like you – I thought…. Yeah OK, I’ll give it a go.

But there is no debate here. I have tried… too hard.

Maybe if you create a post on a specific topic of interest I’ll return…

I will end on some humour… for me at least. I guess no one here can see the joke, but what the hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ

I would love to hear your response to the video. I thought it was funny and educational on the religious mindset – but what do I know. Never been religious.

Lee
 

Lee writes, "OK... once again - please give me examples of evidence that YOU accept that can use to convince others like me."

My Mother always taught me that it's impolite to answer a question with a question. I'm going to sound a bit childish, but frankly I asked you first. And yet, I'm still waiting for examples from you, Lee. Examples that aren't, apparently, going to come. That's fine, of course, you don't owe anything to me, but it does make me question your intentions in this "discussion."

"OK... once again - please give me examples of evidence that YOU accept that can use to convince others like me."

LOL. Sorry, but unless I actually had any idea of what evidence would convince you, that would be rather difficult now, wouldn't it? You've already said eye-witness accounts are not going to do it. Using those conditions, I'm fairly certain I couldn't even prove to you that Napoleon existed. :) In fact, I'm fairly certain that, given your constraints, I'm unable to prove to you that *I* exist!!

See Lee, with respect, it is these inconstancies that make this discussion a bit frustrating. First you write, "I don't think you can prove anything 100% true, merely false (this is what science does - it falsifies theories) Showing a theory is "right" in some examples does not mean it cannot be falsified at a later date." But when you're asked to prove God does not exist -- precisely the type of falsification you describe -- you reply, "You could [ask that], but it is not me who is making the claim that God exists. Now is it?"

So you're asking us to prove God exists, while admitting that's impossible, and yet refusing to falsify that statement, while stating falsification is how this should all work.

Teresa wrote, "The fact that a few unresonable people are advancing an agenda of ignorance is alarming, and there doesn't seem to be that much will to stop them outside of the atheist circles"

I think this is the popular perception, but it isn't correct. As someone deeply involved in science education, I can tell you that there are entire networks of evangelical Christians who are working to criticize and combat the fundie anti-science agenda. They don't have big names or big money, but they show up faithfully to school board meetings, and state educational hearings.

Lee wrote, "Why did it take over 200 years for the “one true Christian religion” to emerge?"

Ugh. Can we please for the love of God (heh) not conflate Christianity with faith in God?

Lee wrote, "Evidence that God interacts with mankind would be pretty good to me… yet none is known." and "Again, why should God only leave “feelings” and other subjective sources as the only form of evidence for His existence?"

I think that, given your friendly attitude here, Lee, which I appreciate, that sort of disingenuousness is not at all helpful. I'm sorry if this is frustrating, but that doesn't excuse lying. We HAVE given evidence, including eye-witness evidence, and I've suggested other sorts of evidence -- that you simply refuse to accept. The fact that you don't like that evidence because of your personal biases against it, does not mean it doesn't exist, and that we haven't provided it. We've got a whole book full of eye-witness accounts. You reject them. We each represent our own stories of faith. You reject them as "subjective" (as if there's any other kind). You say that evidence does not exist. And then there are other forms of non-empirical evidence such as revelation, which you also reject. Convenient that you reject any evidence that challenges your preconceived notions, eh?

Any sort of evidence provided; you reject. Makes you think? Maybe not.

Frankly I've experienced this exact same sort of fundamentalism from Christians and it's rather amusing to see it from an atheist.

"It would also seem people here wish to say that I do not accept a “certain type of evidence” – well, what is it? Can anyone tell me? I’ve asked to see it (or at least have it described) but no one wishes to put it into print."

1) Eye-witness evidence
2) Revelation
3) Historical accounts
4) Personal accounts

are a few of the types of evidence that have been described in this thread -- all of which you've rejected.

I started by asking a very simple question, which, like all of my questions, has gone unanswered by you. What sort of evidence would it take to demonstrate that my Mom loves me? That seems like a MUCH easier question to answer than questions about God! And yet, you dodge even that question again and again.

"Again, why should God only leave “feelings” and other subjective sources as the only form of evidence for His existence?"

LOL. Lee, you're joking right? You're a physicist, right? As a fellow scientist I shouldn't have to remind you that ALL sources are subjective. Let's not turn science into an idol to be worshiped, eh? This statement, more than anything else you've written, demonstrates exactly where you're coming from.

"Is there any evidence that praying to God, following a “good” Christian life makes a difference when it came to God “showing favour”… no – of course not, "

Again, don't ask us to explain or defend such a naive understanding of Christianity. I'll only speak for myself, but I'm certainly not interested in defending such an immature understanding of the efficacy or importance of either prayer or good works. Again, I think you've been listening to the fundies waaaaaaay too much.

"I would love to hear your response to the video."

I think it's a funny critique of fundie theology. Though I always think that serious dissections of all things humorous are a waste of time, it does do a nice job of presenting the atheist view of the fundie mindset. :)
 

The pouting is unbecoming, Lee.

Re, Your welcome has come to an end? Uh, no. This thread is petering ou.

Re, "Maybe if you create a post on a specific topic of interest I’ll return…"

Yippie! :-)


I present to you my devotion and my testimony as evidence. Take it or leave it. :-)
 

"I think this is the popular perception, but it isn't correct. As someone deeply involved in science education, I can tell you that there are entire networks of evangelical Christians who are working to criticize and combat the fundie anti-science agenda. They don't have big names or big money, but they show up faithfully to school board meetings, and state educational hearings."

Nicely said, Alan. And since I'm one of those evangelical Christians who regularly and consistently attend school board meetings and make my voice known -- I'm only a bear in my den in the blogsphere -- I appreciate you pointing it out. Thank you.
 

"And since I'm one of those evangelical Christians who regularly and consistently attend school board meetings and make my voice known -- I'm only a bear in my den in the blogsphere -- I appreciate you pointing it out. Thank you."

Nope, as a former High School science teacher, thank you!

This meeting of the mutual admiration society has now come to a close. :)
 

I had no idea this post was still active! Maybe it isn't anymore, but I still want to add a cent or two, which is about what the views are worth.

First, Alan shows up the problem with the kind of "atheist" position Lee is advocating - his argument is not with us, but with a particular type of religious belief that may be described as fundamentalist. He then insists this is true Christianity. He further asserts that he wants "evidence", without doing what Alan, very patiently, asks for - criteria. Alan provides all sorts of evidence, which Lee rejects. Alan asks again, what type of evidence do you want. Lee doesn't respond, instead harping on this or that minor point.

This is the Richard Dawkins method of "Refuting Religion". Since Dawkins himself not only dismisses religious belief, God, and religious reasoning and methodology, there is a lack of willingness to accept the debate on any terms whatsoever, or grant credence to the views of people who hold religious beliefs. It is, as Alan further pointed out, a kind of mindless fundamentalism, arrogant, insipid, limited, irrational, and finally risible.