well put skepticism. Growing up I was always told that religion, along with politics, is just one of those things not to publicly bring up, or one risks loosing relationships. There is some truth to that, however the topic of religion itself has been for so long insulated against critique. Indeed in the very texts themselves (quran and bible) there are quite explicit instructions for those who...more

well put skepticism. Growing up I was always told that religion, along with politics, is just one of those things not to publicly bring up, or one risks loosing relationships.

There is some truth to that, however the topic of religion itself has been for so long insulated against critique. Indeed in the very texts themselves (quran and bible) there are quite explicit instructions for those who attempt to challenge the beliefs of the believers, who are un-believers, or attempt to persuade believers to follow other gods. The penalties are quite stark - death by stoning.

Thus, the 'village atheist/skeptic' back then really didn't stand much of a chance of creating open dialog back for fear of being killed. There are sections in the bible were they refer to the Epicureans (materialists) & the Hellenic, so it appears they were quite aware of other concepts. Now in a more open society where one isn't threatened with death for apostasy we're beginning to see a changing of the guard.

http://bible.cc/acts/17-18.htmless

"I have sufficient real evidence to believe the bible" What is it, a dream?

"What do you do with your guilt?" What do you do with your projections of other people?

"Do you consider yourself to be a good person?" Sure. Let me guess where you're going with this, the Way of the Master playbook? http://www.wayofthemaster.com/goodperson.shtml

"But there is no way we can conclusively say that the two accounts contradict each other and the same is true in these passages as well." Interesting. Almost curious. Believer, don't you find it odd, that in this section & later in others as I comment on their contradictions, that you're quite open to non-literalism when interpreting them. But when it came time to read other sections, notab...more

"But there is no way we can conclusively say that the two accounts contradict each other and the same is true in these passages as well."

Interesting. Almost curious. Believer, don't you find it odd, that in this section & later in others as I comment on their contradictions, that you're quite open to non-literalism when interpreting them.

But when it came time to read other sections, notably Noah's flood that earlier I asked evidence for, asked why an Epic of Gilgamesh predates it, or evidence that water ages rocks as you stated, that you were far less open to uh, a non-literary interpretation?

"these men could have very well been angels"

And again, you did the same with this interpretation. It doesn't literally say they're angels, just like the bible doesn't literally say water/flood ages rocks, but you lack of evidence leads you to think its a license to interpret it any ol way, & to that end ONLY your interpretation is the correct one.

"As for the Gospels not being able to tell the difference, your correct as is true of any third hand account of an event, they can't tell the difference because they were not present and are simply sharing what they were told by another person who was present or close to those who were present"

Yes, I know this. So for the laymen out there keeping score. In other words, those Gospels accredited to them (Math, Mar, Luk, Joh), not only were they not actually penned during the events, but they were penned many decades after the fact & they were penned by people who got the story to them by 3rd hand accounts. Sounds kinda shaky quality assurance to me, but I am not omnipotent.less

"a friend of my young son had some health problems with her heart" Why is it always these anecdotal stories believers appeal to? Nothing to back up their claims, nothing really as direct evidence, all we get is their word, & in this case it's the word from your sons friend. "It was a hole in the heart" There are such things as misdiagnosis, DP. They do happen, like how cancer does go into...more

"a friend of my young son had some health problems with her heart"

Why is it always these anecdotal stories believers appeal to? Nothing to back up their claims, nothing really as direct evidence, all we get is their word, & in this case it's the word from your sons friend.

"It was a hole in the heart"

There are such things as misdiagnosis, DP. They do happen, like how cancer does go into remission on its own, rarely.

"what does logic say about it?"

It's less about a question of logic, and more about the question of miracles. I would say what does Hume say about it, check it out.

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

http://www.humesociety.org/hs/issues/v16n1/fogelin/fogelin-v16n1.pdf

http://www.nd.edu/~jspeaks/mcgill/201/hume-miracles.pdfless

Skepticism, Don't mind clover, he likes to 'play the victim' card a lot. The article here and many elsewhere show it's not merely atheism vs christianity, but rather atheism vs religion/supernaturalism. "Christians are easy targets for the politically correct who form their worldview based on SNL skits." Easy targets are those who commit logical fallacies (circular reasoning), or assert ...more

Skepticism,

Don't mind clover, he likes to 'play the victim' card a lot. The article here and many elsewhere show it's not merely atheism vs christianity, but rather atheism vs religion/supernaturalism.

"Christians are easy targets for the politically correct who form their worldview based on SNL skits."

Easy targets are those who commit logical fallacies (circular reasoning), or assert logic doesn't apply to them (laws of non-contradiction). Easy targets are those who claim to be christians, but as many polls for decades have shown, they cannot answer the most basic questions about their faith like who spoke on the sermon of the mount, or name any non-social 10 commandment law. Ignorance of the religion they claim to be isn't an atheist shortfall, it's the christian in name only or pious in name only shortfall.

"Absurd is an atheist surfing into a Christian website and denigrating their Holy Book. Btw 80% of Americans identify as Christian."

Right, that 80% that only earlier I mentioned most can't even answer better than 50% on questions of their own faith. Go ahead, call them christian, but what low standards.less

"I am the evidence." Sure you are, so how can I test what you're asserting? If its not testable, well, then it utterly fails.

"while man may have developed into a special bein" And why cannot your god have guided evolution of this process for humanity? I really don't see the confliction in saying your god is the author of all things, natural, supernatural and alike, and all that has occured was by his divine will or he pre-saw that this evolution would occur according to the natural laws he helped to rig.

believer, as I stated, I will comment on other contradictions later. however it's clear that between the 4 gospels they each couldn't tell how many (was it 1, or 2?) & if they were actually human, or angels. Those are contradictions.

beautifully put skepticism.

“ you get to write the rule book and define what are fruits and what are not fruits” As far as it being science or not, yeah, it’s all about the fruits here and now, if it has the goods then it’s worth looking into, otherwise it’s bunk like the rest of pseudoscience. Like I asked, why don’t we find evidence for talking snakes, donkey’s & such as in the creation(ism) model? “...more

“ you get to write the rule book and define what are fruits and what are not fruits”

As far as it being science or not, yeah, it’s all about the fruits here and now, if it has the goods then it’s worth looking into, otherwise it’s bunk like the rest of pseudoscience. Like I asked, why don’t we find evidence for talking snakes, donkey’s & such as in the creation(ism) model?

“And while evolution may not refer to man as a freak of nature it certainly does not show him as the special creation of God's that he is. “

Maybe you’re rushing to judgment, but don’t you think science has shown how special we are mentally? The fact that we can even create such a wonderful methodology like science to explain physical reality is proof enough of how indeed special & unique we are. We are the universe being able to contemplate itself. Why cannot your god guide evolution like some assert he guides other natural things, what's the difference?

“And then trying to equate God allowing satan to tempt Adam and Eve with parents leaving a loaded weapon around their children, now that is a huge stretch!!”

How so? In any other course of actions comparable actions would be defined as gross negligence. Hope fully we can talk tomorrow, night believer.less

"two of the Gospels describe the angels in human terms" well of course they're in human terms, what other terms are there? "here are absolutely no contradictions" Except for the number & type they were. I have other contradictions, for later... "angels do have the ability to take on the likeness of a man" Right, & these gospels apparently couldn't tell the difference. Talk about spe...more

"two of the Gospels describe the angels in human terms"

well of course they're in human terms, what other terms are there?

"here are absolutely no contradictions"

Except for the number & type they were. I have other contradictions, for later...

"angels do have the ability to take on the likeness of a man"

Right, & these gospels apparently couldn't tell the difference. Talk about special pleading.less

“There are many stories in the Bible where eye witnesses say the event occurred.” Regrettably for the bible, yes. If there isn’t any evidence for the event(s) in question, then we could look to see if such things ever happen or if they’re repeatable today. Donkeys and snakes talk in the bible, people live in whales for 3 days, but these things don’t seem to occur today. ‘Because ...more

“There are many stories in the Bible where eye witnesses say the event occurred.”

Regrettably for the bible, yes. If there isn’t any evidence for the event(s) in question, then we could look to see if such things ever happen or if they’re repeatable today. Donkeys and snakes talk in the bible, people live in whales for 3 days, but these things don’t seem to occur today.

‘Because there are false witnesses does not mean there are no true witnesses. “

Because there are true witness does not mean there are no false witnesses. Again, here it comes down to if they could have any bias in the matter & it’s a certainty they would if they wanted their religion to get off the ground.

“Moses said he saw God's back and spoke to Him.”

According to the Quran, Muhammad flew a winged horse into the heavens, & heard direct dictation by god to pen the Quran. Now, all of these claims are quite miraculous, but the only ones you accept are those in the bible as it’s your religion. Were it not you would not have a reason to assume it to be correct in the first place.

“What atheist want people to do is stake their eternal destiny on the uncertainty of their philosophy with no hope of escape if they are wrong”

Insisting people to believe in a ‘hedge betting’ sort of belief sounds like something a real god, with real omnipotence might not take all too well.less

RL, “Empirical evidence, like eyewitness evidence, can be falsified.” The interpretation of it can be. But, in science the methodology requires *others* to be able to not only test what others tested, but get the same results to know objectively if the accuracy is correct. This is part of the idea of having independent labs perform tests & the idea behind double blind studies. Such check...more

RL,

“Empirical evidence, like eyewitness evidence, can be falsified.”

The interpretation of it can be. But, in science the methodology requires *others* to be able to not only test what others tested, but get the same results to know objectively if the accuracy is correct. This is part of the idea of having independent labs perform tests & the idea behind double blind studies. Such checks ensure bias is kept out of the process of determining cause & effect analysis.

“There are many things empirical evidence cannot provide any information at all. I can take my children back to where they lived as small children. The house is completely gone; there is a commercial business now where the house stood. They have to trust me that I am telling the truth.”

Ah, do you have pictures of the area for when you & they were there? Perhaps some old bills indicating indeed you lived there when you claim? Perhaps you’ll know about the neighbors in the area who could show evidence for, or at least vouch, for your story? Perhaps you have or city officials have, estate, city or county records for your years of residence there?

You see RL, all those are instances of physical evidence that the kids could easily request & rely on to form a more consistent concept, outside of your own words. If we upon examining these & we found they were very consistent, & yet you claimed you didn’t move to the address until fall of 1990, but yet all the other evidence shows it was summer of 1989, we’d have good reason to reject your dates as the overall consistency logically entails its more likely to be correct than that of your one eyewitness instance.

“Because I have no empirical evidence does not make me a liar. “

Right, it doesn’t, but then again it doesn’t make what you’re saying necessarily true either. If all we have is your word it makes the story awfully dubious as it’s hard to cross verify with independent data. It’s sort like ‘the fish tales’ where fishermen talk big tales of the one that got away & how convenient they never have evidence other than their word for it. As they say, talk is cheap when the story is good…less

believer, “As for the fruit of creation it is very clear. Man is a special creation of God who was created both on purpose and for a purpose.” Maybe you didn’t get my question. My question deals with ‘which methodology better explains reality?’. The fruits of methodological naturalism are quite evident, as it explains reality quite well (medicines wouldn’t work otherwise). So if ...more

believer,

“As for the fruit of creation it is very clear. Man is a special creation of God who was created both on purpose and for a purpose.”

Maybe you didn’t get my question. My question deals with ‘which methodology better explains reality?’. The fruits of methodological naturalism are quite evident, as it explains reality quite well (medicines wouldn’t work otherwise). So if the creationism model is correct, what are its fruits for explaining reality? Why can’t we find donkeys & snakes that talk, or ‘trees of knowledge’ for instance, if the creation model is correct?

“And even though man turned from God, God loved man enough to send His only Son to die on the Cross so man could once again be one with God.”

Right, your god loved man so much he let your nifty satan out & about to temp them & let the ‘tree of knowledge’ accessible even though with his omnipotence he knew what would transpire. That is comparable to a parent loading a gun & leaving it on the ground while leaving for work. Then later the parents young kids, who couldn’t possibly understand the consequences, come to play with the gun& one ends up shooting & killing the other. That is negligence on the parents part. If god were a person under those circumstances he would’ve been incriminated for negligence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQBDGMj2h-c

“Man is not an accident, mistake, or freak of nature which is what evolution seems to promote but rather as I said he is God's special creation.”

Evolution doesn’t say we’re freaks at all; it describes the changes organisms undergo over time & that they’re related. How is it any different to say that your god guides it, like he guides other natural laws, like gravity? Besides, 'evolution' is hardly the only problem YEC's have, it's all those others, astronomy, geology, physics, & so on, that they also reject. THAT is the real argument, not just evolutionary biology.less

“You're missing out on realizing a state of being beyond what your puny, finite mind can grasp.” But evidence you have?

Clover, “I don't define my worldview by what does not exist, as you do.” I would agree. I think it’s wrong to hold a label to a position of what one doesn’t believe in, as although technically correct, it doesn’t really tell you what the person positively believes. For sake of argument, I’d rather be called a Materialist, or Empiricist, or Naturalist, as opposed to an atheist. B...more

Clover,

“I don't define my worldview by what does not exist, as you do.”

I would agree. I think it’s wrong to hold a label to a position of what one doesn’t believe in, as although technically correct, it doesn’t really tell you what the person positively believes. For sake of argument, I’d rather be called a Materialist, or Empiricist, or Naturalist, as opposed to an atheist. But the atheist title is likely more commonly known so it’s an easier concept to understand on face value.

The one thing I’ve found most common with atheists/non-believers is that they reject the supernatural & believe the material world is all there is.

“What's worse, in your arrogance you actually believe you possess enough knowledge to state with surety that God does not exist. “

Correction, I never claimed to ‘know’, only that I believed that it doesn’t exist
(at least as far as religions describe it). I understand the distinction between belief and knowledge & have never claimed to know, to claim to know such a thing is presumptuous. The real arrogance is actually on those who not only claim to know a god exists but further they know the mind of god.

Also, one need not have disproved X to rationally believe X doesn’t exist. Like the Celestial teapot & Santa, we haven’t searched the whole universe, so how do we know our beliefs in rejecting the existence of such things are valid? Well, is there any positive evidence for them as they’re described, anything testable to show positive existence? No, not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

The affirmation that X exists, & that it exists as claimed it not my problem, I am not the one asserting it to exist, so it’s not my burden of proof to bear.less

“What many do not know is that the four gospel accounts are written to four different audiences.” And that they weren’t all wrote at the same time (many decades apart actually), more over some show cross pollination to others, starting with Matthew while John seems a little odd in its accounts. “The fact that there are slight differences is not a sign of contradiction.” I would...more

“What many do not know is that the four gospel accounts are written to four different audiences.”

And that they weren’t all wrote at the same time (many decades apart actually), more over some show cross pollination to others, starting with Matthew while John seems a little odd in its accounts.

“The fact that there are slight differences is not a sign of contradiction.”

I wouldn’t say it’s so much an issue of contradiction & much more of an issue of which really occurred, how it occurred, when, & so forth. According to John the walking dead were up & about, but none of the others who wrote long before him mentioned it, nor did anyone else outside of the bible which were contemporary. So the question of if this event really occurred as per eyewitness John, or was embellished as a matter to appeal to growing followers is up for grabs.

“Of the miracles that He performed. His resurrection from the dead. Is the person of Christ contradicted by any of the four?”

Well, earlier you stated contradictions aren’t a problem in other events, so were the case they’re found with regards to the christ it would apparently not change your view if they really occurred as described or not. That’s quite a double standard.

Let’s take a look at who was at the tomb when they arrived.

Math: 1 angel (28.2-7)
Mark: 1 young man (16:5)
Luke: 2 Men (24:4)
John: 2 angels (20:12)less

clover, “there are no aflyingspaghettimonsterists, no atoothfairyists, no asantaists” I am with regards to all three, and unless you’re 5 years old, I suspect you reject the belief in santa and the rest. Disagree? Like I said, you’re an atheist to ALL the other gods, except for the one you have an affinity for.