Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?


Guest Moljinir

Recommended Posts

The only problem is that from a purely materialistic worldview, man is a machine, he can be no more than the sum of his parts and completely determined by his DNA. So, I think it is you that have to explain how man can be anything but a advanced robot from your perspective.

 

Who's claiming that man is anything more than an advanced robot?

 

You are missing the emergent properties phenomena. We make a car out of parts not for the sum of its parts but because of what properties it has when those parts are assembled. Water has different properties than it's parts. Sodium Chloride has different properties than it's parts. These new properties make salt necessary for life even though its parts are poisonous to life taken straight up.

 

The properties (behaviors) of a chimp are emergent properties of its parts and its socialization -- since it is a social animal. Assuming that you don't assign a chimps behaviors to a soul, why would you have to assign a human's behaviors to a soul?

 

That our behavior is directly linked to our parts is easy to experience by knocking back a fifth of Jack Daniels. I saw it when my grandpa disappeared a couple of years before his body died. The more bits of his brain that died, the more of him was gone. He was a good Christian by the way, but those last couple of years he wouldn't have known Jesus from a planter. Did his soul appear in heaven piecemeal? Was he half demented in heaven and on earth at the same time?

 

So, yes you are the product of your DNA and your socialization. If you had been raised in Saudi Arabia by Muslim parents you would touting the wonders of Allah and his Prophet (peace be unto him).

 

Just because you cannot grok the idea or you don't like the idea of being the sum of your parts with their emergent properties, doesn't make it not so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only problem is that from a purely materialistic worldview, man is a machine, he can be no more than the sum of his parts and completely determined by his DNA. So, I think it is you that have to explain how man can be anything but a advanced robot from your perspective.

 

Humans really are machines and I have this coming from two evangelical Christians who had a rather thorough understanding of how the human body worked. They are self-sustaining electrical creatures that need certain compounds and chemicals to maintain optimal functioning. Hate to say it, but any religious point of view is interpreted by human beings therefore it is nothing more than a material perspective. Dare I say it is just another humanistic perspective.

 

Furthermore, I ask this of you. If I as a material atheist take up some kind of moral system of belief, why is it automatically inconsistent of me to have one and why am I called a moral parasite? If an atheist some how came up with a moral system based of keen observation of the material world, why will the Christian automatically disregard it?

 

I still can't seem to wrap my head around that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even as machines, we are more than the sum of the parts, because we are responsive agents, interacting, adjusting, and adopting to the environment. We are not just pre-programmed machines, but we are adoptive machines which become parts of the bigger social structure. A person can't use language, unless he is in an environment of other entities to speak to and learn from. Hence the "man-as-machine" image have to be viewed as much more than just a robot/computer image. Our responses to our surroundings affects our future responses, so we are in part individuals and in part parts of the "bigger" machine, which is society, culture, humanity, Earth, life, the Universe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two parts to this response. First the struggle aspect. My bringing up the difficulty of changing views was in defense of the topic starter's expression of the programmed fears left in her/him from their former beliefs. That's understandable, and I am correct in saying that "shaking loose" from a former belief goes both ways: to and from Christianity. So you were incorrect in trying to make her look unique in this because of the direction of her conversion.

So, maybe you could give me examples of Christians who came out of atheism who struggled with leaving atheism behind, because, I have never seen this be the case, and I have heard the stories of many of these conversions.

 

Rather than my making a case here, I'll just ask you to make my case for me by asking for your answer to these questions. Do you accept that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that our species, the human species, is a result of the process of evolution; or have you come to dispute and deny this knowledge that comes from the vast majority of the world's scientists, spanning nearly every field of the sciences, on the basis of a few mainly non-scientists who hold the Bible up (their reading of it to put a sharp point on it) as trumping what comes out of the labors of the scientific community?

 

Answer that truthfully and then we can embark on a discussion of my thoughts about this.

 

I put the age of the universe between 13 and 15 billion years old and the earth to be 4.5 billion years old +/- 100K years. You are going to have to more tightly define your definition and distiction on evolution as there are many models out there. I do accept some parts of evolution and believe that others still have issues yet to be resolved to gain my full accptance.

 

Actually I have a greater respect for Christian existentialists than I do for those who have to force-fit scientific, historical pursuits into what is otherwise a matter of faith. If someone says they know these things make no logical sense, but believe for the sake of belief, I can respect that. The reason I can is because it is honest, unlike those who rehash that tired apologetics from Josh McDowell that on the surface sounds so convincing, so persuasive (I was taken by his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict too when I was a young, green Christian apologist myself). However as we'll see in a moment, he is less than the scholar one might wish to believe, and all the extra-biblical sources you cite are hardly "evidence" of a historical Jesus.

 

You will have to show me how I force-fit scientific and historical data into my worldview. So, let's deal with Stein's critiques below:

 

Editor's Note: The following essay was written by the late Gordon Stein in 1982. It is a slightly-modified version of an article that appeared in the July/August 1982 issue of The American Rationalist under the same name. In this essay, Stein claimed that anyone who relies on Josephus' Testimonium is "dishonest," "fooled," and "ignorant." Even if those statements were true in 1982, they are definitely not true today. While there is no doubt among the majority of scholars that the Testimonium has been tampered with (and thus the entire passage cannot be authentic), a decent number of scholars believe the Testimonium is based upon an authentic core. In other words, on their view, Josephus really did write a passage referring to Jesus on which the modern Testimonium is based, but that passage was embellished by later Christians. Since that view has attracted a number of scholars, it is simply fallacious to claim that anyone who relies on the Testimonium is "dishonest," "fooled," or "ignorant."

 

Here is a mistake on the part of Stein. He throws out the whole of Josephus' statement on the basis of a section that is believed to be embellished by later scribes. Using textual critical methods we can determine which parts were embellished and which weren't and when the supposedly embellished parts are removed, we still have enough to establish that Jesus was clearly referred to when Josephus refers to "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." (Antiquities 20:9) This is not a disputed section of the Antiquities, so Stein is clearly either wrong, "dishonest," "fooled," or "ignorant." If you care to debate that point, you will have to show me how Stein deals with this passage in particular.

 

Another of McDowell's favorite tricks is to say "So-and-so says that Jesus was an historical figure...." So-and-so turns out to be another fundamentalist writer. This is the old argument from authority, although in this case there is no authority being quoted. It is a weak "proof." Let me give a specific example of how McDowell uses this quotation system to his advantage, but in disregard of the facts and the truth of the thing we are trying to investigate. On page 84 of Evidence, he quotes "What, then, does the historian know about Jesus Christ? He knows, first and foremost, that the New Testament documents can be relied upon to give an accurate portrait of Him. And he knows that this portrait cannot be rationalized away by wishful thinking, philosophical presupposition, or literary maneuvering." The quote is from John Warwick Montgomer's History and Christianity . As it turns out, there is not one factual statement in the entire quotation given above. That doesn't bother McDowell, of course, who just acts as if the fact that Montgomery said it makes it so.

 

This is clearly an appeal to the genetic fallacy, if he cares to critique the sources appealed to by McDowell, he must show why they are wrong rather than just claiming them to be "fundamentalist" writers. If you/he believe Montgomery to be wrong, you must show why.

 

The next major ancient historian who supposedly mentions Jesus, and thus provides us with evidence that he was an historical character is Tacitus.

 

According to Mendell (Clarence W. Mendell, Tacitus: The Man and his Work, Yale University Press/Oxford University Press (1957)), since 1775 there have been at least 6 attempts to discredit the works of Tacitus as either forgeries or fiction:

 

 

* The allegation originated with Voltaire, and his claims were elaborated by a lawyer named Linguet. However the position was only taken seriously with Napoleon. The French Revolutionaries had found "tremendous comfort in Tacitus' republicanism. The modern successor to the Caesars" had therefore a strong political motive to discredit him. But these efforts ceased with the collapse of the First Empire.

* John Wilson ROSS published (anonymously) a book entitled Tacitus and Bracciolini:: the Annals forged in the XVth century, London (1878) intended to prove that Poggio had forged the works of Tacitus. (It would be interesting to know how Ross believed Poggio could forge 9th century MSS.) This work has now been added to Project Gutenberg and is online.

* In 1890 P. HOCHART, De l'Authenticite des Annales et des Histoires de Tacite, maintained the same idea "with a much greater show of learning, and followed up with a supplementary volume". Apparently neither Ross or Hochart was able to convince scholarly opinion at the time.

* In 1920 Leo WEINER, Tacitus' Germania and other forgeries, "attempted in vain to prove by a bewildering display of linguistic fireworks that the Germania and, by implication, other works of Tacitus were forgeries made after Arabic influence had extended into Europe".

* "After Gaston Boissier's brilliant book (Tacite, 1903) had roused new enthusiasm for the historian, Eugene Bacha (Le Genie de Tacite, 1906) attempted to prove Tacitus was a master of Romantic fiction... Bacha's book does have some value for his comments on stylistic matters."

* T.S.Jerome, Aspects of the Study of History, 1923, presented Tacitus as "a consistent liar by nature and deliberate choice. The book has no value because of its overall inaccuracy, the confusion of narratio in a legal speech with narratio in history, and its wholly unconvincing method".

 

 

According to Mendell, none of these writers have won general acceptance of their estimates of Tacitus, the extreme positions have been abandoned, and the general integrity of Tacitus vindicated. However as with all history, the personal element of selection and interpretation means that scholars do not necessarily accept Tacitus' view as the final and just interpretation of first-century Roman history.

 

The arguments for forgery have actually failed to find acceptance.

 

 

McDowell is on even shakier ground when he tries to promote the short mention of "Chrestus" in Suetonius. First, any scholar ought to learn to at least spell the name of the person he is writing about correctly.

 

 

Quibbling over spelling. A.N. Wilson states of this apparent discrepancy, "Only the most perverse scholars have doubted that 'Chrestus' is Christ." (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle, (London: Norton, 1997), 104. Also, to say that Suetonius was referring to someone else would be a mistake as the name clearly refers to a Jew and the name 'Chrestus' does not appear in the hundreds of names found in Jewish catacombs, in other words, it was not a name used among the Jews. Suetonius was clearly conflating Christianity with Judaism in his writings. "Christos" and "Chrestus" were often interchanged and confused by both non-Christians and Christians due to the similarity of sound and the strange meaning of Christos versus the meaning of Chrestus (good). So, again, I think you or your source are making too much out of this case.

 

We now come to the issue of mention of Jesus in the Jewish Talmud.

 

Your reference does nothing but confirm that Jesus was referenced in early Talmudic writing. So, I am not sure what your point is and how this advances your argument.

 

The "evidence" quoted from Pliny Secundus (Pliny the Younger) is also of dubious value for determining whether Jesus was historical.

 

Again, this does not advance your argument at all. This proves that people 1) believed in the existence of Jesus only a relatively few years after he is believed to have lived; and, 2) they believed him to be God. The fact that Pliny recorded this has significance.

 

Regarding Lucian, your source simply waves it off for no apparent reason other than he doesn't care to address the fact that an early writer referred to Jesus as an historical figure, not as a fable or myth.

 

So, in conclusion, I don't think that you have credibly debunked any of these sources, thus they stand as relevent witnesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This a misunderstanding of what atheism is. Atheism is not a claim of knowledge that God does not exist. Atheism is the disbelief in God, but belief and disbelief are not the same thing as knowledge. You can believe something is true without knowing it's true and you can likewise disbelieve something is true without knowing it's true. Someone can believe their spouse is being faithful to them even though they might not know that their spouse is really cheating on them behind their back. Someone can disbelieve in the existence of aliens without claiming to know aliens do not exist. You're also trying to shift the burden of proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're the one making the extraordinary claim that God exists and the bible is historically accurate, therefore it's your job to present the evidence, and what "evidence" you have presented has been disproved. You're trying to shift the burden of proof onto the atheists and that's intellectually dishonest and proves you have no real evidence for your claims. It's like saying since you technically can't prove that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist, then that must mean she does exist and you just have to have faith in her existence. The invisible pink unicorn is better than God too because her existence is based on both faith and logic. We have faith that she's pink but logically we know we can't see her because she's invisible! To quote Bertrand Russel

 

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

 

That is why I always tell people that I am an a-atheist. I don't believe that atheism is true or supported by the available evidence. I typically deal with the historic definition of atheism and the etymological nature of the word. I don't find the claim that God exists to be an extrordinary claim. If you believe it is, please provide a rational basis for such a claim. Also, you are not left off the hook. You must fit the world around us into your worldview. You must explain how the universe came into existence (i.e., all matter, space, and time) as the best scientific models believe that it did. You must explain the existence of order from disorder and why we can even make sense of a universe that is the product of random undirected processes. You must make sense of moral standards that we consider to be objective (or maybe you don't consider morality to be objective in nature, which would leave you with even bigger problems to solve.) You also refer to logic, which you cannot just assume, you must explain how products of material, natural processes have such a thing as logic; you must explain its ontology and not just assume it as it makes no sense to even have logic arise from random processes. I don't make non-falsifiable claims, God is a completely falsfiable assertion according to the likes of Richard Dawkins; however, before you can falsify the "God hypothesis" as many call it, you must explain many other phenomena by random, natural processes alone.

 

The contradictions in the bible?

 

Two thoughts here. First, even if the Bible had contradictions, which I have not been convinced of, it would not disprove the existence of God. Second, please let me know your most troubling apparent contradiction so that I can examine whether it is a contradiction.

 

To disprove your claim, Richard Dawkins has stated in video interviews before that his belief in fundamentalist Christianity gradually faded away and that there was no struggle when he deconverted from Christianity. Since Dawkins was able to deconvert from Christianity without any struggle, by your logic, that must mean there is no evidence for the existence of God.

 

That was not my point. I said that I never have known a person who became a Christian who has ever struggled in leaving behind atheism. From the posts on this website, we already have much evidence of people struggling to leave Christianity. I have already made clear that not everyone who leaves Christianity struggles; however, no one in my knowledge has ever struggled in leaving atheism.

 

Even if we presumed that this writing was authentic, I don't get why Christians suddenly leap to the conclusion that this means the bible is the inerrant word of God and everything in the bible is historically accurate. This writing says nothing about the historical accuracy of the bible as a whole or that Jesus taught all the same beliefs that modern day evangelical Christians believe in. But for some reason, Christians make the leap of faith that if it's possible Jesus could have been resurrected, that must mean the rest of their beliefs are true, even though this writing says nothing about specific Christian doctrines other than the resurrection. I just fail to see how Christians can jump from "Jesus could have resurrected" to "this means fundamentalist Christianity is true!" from this writing, even if it was somehow authentic, and this writing gives no reason as to why non-believers should worship Yahweh.

 

I don't know anyone who makes the claim that if this quote is authentic it means that the Bible is the innerant word of God. However, if that passage is authentic, it is evidence that Jesus was a historical person, contrary to claims of people these days who would deny that fact. If Jesus was resurrected, as I believe he was, then it changes everything. It confirms the things that he said about himself, including that he was God. Now, we base the resurrection on many accounts recorded by various people from different backgrounds. What it means is that Jesus final statement "It is finished" which literally means "paid in full" is true and our separation from God is now bridged allowing us to be in relationship with the Creator of the universe, including us. That is the good news of the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very complicated as it involves a host of philosophical issues, epistemology, ontology, metaphysics.

 

Much simpler is the critique from justice. God, as depicted in the Bible, simply does not behave like a moral person. At the very least, we expect that divine justice comport with what we know about ordinary human justice. Actually we probably expect that divine justice would be better than human justice. But we reject the notion that divine justice is worse, more arbitrary, and more disrepectful of human dignity, than ordinary human justice.

 

But the genocide against the Caananites evidences worse justice--perhaps even injustice--than we expect from our normal court systems.

 

It's not the Adam and Eve myth that should lead the atheist to unbelief. Rather, what should lead to atheism are the accounts of genocide, mutilation, butchery, and exploitation that are all underwritten by God.

 

I don't know why your critique is any simpler as it involves philosophy, epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics as well. Before you can argue the issue of justice you must answer from where you derive your code of justice (the ontology of your moral code, which undergirds any system of justice). Is your code objective? If so, on what basis? If not, on what basis do you judge God? Actually, your argument does more to argue in God's favor as it assumes an objective moral basis which is only possible if God exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two parts to this response. First the struggle aspect. My bringing up the difficulty of changing views was in defense of the topic starter's expression of the programmed fears left in her/him from their former beliefs. That's understandable, and I am correct in saying that "shaking loose" from a former belief goes both ways: to and from Christianity. So you were incorrect in trying to make her look unique in this because of the direction of her conversion.

 

So, maybe you could give me examples of Christians who came out of atheism who struggled with leaving atheism behind, because, I have never seen this be the case, and I have heard the stories of many of these conversions.

 

This happens more frequently than people would like to admit, but it is often swept under the rug of having a "Crisis of Faith," rather than seeing it as a struggle between the rational mind and accepting a set of principles that are irrational, malevolent, and self-destructive. I think it is obvious from C.S. Lewis's writings that he struggled intimately with leaving behind his rational past. It is very evident in the Screwtape Letters, how he had to rationalize every twinge of guilt, every nuance of doubt as the work of 'demons.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let me ask you this. If you are so sure of yourself, why do you enroll at websites like this and try to evangelize to people who are on your intellectual level that haven't been convinced like you have. I am currently reading a rather scholarly work by John W. Loftus and he is firmly convinced that atheism is the most logical point of view there is when it comes to metaphysics. He also admits that his worldview also had its emotional reasons as it did its intellectual reasons. Since he admitted this UP FRONT, doesn't that make your witness fall flat? Doesn't that frustrate you to the point that you might to want to leave us alone with what you believe to be the ultimate conclusion. Last I checked, Christians are supposed to preach and then MOVE ON. You and a lot of other apologists don't seem to comprehend that line and that is why we ex-Christians tend to be a little pissy at you.

 

YOU DON'T GIVE UP EVEN THOUGH WE CAN GIVE POINT-BY-POINT REASONS WHY WE LEFT AND WHY WE FIND THE ARGUMENTS TO BE AWASH IN FALSEHOODS!!!

 

CAN YOU NOT COMPREHEND THAT????????

 

Actually, one of your own, rs martin initially invited me to come over and discuss a topic in which she and I were invovled at another site, the origin of the universe. Others during that conversation suggested that we discuss other issues that came up during that conversation, specifically, the problem of evil. So, I didn't just stumble upon this site, nor was I asked to leave. I am simply a seeker of answers just as you are. I also don't have difficulty accepting that answers exist and when I start seeing that certain answers make the world more understandable and sensible, I am not afraid to share that with others. Now, you may call that evangelizing, but I simply call it having a healthy exchange of ideas. I don't force anyone to accept my way of thinking and am certainly willing to admit when I am wrong. And, believe me, I am wrong quite often. I am familiar with Loftus, having heard him in an exchange that he had last year on a British radio program. I have checked out his site; however, I haven't had the chance to read his book(s) (not sure if his new book has come out yet.) I dont' agree with Loftus that atheism is more logical. Atheism has many questions to answer, some of which I have posted in other responses on this thread. I am also familiar with Loftus' story and why he left Christianity. It is a sad story, but it sounds like it wasn't originally based upon intellectual arguments, a point to which he admits.

 

Listen, I haven't heard vailid point-by-point arguments, and if any are given and I am wrong on some things, I will certainly admit to those things; however, I also would have to be convinced of atheism in order to be swayed in that direction, which has far too many problems to gain my allegiance.

 

Same with Loftus and same with Dan Barker. Same with Charles Templeton. Each of these men surely had a great deal of scriptural knowledge and theological understanding and yet they became heathens. Why is that? What causes that? Why are so convinced when men in your age bracket who have the same credentials fall away? Loftus studied with William Lane Craig and yet the former fell away. How could one(s) so educated, so full of potential leave the faith? Why is it you examine the same evidence and see it differently? I am not as old as you are but I find the arguments for Christianity to be false. Like Justin, I have fallen and went back (and it feels like an endless cycle). Sometimes I wonder if we are born with the urge to believe and you just happen to be one of the lucky ones.

 

I have heard Loftus and Barker handle the Bible and am not convinced that they ever had a proper understanding of it. If Loftus studied under WLC, as I am doing currently, I think he failed to grasp Craig's thinking as he makes some common logical errors in his argumentation. I have a thoery as to why many of these men fall away. Loftus' story fits within my theory. Howver, I don't know enough about Dan Barker's testamony to say with him, nor do I know Templeton's story, or that of Bart Ehrman (who also studied at one of the same institutions at which I have studied). Time will tell whether my theory is correct; however, it doesn't have to do with intellectual arguments at the core. I won't go any further with my thoughts as I have yet to prove them out, and until I do, it wouldn't be fair to express them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very complicated as it involves a host of philosophical issues, epistemology, ontology, metaphysics.

 

Much simpler is the critique from justice. God, as depicted in the Bible, simply does not behave like a moral person. At the very least, we expect that divine justice comport with what we know about ordinary human justice. Actually we probably expect that divine justice would be better than human justice. But we reject the notion that divine justice is worse, more arbitrary, and more disrepectful of human dignity, than ordinary human justice.

 

But the genocide against the Caananites evidences worse justice--perhaps even injustice--than we expect from our normal court systems.

 

It's not the Adam and Eve myth that should lead the atheist to unbelief. Rather, what should lead to atheism are the accounts of genocide, mutilation, butchery, and exploitation that are all underwritten by God.

 

I don't know why your critique is any simpler as it involves philosophy, epistemology, ontology, and metaphysics as well. Before you can argue the issue of justice you must answer from where you derive your code of justice (the ontology of your moral code, which undergirds any system of justice). Is your code objective? If so, on what basis? If not, on what basis do you judge God? Actually, your argument does more to argue in God's favor as it assumes an objective moral basis which is only possible if God exists.

 

You're using a lot of mumbo jumbo to mask the obvious: genocides are wrong.

 

Are you seriously asking how I know that genocides are wrong? Are you asking me how I know that killing women, children, and non-combatants is wrong? If we really need to "prove" immorality of killing (wholesale killing) little boys and girls, then I'm not sure we have much to talk about. I wouldn't know where to begin. But I wouldn't think much of any moral system if it allowed for killing three year old kids and pregnant women without mercy or even a trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call bullhonkery on this.

 

Hey, I like that term, mind if I borrow it some time?

 

For a long time, the Church preached that we lived in a terra-centric planetary model and then two Catholic scientists came along and told them that were wrong. The Church inevitably changed their minds because they reluctantly had to change their point of view. For a long time, churches preached the line that slavery in the South was justifiable because it says it was in the Old Testament. Nowadays, scholars and preachers are engaging in historical revisionism saying their predecessors were mistaken or being outright sinful.

 

Actually, that belief stems back to Aristotle, the church picked it up from him, as did many who studied the planets in that time. The church changed on this position as did everyone else during that day when evidence proved otherwise. However, some within the church were slow to give up their Aristotilian thinking. Their beliefs, however, didn't stem from their study of the Bible, but their study of philosophy. Those within the church who were slaveholders were wrong in doing so. Why? Because people have intrinsic value that can only stem from God. That is a problem with atheistic materialism, there is no basis in saying that slavery is wrong. Man has no more value than any other animal. We keep pets, so by the standard of atheism, wouldn't man be just a more advanced animal that one could keep? If you don't think so, give me a basis for this without borrowing from a theistic worldview.

 

So, why is it wrong for outsiders to change the definition of atheism when Christianity had their own and they were always the top dog before their grip on power was weakened. From my understanding, atheism according to Christianity is synoymous with backsliding and atheists don't agree with that, therefore we are accused of moving the goalposts. Am I guilty of that since I was likely born after the definitional switch? Am I still backslidden even though I learned the new definition before I learned the old one?

 

You are positing a straw man here because definitions of words change with time and there is no escaping it. If shell shock can turn into post-traumatic stress disorder, then atheism is allowed to have its definition change over time.

 

By the way, are we the ones that said first that proving a negative was impossible.

 

It is not I who has changed the definition of atheism, but you and others like you. The word is from the root word a-theos (a-not/without; theos-God). So, an atheist is one who either believes that God is not, or has a basis to be without God. This is often these days conflated with agnosticism which is from the root word a-gnosis (a-not/without; gnosis-knowledge). The agnostic has not, or is without knowledge of God's existence. That sounds an awful lot like how atheists of our day define atheism. So, again, it is not I who have changed the definition, but many of you.

 

If definitions change with time as you say, then why cannot I change the defnition in my time? Why is my time's definition invalidated while you allow your's to stand? This sounds like a very post-modern approach to etymology, using definitions to suit your ends and beating me with a supposed straw-man retort because you don't like mine.

 

I agree with you that proving a universal negative is impossible, which is why many are retreating from the historic definition of atheism and redefining it to agnositicsm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call bullhonkery on this.

 

Hey, I like that term, mind if I borrow it some time?

 

For a long time, the Church preached that we lived in a terra-centric planetary model and then two Catholic scientists came along and told them that were wrong. The Church inevitably changed their minds because they reluctantly had to change their point of view. For a long time, churches preached the line that slavery in the South was justifiable because it says it was in the Old Testament. Nowadays, scholars and preachers are engaging in historical revisionism saying their predecessors were mistaken or being outright sinful.

 

Actually, that belief stems back to Aristotle, the church picked it up from him, as did many who studied the planets in that time. The church changed on this position as did everyone else during that day when evidence proved otherwise. However, some within the church were slow to give up their Aristotilian thinking. Their beliefs, however, didn't stem from their study of the Bible, but their study of philosophy. Those within the church who were slaveholders were wrong in doing so. Why? Because people have intrinsic value that can only stem from God. That is a problem with atheistic materialism, there is no basis in saying that slavery is wrong. Man has no more value than any other animal. We keep pets, so by the standard of atheism, wouldn't man be just a more advanced animal that one could keep? If you don't think so, give me a basis for this without borrowing from a theistic worldview.

 

So, why is it wrong for outsiders to change the definition of atheism when Christianity had their own and they were always the top dog before their grip on power was weakened. From my understanding, atheism according to Christianity is synoymous with backsliding and atheists don't agree with that, therefore we are accused of moving the goalposts. Am I guilty of that since I was likely born after the definitional switch? Am I still backslidden even though I learned the new definition before I learned the old one?

 

You are positing a straw man here because definitions of words change with time and there is no escaping it. If shell shock can turn into post-traumatic stress disorder, then atheism is allowed to have its definition change over time.

 

By the way, are we the ones that said first that proving a negative was impossible.

 

It is not I who has changed the definition of atheism, but you and others like you. The word is from the root word a-theos (a-not/without; theos-God). So, an atheist is one who either believes that God is not, or has a basis to be without God. This is often these days conflated with agnosticism which is from the root word a-gnosis (a-not/without; gnosis-knowledge). The agnostic has not, or is without knowledge of God's existence. That sounds an awful lot like how atheists of our day define atheism. So, again, it is not I who have changed the definition, but many of you.

 

If definitions change with time as you say, then why cannot I change the defnition in my time? Why is my time's definition invalidated while you allow your's to stand? This sounds like a very post-modern approach to etymology, using definitions to suit your ends and beating me with a supposed straw-man retort because you don't like mine.

 

I agree with you that proving a universal negative is impossible, which is why many are retreating from the historic definition of atheism and redefining it to agnositicsm.

 

This is the worst form of sophistry and semantic nitpicking. It's true that atheists generally do not believe with 100% certainty that there is no God. But I'm an atheist, and I can say that my certainty is in the high 90s, the very high 90s. But so what? I'm still an atheist because I don't think there is a God and I wouldn't worship God even if there were a God--which is the more important point.

 

Let's say that someone could prove there is a God. I still wouldn't worship the God of the Bible because I wouldn't know whether the "proved God" is the God of the Bible or the God of the Vedas. I don't see why the God of the Vedas couldn't do all the things (like create the universe or underwrite morality) in much the same way that that the God of the Bible would.

 

Even if someone could demonstrate that the God of the Bible were in fact the "proved God," I still wouldn't wouldn't worship that God because I don't worship facsists. I don't worship genocidaires. He can send me to hell for not worshiping him. That only proves that he is more powerful than I am. It says nothing about his justice, mercy, or lovingkindness--qualities that I would worship, and gladly worship, if I found them in the God of the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In My opinion, jumping from that opinion to belief in a god is a non sequitur. So what if we are nothing more than sophisticated biological machines? That does not alter the quality of My life in the slightest way.

 

Your assertion does not provide convincing evidence either for or against gods, as gods could also decide to produce biological machines. And who's to say that a hypothetical god is immune from that sort of deterministic existence?

 

Who said that I did. I don't base my whole argument on this problem. If you are just a sophisticated machine, then you are still a machine. Machines have no free will, nor any kind of freedom, they are determined by their parts and programming (although, even the use of this term suggests design which you would deny.) God, by definition could not be subject to a deterministic existence, for by whom or by what would he be determined? In essence, if God were determined, he would cease to be God, it is a sort of self-refuting claim. If man is a machine then everything changes. Love, meaning, morality, and many other things that we consider important become ultimately meaningless. Man loses his freedom and as one philosopher states it, he ceases to be man at all.

 

That, sir, is one of the things that makes the Christian message unspeakably horrible.

 

We are told that there is nothing that we can do to make amends for our actions, and that we stand condemned unless we accept the blood sacrifice of a surrogate who is the same f*cking jerk who passed sentence on us in the first place.

 

Disgusting, insane, unconscionable, and rotten to the core. There is no "salvation" to be found in such a concept.

 

You sir, are quite mistaken. I am surprised that a sophisticated machine would express such concern, but then again, I don't believe that you are just a machine and I believe that your angst is grounded in the fact that you are more than a machine. However, let me ask you, what do you do about the part of you that you, when you are contemplating who you really are, really can't do anything about? We all, when we are honest with ourselves, and I believe we cannot escape those honest moments, have parts of ourselves that we don't like. Things that we do, or have done, that we wish we could change. Now, I don't expect you to admit this on this board; and in fact, I expect you to vehemently deny it; however, it is not to me or to anyone else on this board to whom you must answer, but to yourself - and as much as we can deceive others (and I am very good at that), we cannot ultimately deceive ourselves. That is the part that God came, not to change, but to replace. It is that part of ourselves that God wants to make new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a Christian line of argument this is! :)

 

How Christian it is of you to

 

(1) presume my worldview is purely materialistic

 

(2) extrapolate that those with a materialistic worldview assert that "man is a machine, he can be no more than the sum of his parts and completely determined by his DNA"

 

and both of these while failing to define "materialistic worldview."

 

(1) If your worldview is not purely materialistic, please explain how that can be without the supernatural? Or, do you believe in the supernatural, but just not God?

(2) Please explain how, apart from the existence of God, their can be a part of us that is immaterial?

 

Definition: materialistic worldview - all that exists is the physical/material world.

 

How skillfully Christian it was of you to sidetrack into this territory, presenting it as if it were actually in response to my exemplifying the ways in which human beings may have difficulty abandoning a belief, even when good evidence refutes it.

 

You're classic, LNC! Congratulations! :Medal:

 

OK, the ball is in your court, as it were. Please explain how you can have a worldview that includes more than just the material world without the existence of God/gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a Christian line of argument this is! :)

 

How Christian it is of you to

 

(1) presume my worldview is purely materialistic

 

(2) extrapolate that those with a materialistic worldview assert that "man is a machine, he can be no more than the sum of his parts and completely determined by his DNA"

 

and both of these while failing to define "materialistic worldview."

 

(1) If your worldview is not purely materialistic, please explain how that can be without the supernatural? Or, do you believe in the supernatural, but just not God?

(2) Please explain how, apart from the existence of God, their can be a part of us that is immaterial?

 

Definition: materialistic worldview - all that exists is the physical/material world.

 

How skillfully Christian it was of you to sidetrack into this territory, presenting it as if it were actually in response to my exemplifying the ways in which human beings may have difficulty abandoning a belief, even when good evidence refutes it.

 

You're classic, LNC! Congratulations! :Medal:

 

OK, the ball is in your court, as it were. Please explain how you can have a worldview that includes more than just the material world without the existence of God/gods.

 

Why are you evading my rather simple question about genocide? For example, in 1 Sam. chapter 15, God authorizes a genocide and the killing of "women, children, and infants." 1 Sam. 15:3. If that's not immoral, what is? Why should I worship a God that ordered the killing of babies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, the ball is in your court, as it were. Please explain how you can have a worldview that includes more than just the material world without the existence of God/gods.

 

Don't rush. Take your time. If you can explain why it was okay for God to order the killing of babies in 1 Samuel 15, I'd be much indebted to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, by definition could not be subject to a deterministic existence, for by whom or by what would he be determined?

That is your definition of god. It is not Mine. For instance, I consider an omniscient god to be eternally trapped in its own perception of What Was, What Is, What Will Be.

 

If man is a machine then everything changes. Love, meaning, morality, and many other things that we consider important become ultimately meaningless.

Not so. In My opinion, "meaning" is wholly subjective, with no referent outside the subject consciousness. Our meaning is what we perceive that meaning to be, nothing more and nothing less.

 

In such a scenario, even an illusion of free will would be sufficient to imbue life with meaning; but it goes further than that. Meaning is not time-dependent. It exists in the here-and-now, not in the past and not in the future. And, in My opinion, intentional, conscious existence trumps the free will vs. determinism debate.

 

...Let me ask you, what do you do about the part of you that you, when you are contemplating who you really are, really can't do anything about?

And what part might that be? I don't generally waste time contemplating "who I really am"; I work to discover and express it. If I cannot alter something about Myself, I accept it and work around it. I certainly don't go rooting around in the ethers, looking for an Imaginary Friend to pin up the hems in My being.

 

We all, when we are honest with ourselves, and I believe we cannot escape those honest moments, have parts of ourselves that we don't like. Things that we do, or have done, that we wish we could change.

I do more than wish, sir. I start trying to make those changes, moment by moment.

 

As for the past... It's gone. I don't waste an inordinate amount of time pretending that I could go back and do things differently. If there's something that I can do in the present to correct a past error, I do; otherwise, I let it go. And for that, I do not need your religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, the ball is in your court, as it were. Please explain how you can have a worldview that includes more than just the material world without the existence of God/gods.

 

Don't rush. Take your time. If you can explain why it was okay for God to order the killing of babies in 1 Samuel 15, I'd be much indebted to you.

 

I mean couldn't the babies have been adopted? Aparently ancient Israelite women weren't all that fertile. Why couldn't God have said, "Kill all the men and women and todlers. But if you find any babies--you know, under two years old or so--adopt those little tykes and raise them as Israelites."

 

God couldn't have said that? It seems like good old common sense.

 

Anyway, take your time. I don't mean to rush you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, the ball is in your court, as it were. Please explain how you can have a worldview that includes more than just the material world without the existence of God/gods.

 

Seriously, take as much time as you need. While we are waiting, let's take a look at the passage "in context" because context is always very important:

 

3 " 'Now go. Attack the Amalekites. Set everything apart that belongs to them. Set it apart to me in a special way to be destroyed. Do not spare the Amalekites. Put the men and women to death. Put the children and babies to death. Also kill the cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

 

4 So Saul brought his men together at Telaim. The total number was 200,000 soldiers on foot from Israel and 10,000 men from Judah. 5 He went to the city of Amalek. He had some of his men hide and wait in the valley.

 

6 Then Saul said to the Kenites, "You were kind to all of the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt. Get away from the Amalekites. Then I won't have to destroy you along with them." So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.

 

7 Saul attacked the Amalekites. He struck them down all the way from Havilah to Shur. Shur was near the eastern border of Egypt. 8 He took Agag, the king of the Amalekites, alive. He and his men totally destroyed all of Agag's people with swords.

 

9 But Saul and the army spared Agag. They spared the best of the sheep and cattle. They spared the fat calves and lambs. They spared everything that was valuable. They weren't willing to completely destroy any of those things. But they totally destroyed everything that was worthless and weak.

 

10 Then the Lord gave Samuel a message. He said, 11 "I am very sorry I have made Saul king. He has turned away from me. He has not done what I directed him to do."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess LNC went to go look up some stuff on the internet. It's okay. I'm a patient man. When he returns, I'm sure he'll be able to explain how the killing of infants glorifies God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will ask it again, is it because of truth that the ex-followers of a man who proclaimed to be christ returned in the flesh are saddened at leaving him? Feeling guilty about throwing it all away and feeling like they missed out on the intergalactic space journey on some far flung comet to some magical paradise?

 

As for specific claims and evidence, go to godvsthebible.com and Bibleorigins.com. Or, perhaps you need to pick up a science book as the bulk of it will go against scripture. A book on evolution, geology, natural history, paleontology, archeology or astronomy.

 

I am not sure what your question is asking. Maybe, you can rephrase it.

 

As for scientific claims and evidence, I have picked up many science books and none of them seem to go against the Bible, but if you know of where it might, I would be happy to hear. Maybe you could answer the questions for which I have been looking for a naturalistic answer. From where did the universe come? How did it begin? How did life begin from non-life? I will leave it at those two and if you can answer these, we can move on to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will ask it again, is it because of truth that the ex-followers of a man who proclaimed to be christ returned in the flesh are saddened at leaving him? Feeling guilty about throwing it all away and feeling like they missed out on the intergalactic space journey on some far flung comet to some magical paradise?

 

As for specific claims and evidence, go to godvsthebible.com and Bibleorigins.com. Or, perhaps you need to pick up a science book as the bulk of it will go against scripture. A book on evolution, geology, natural history, paleontology, archeology or astronomy.

 

I am not sure what your question is asking. Maybe, you can rephrase it.

 

As for scientific claims and evidence, I have picked up many science books and none of them seem to go against the Bible, but if you know of where it might, I would be happy to hear. Maybe you could answer the questions for which I have been looking for a naturalistic answer. From where did the universe come? How did it begin? How did life begin from non-life? I will leave it at those two and if you can answer these, we can move on to others.

 

Please note, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why is was okay for God to say the following: "Now go. Attack the Amalekites. Set everything apart that belongs to them. Set it apart to me in a special way to be destroyed. Do not spare the Amalekites. Put the men and women to death. Put the children and babies to death. Also kill the cattle, sheep, camels and donkeys." 1 Samuel 15:3.

 

Again, why couldn't the babies have been adopted? Did killing babies make God seem that much more badass? I don't mean to be disrespectful of your cherished beliefs, but it seems that the belief that it's okay to kill women, children and babies isn't worth much respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for scientific claims and evidence, I have picked up many science books and none of them seem to go against the Bible, but if you know of where it might, I would be happy to hear. Maybe you could answer the questions for which I have been looking for a naturalistic answer. From where did the universe come? How did it begin? How did life begin from non-life? I will leave it at those two and if you can answer these, we can move on to others.

 

What's with all the science stuff. I'm not a scientist. I don't think any of us are. Still, as sorta regular folks we know that killing todlers is wrong, particularly when they could be adopted.

 

I mean, let's say they couldn't be adopted [umm . . . I don't know why, but let's just say they couldn't]. In that situation, couldn't God have just said:

 

"Kill all the men, and the women, and the todlers, but the real little babies--you know 1 year old or less--adopt only the cute ones; the ugly ones leave exposed on a mountain top. Maybe they will get raised by wolves. I'd tell you to kill the babies but that just seems a bit much."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to be honest. I think I've got LNC a bit puzzled. Anybody out there want to help him figure out why God ordered the killing of babies? God is a baby-killer. Right? Anyone want to help out our friend LNC?

 

Heeellooooooo is anybody out there????

 

I guess no one wants to help LNC justify the killing of babies. And here I thought atheists would jump at a chance to justify killing babies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when a Muslim threatens you with Islamic hell do you become afraid of such because you cannot prove Islamic hell doesn't exist?

 

Why should I as theirs is a system that can be falsified pretty easily.

 

This is a non-sequitur, because we are speaking about two different types of guilt.

 

Type 1: I hurt someone I feel guilty for it. In this case, Christ is unrelated and can do nothing to alleviate guilt. My only option is to seek out that person apologize and seek to make restitution. To ask god for forgiveness and move on as if everything is fine is an insult to the person I have wronged.

 

Type 2: I hurt god, and thus I need god (or Christ) to forgive me. The problem with this one is that god's existence has not been established, if he doesn't exist then he can't be hurt. For this reason guilt cannot be used to justify god's existence because the argument is circular.

 

OK, but why do you feel guilty in Type 1? If there is not objective standard for morality, is your guilt just an outmoded feeling that you must overcome and do away with? If it has no objective grounding, which it cannot if God does not exist, then you haven't really wronged anyone and have no reason to feel guilty, but you do...

 

It is the same guilt feeling and you feel it to be unjustified, but then, I showed that Type 1 is unjustified, so in essence, by your standard, they are the same. BTW, I don't see how you show circular reasoning here as you claim. I don't assume God's existence, I simply acknowledge, as do many of us in this world, that objective morals exist, and if they exist, they must have objective grounding, which argues for the existence of God. So, no, it is not circular reasoning.

 

What particular arguments do you find lacking credibility? Often I hear this from Christians only to find that they are only aware of this arguments as presented by Christian apologists which tend intentionally phrase them in a way that makes them seem less credible than they are.

 

You pick your favorite and we will see if it stands the test.

 

Really? You see life around us and conclude that it must have been intelligently designed? You must live in a different universe from mine.

 

The universe seems quite unfeeling towards the plight of human suffering. If there is no god, then I can view it as a sort of "beautiful mess." The universe is awe inspiring, but totally unconcerned with me.

 

If there is a god in charge of this mess then it ceases to be beautiful. The universe's state, now that it has a creator, ceases to say anything about the universe. Instead it says something about the god who created it, and what it says is that god is a colossal ass.

 

Absolutely, in fact, it is not only I who does, but many cosmologists do as well. Take Paul Davies for example, he repeatedly in his books shows that the universe is extremely finely tuned. Even Dawkins tacitly acknowledges the fine tuning of the universe in The God Delusion; however, he tries to explain it away by a faulty composition argument.

 

The issue of suffering is a separate issue from the fine tuning of the universe. However, acknowledging suffering points also to the fact that we are not just biological machines. Machines don't care what happens to other machines. If you don't believe me, sit at your computer long enough and you will realize that it doesn't care about you, and mine proves that to me quite often. If there is no God, then suffering is just a brute fact for which we should not be concerned. However, your acknowledgment of the "awe inspiring" nature of the universe is further evidence that it and we are designed. The universe is designed and we are designed to see that design.

 

Your statement about the universe ceasing to be beautiful if God is in charge is a non-sequitur. The universes state tells about the wonder of our God who created it with such precision, that we don't even have instruments that can measure that precision. It is not God who has made a mess of our world, we have been given free agency to make choices, and the chaos that we see cannot be divorced from man's freedom to make choices, many of them destructive. But then, what is the alternative, we could be machines - which is what we would be if God didn't exist, if we existed at all. But that is a whole nother discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole adoption argument really has me concerned. I mean we know that God ordered the butchering of infants in 1 Samuel. But it seems to me that he could have just said, "adopt the babies, don't kill them; rather raise them to worship and fear me the LORD of Hosts."

 

But he doesn't do that. He says "show them no mercy."

 

And that's strange because at various points, God speaks well of fatherless children. For example, the injunctio to "Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy." Psalm 82:3.

 

Perhaps he was just talking about fatherless Israelite babies, not fatherless Amalekite babies. Big difference. If they are fatherless Amalekite babies, go ahead and slit their throats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.