Did I Answer This Correctly?

[R. S. Martin]

When looking for something else I came across Aletheia Truth Seekers http://aletheia-seekers.blogspot.ca/p/seek-what-truth.html According to my evaluation, it's just your regular evangelical Christian telling the world why his/her brand of Christianity is the best, and challenging atheists, agnostics, and skeptics to evaluate the evidence--not just take the word of others. Since it was well-written, straightforward, and honest for that kind of literature, I chose to respond to it. Some of the topics are a bit of a stretch for me and others here might know if I correctly responded. The original piece is at the link above. Here is what I wrote:

 

You write well. However, I see that you confuse evolution with abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the origins of life. Evolution is how life forms evolved over time. Also, evolution does not equal chance. Watching simple videos and reading books by scientists such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Lawrence Krauss demonstrates logically that life on earth, indeed our planet and the universe itself, could have possibly derived from a natural source.

 

I further see that you are uninformed--or misinformed--regarding YHWH and vowels in the Hebrew language. The topic is very well researched and understood, both how to read and how to pronounce the ancient Hebrew language.

 

Vilifying science while studying it does not credit your intelligence outside evangelical Christianity. Also, it discredits your further statement that scientific experimentation proves God's existence. It is logically inconsistent to vilify science on one hand and on the other to claim that scientific experimentation proves your own point.

 

You write: Since the probability of organisms forming by chance is essentially impossible, the only other possibility then is by force. Atheists believe the source of that force is aliens or chance.

 

That is incorrect. Not all atheist believe that. See both Tyson and Krauss above.

 

I think it matters what we call the "force." So long as we worship an invisible imperceptible "something/Someone" we are sure to commit horrendous deeds unworthy of our humanity. If we think we are responsible first and foremost to ourselves and others, we will respect human life and the needs thereof. We will not kill people or reject them from our social group (such as church or Communion) simply for perceiving reality differently from ourselves, i.e. for not believing in God or Vishnu, etc.

 

You missed--or dismissed--the books that refute your research on the historical, archaeological, and scientific evidence. Also, there is no evidence to prove that the prophecies were not written AFTER the events. I read your conviction elsewhere that the Bible is true and that it is your job to figure it out. That being the case, you have closed your mind to alternative possibilities. That would also explain why you misrepresent scholarship. Truth, however, will stand no matter how evangelical Christianity misrepresents or lies about it.

 

You write: To the skeptics out there… I encourage you to … seek answers. Investigate those claims yourself instead of just taking other people's word for it.

 

This is why I’m reading your post—to see what evidence I might have missed. Unfortunately, you merely spout what thousands before you have spouted. As for not taking the word of others. Never fear, I won’t. I don’t think you ever were an atheist just because you say so.

 

You write: This collection of 66 books was written by 40 authors throughout different periods of time. To say that they achieved perfect unity in especially the prophecies that they have documented was based on chance is being blindly naive. This is the beginning of the proof that God exists.

 

So long as I just accepted the word of others, I believed this.

 

You write: these nay-sayers still have to explain WHY THE BODY WAS ALIVE!

 

My question to you: What is the evidence that there ever was a body?

 

You write: His body was said to be so disfigured that even His own mother wouldn't recognize Him.

 

Two points. 1. That is not in the Bible. 2. Until we know that there was a body, discussions about virgin births, miracles, and resurrections are moot.

 

You write: Carefully evaluate the evidence

 

Done. Please provide the missing information. Make sure it stands the light of day and logic.

 

You write: And remember, not making a choice is still making a choice.

 

For your information, I do my own thinking. If you provide me with evidence for God that I have not yet evaluated, I will evaluate it. As you instruct, I don’t just take you word for any of this.

 

I wonder if I'll ever hear back. The topics I'm especially insecure about are abiogenesis and ancient Hebrew.

[par4dcourse]

Excellent response on all levels. Bravo!

[R. S. Martin]

Thanks.

[florduh]

Excellent response.

[Karhoof]

Hey Ruby! Good to talk to you again!

 

Not up on ancient Hebrew, ,but you nailed the abiogenesis/evolution issue.

Evolution scientists are completely unconcerned if the first cell replicated EXACTLY for 100,000 years or more.

Evolution only concerns itself with the issue when one of those cells spawns a daughter cell WITH MODIFICATION.

 

I wish I had a dollar for every time somebody thought they would trip me up with the "fact" that evolution can't explain how life arose in the first place.

But I do enjoy the looks on their faces when I agree with them.

 

That interchange, right there, tells me they haven't studied (or understand) the topic they're trying to argue.

[R. S. Martin]

I didn't take Hebrew but I took Old Testament on the graduate level. That included considerable reference to terms like YHWH and Hebrew spellings, vowels, and pronunciations. The claims stated in that blog did not resonate at all with what I remember of my OT classes.

 

I checked that blog just now. My comment had to pass some kind of screening or whatever before being posted for real. It is now posted but there is no reply. I don't know if the decision to post it was made by a human or machine. If human, I can only stab at a guess as to how it passed screening. Will the blogger do more research?

[centauri]

 

You write: This collection of 66 books was written by 40 authors throughout different periods of time. To say that they achieved perfect unity in especially the prophecies that they have documented was based on chance is being blindly naive. This is the beginning of the proof that God exists.

 

 

So long as I just accepted the word of others, I believed this.

 

This part caught my attention in particular.

Being employed here is the "perfect harmony" claim, commonly used to impress unbelievers.

Frankly, this claim deserves to be ripped apart by the seams and tossed into the trash can where it belongs.

It assumes that there is "perfect unity" in the Bible when there is not.

They simply assume their conclusion and ignore the facts.

The prophecies are taken out of context, the recipe for salvation completely changes, there are internal conflicts even within the New Testament, and if this mess is the product of "God", then God is inept.

http://agnosticreview.com/harmony.htm

 

All in all, I think you've correctly pegged the site as a rehash of old arguments.

[R. S. Martin]

Feel free to sign in and give them chapter and verse. You're limited to just over 4,000 characters per post. I personally know a large number of deeply considered answers to harmonize the scriptures. I used to use all of them to decrease the level of cognitive dissonance. If this were enough, people would not either deconvert or invent new theologies the way they're doing. I felt the strongest thing I could say was sign in as an atheist and declare what I did.  They have scripture to explain away anything I can say about the inconsistencies of the Bible--the most common of which is that my natural mind is insufficient to understand it. If you sign in and write a piece you may persuade someone.

[R. S. Martin]

TCA from Alethia Truth Seekers posted a response here http://aletheia-seekers.blogspot.ca/p/seek-what-truth.html and is asking for further discussion with me. I am thinking these forums might be the best place. TCA claims to be a scientist, which I am not. Some here at exC have science training and would be better qualified to answer debates on evolution than I am. Then again: Do we want this person? Take a look at the response and let me know. His/her answer reminds me so strongly of LNS and his convoluted circular arguments that never got anywhere. I personally don't feel like engaging this person any further at this point.

 

For example, TCA wrote:

 

Thank you, RSM, for taking the time to share your thoughts and pointing out the flaws in my logic.

Re-reading what I have written, I agree that there are many illogical arguments.

 

 

I don't think I pointed out "flaws in logic" so much as factual errors. But how can I argue/debate/discuss that with a person who is now arguing for the "faith" of science?

 

Quote re faith of science:

 

I also think many scientists think science is the only method to discovering answers -- putting too much "faith" into it. This is also dangerous because such faith often disregard caveats in scientific models.

 

Just the other day I listened to Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss explain yet again how the method of doing science weeds out the mistakes. That bears out across the centuries. TCA's quote just doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how I personally can talk sense to this person. Want me to invite him/her here or is it better to ignore the response?

[Karhoof]

If you do offer them an invitation, I'd think there's plenty of people here who could heap his/her inconsistancies back onto their own shoulders.

 

You might just simply want to point out that science and "Faith" can never be justified for one simple reason.

 

Science is self-correcting.

 

 

Christians hold up their bibles anbd boast that it hasn't changed in 2,000 years.

This is an advantage?

[R. S. Martin]

If I could figure out how to sign into Google with my new computer, I might post this.

 

I am not interested in further discussion for the following reasons:

 

1) I see no logical continuation of thought in your response with what either you or I had previously written. 

2) You changed the topic of discussion from factual accuracy versus factual inaccuracy to intellectual logic versus intellectual illogic.

3) You consciously declined to provide the required information to substantiate your claims. If you think you are wrong, you could have admitted error. If you are confused re my meaning, you could have asked for clarification. You do none of these.

  

I am unable to participate in that kind of conversation behavior. Sorry for interrupting your life.

 

*******************************

Just so you know. That's not an apology. It's rubbing the yuck off my hands and letting him/her see me doing it. I want the slimy Christie to look around at the empty spot where this atheist was standing and ask, "What the hell did I do wrong?" Maybe after a long time TCA may (or may not) figure it out. "It"=Atheists are real people and you don't mess with their heads.

[Karhoof]

Good reply.

I'm not convinced that they'd be putting too much effort into figuring out why you're no  longer there though.

 

I'm more inclined to visualize them wiping the beads of sweat from their brow and mutting a silent prayer of thanks to Haysoos for delivering them from the clutches of the evil Phillistine that is R.S.Martin.

 

 

LOL

[R. S. Martin]

thanks to Haysoos for delivering them from the clutches of the evil Phillistine that is R.S.Martin.

 

 

LOL

 

Hmmm. That sounds an awful lot like as if they never wanted to think in the first place. Then it's an outright lie to call themselves Alethia Truth Seeker. Alethia is Greek or Latin or something for truth, if I'm not mistaken. A truth seeker is actively trying to find the truth about something and by definition will think. This person has stated clearly that the focus of truth is something that cannot be seen or perceived via the senses. This calls for really deep and prolonged thought. 

 

And they don't want to think at all. What a fluke.

 

I'm glad I pointed it out. Let's see if they'll leave me alone.

[R. S. Martin]

TCA is asking for a medium in which this topic can be discussed. There has been no objection from here to inviting the person to these forums so I guess I will do that. Like all these people, TCA is now searching the Bible for evidence of God to post on the blog.

[R. S. Martin]

I don't know whether or not this counts for spam on a Christian blog but the request for another discussion medium keeps showing up on every single response to my comments. TCA does not want spam. Whatever, here's the invitation/intro to exC I posted just now on Alethia Truth Seeker:

 

I wasn't going to respond again but since you keep asking for a discussion medium...

 

There's ExChristian.net at http://www.ex-christian.net. Just so you get off on the right foot you might want to first read the FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions and Topics), esp. the thread "What is an ExChristian?" at the top of the page. As former Christians, we have studied Christianity, the Bible, the history of Christianity and of the Bible, gone to church, walked the walk and talked the talk--some of us for thirty or forty years--and finally found it wanting. Some of us are now in other religions, others are atheists, agnostics, deists, etc. A few members have never been Christians but deal with overbearing religion in their everyday lives just by living in a "Christian" nation.

ExChristian forums has several areas where Christians are allowed to post for discussion with nonChristians. I'd have to look at the rules but I think in the Lion's Den you're allowed to do low-key evangelism. Other kinds of discussion can be had in other sections. A few areas are reserved for exChristians only. Read the rules.

My friends at exC know you might be coming over. They've seen this blog--at least those did who followed the link I posted.

I must warn you that at exC you may see feelings and thoughts expressed that you have never seen before because we are not allowed to say and ask these things in front of Christian friends and family. You might not feel comfortable.

Whether or not you choose this medium for discussion is up to you but it's the best answer I have for your pressing question. I hope it helps.

 

Posted at http://aletheia-seekers.blogspot.ca/p/seek-what-truth.html

 

EDIT: Let's see if it posts correctly now. There were problems with live links.