God's Mighty Plan Of Salvation

[Roz]

I hope you understand why I posted that vid.  Krauss' timeline of scientists all have work that can be verified, explained, and fact checked.  You saying "please research christianity!" does not cut it. 

 

If one has information that is true (and by the christian mantra will save people), then it is on you to present it.  This is the Den.  People will say "he's preaching!" but that's the beauty with Atheism.  Evidence convinces.

 

[midniterider]

I know people are frustrated with me on this thread now because I would not give evidence to prove God etc. But I can't just do that. The reader needs to look themselves at the evidence and make their mind up. I think most have probably done that.

 

But I wonder if they have really read some of the works of prominent scientists such as Alistair McGrath and Francis Collins.

 

Why not just have Jesus appear in person? Then I can skip the reading. Jesus ought to be self-evident and not a theory or concept from a book.

 

I think you're right in that the people here have made up their minds after looking at the evidence or lack of....It seems 100 different people can look at the same evidence and come away with 100 different beliefs.

 

So regarding religious beliefs, is evidence the bottom line or major factor? Or is it personal preference? Or some of both?

[Gus]

I hope you understand why I posted that vid.  Krauss' timeline of scientists all have work that can be verified, explained, and fact checked.  You saying "please research christianity!" does not cut it. 

 

If one has information that is true (and by the christian mantra will save people), then it is on you to present it.  This is the Den.  People will say "he's preaching!" but that's the beauty with Atheism.  Evidence convinces.

 

 

I wasn't asking you to research Christianity.

I was asking you check if there is evidence God is real.

 

Some of the writers I have recommended writings are from a scientific viewpoint in evidence for God.

 

You may also like to check historical literature on authenticity of the bible and historical of account of Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

 

This is not just based on checking 'a little bit of that tonight' in the bible.

 

But I guess the video I posted speak volumes.

 

We are simply not going to agree. 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

Gus, there's no way to sugar-coat this, but I'm afraid you have been scammed.  Someone sold you a lie, that there is a supernatural being that cares about your day to day life and has a paradise waiting for you when you die.  If you had been scammed by a pyramid scheme, I would tell you, and this is no different.  

 

Broken arms do not straighten themselves.  If they did, do you not think that person's doctor would be straight to their computer to write up the case study, get it published and peer reviewed and win the Nobel prize for medicine?  And consequently the world's fracture clinics would close down and plaster of paris manufacturers would be relegated to being craft store suppliers?

 

I believed the xian sales pitch as an adult twice, so I know what it's like to fall for it when one should be old enough to realise it's a scam.  It's embarrassing to admit how gullible and credulous I was but I know I'm not alone in that, plenty of other people fall for it because it's such a well designed hoax.

 

It's time to think for yourself, and apply the same skepticism to xianity that (I'm hoping) you would apply to other things in the world, like pyramid schemes, homeopathy, and carrot juice-based cancer cures.  

 

Thank you freethinkerz

 

You are someone on here I genuinely respect (along with RNP and BAA, not that I actually dis-respect anyone either) as you don't come across rude or arrogant and say it like it is.

 

Lets say I have been scammed. That scam has made my life a lot better. From being directionless in the world, drinking a lot, being very angry and unable to cope with a lot of family problems, I changed very quickly. My attitude changed, I had strength to deal with adversity, and I re-educated and made good career progression. I mended the relationships in the family, made many new friends in church (that I would trust my life with), have had a desire to help people I never had before and have genuine hope and meaning in my life.

 

If I have been scammed, I’m thankful for it.

 

And I really have looked at both sides, often to try and know what is rarely disused in church. I’ve read the works of Dawkins, I enjoy the programs of professor Brian Cox. But the argument for God always wins when I try and balance it out.

I dont know all the answers, no way. But i'm learning and I enjoy being challenged on here, it does make me think for sure.

 

 

It's great that you improved your life... notice I said you did it?  When I was a xian, I thought God was giving me strength and hope but now looking back I realised that was me making all those things happen.  I know you don't see things the same way right now, but I want you to know that if your belief ever does slip away one day like mine did, you won't lose hope and meaning because of it.  I believe that your belief in God fills an emotional need for you, and when you no longer need this belief in something external, you will find your inner strength that you have had all along.

 

I like Brian Cox too, he has a way of communicating the wonder of the cosmos and how insignificant we are in the face of an utterly enormous universe.  The creation story in the bible was written at a time when near-east humans thought the earth consisted of an area that could be viewed in all directions from the top of a mountain, and the sun and moon moved across the sky each day.  Everything Cox says about the universe is based on science that was developed mostly in the last 500 years.  No credible scientist alive in 2014 explains the universe in the way the authors of the bible did.  Their knowledge has been superseded by more accurate explanations.  The probability that this vast universe was designed with planet earth and its inhabitants in mind is so infinitesimally small that it is just not believable for me.  

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

You may also like to check historical literature on authenticity of the bible and historical of account of Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

 

We can talk about this if you like... it probably deserves a new thread though.  It's a rather large topic and it would be very interesting to present some of the scholarly consensus from outside the bible to you.

 

Edit: I've started a thread.

[Roz]

 

 

Gus: 

I wasn't asking you to research Christianity.

I was asking you check if there is evidence God is real.

 

[seven77]

I wasn't asking you to research Christianity.

I was asking you check if there is evidence God is real.

 

Some of the writers I have recommended writings are from a scientific viewpoint in evidence for God.

 

You may also like to check historical literature on authenticity of the bible and historical of account of Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

 

This is not just based on checking 'a little bit of that tonight' in the bible.

 

But I guess the video I posted speak volumes.

 

We are simply not going to agree.

 

 

 

I have researched Christianity. It is an offshoot of Judaism, and the modern versions of it are mostly the result of the Protestant Reformation. It is no way superior or more true than belief in any other divinity.

 

I have checked for evidence of the reality of God. There is no evidence. NONE. There are plenty of theories, but theories are merely suggestions and/or opinions when not backed by verifiable evidence.

 

I have checked historical literature on the authenticity of the Bible and Christ's life. There are major disputes regarding most of the NT. Errors in translation and decisions in regards to what is canonical and what is not mean that there are many different versions of it, none of which are holy in my opinion. Jesus Christ did not exist as a single person. There is NO evidence that he did. There is very little evidence of any of the places mentioned in the Gospels and the whole story really falls apart when taken in the context of the historical times in which the events are said to have happened. Holy men, self-proclaimed prophets and rogue preachers were common fixtures in that time. There were many mythical characters who were thought to be gods that have much in common with Jesus Christ.

 

"A little bit of that in the Bible tonight" does not accurately describe most here. Many are well-versed not only the Bible, but many disciplines as well. We've all done our homework and we've mostly decided that Christianity is a farce. Hence why we are EX-CHRISTIANS. You are delusional, or perhaps merely lacking the ability to understand, that EX-CHRISTIANS DO NOT AGREE WITH CHRISTIANS WHEN IT COMES TO TOPICS RELATED TO CHRISTIANITY! If we agreed with Christians, we'd have remained in the fold.

[Ravenstar]

"I wasn't asking you to research Christianity.

I was asking you check if there is evidence God is real. What kind of evidence is there? That's pretty extraordinary as a claim, I hope the evidence is as extraordinary.

 

Some of the writers I have recommended writings are from a scientific viewpoint in evidence for God. Conjecture and speculation are interesting, so is philosophy - but scientific evidence is a different thing altogether. I must have missed the info, please remit again for my perusal. Thanks.

 

You may also like to check historical literature on authenticity of the bible and historical of account of Christ’s life, death and resurrection. I am not a NT scholar, but have read some of their works… the jury is out on whether Jesus even existed as one person. There are NO conclusive historical accounts of Christ's birth, life, death and/or 'resurrection' outside of the Gospels… not during his lifetime, or even shortly thereafter.. and certainly not by eyewitnesses. The authenticity of the Bible accounts is in serious question… by bible scholars, not just secular ones. 

 

This is not just based on checking 'a little bit of that tonight' in the bible. I have studied the bible extensively… as well as other contemporous religions and ancient history… I am no expert but I think you say things without really investigating the claims you are regurgitating from apologists. 

 

But I guess the video I posted speak volumes. No, not really.

 

We are simply not going to agree. "

 

I am an historian… please, do tell me about all this historical proof you have… because in my studies I have not come across it. I would hate to miss something.

[mymistake]

 

I was asking you check if there is evidence God is real.

 

Some of the writers I have recommended writings are from a scientific viewpoint in evidence for God.

 

You may also like to check historical literature on authenticity of the bible and historical of account of Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

 

This is not just based on checking 'a little bit of that tonight' in the bible.

 

But I guess the video I posted speak volumes.

 

We are simply not going to agree. 

 

 

 

There is no evidence of God.  All apologists can do is ask people to look inside and feel something.  That is a subjective response.  Any audience can hypnotize themselves into agreeing with anything.  Meanwhile God is nowhere we look.  God does not interact with our universe and our universe has no need for God.  We see exactly what we would expect if God were imaginary.  To put it another way there is just as much evidence of Jesus as there is for Ra, Zeus, the Tooth Fairy, Superman, Odin, Underdog, Baal, Merlin, Metipholese and so on.  Why don't you put your faith in any of those other characters?  You arbitrarily choose to believe in one and you reject the others.

 

That vid you posted is an hour long.  I'm not going to waste an hour of my time on crap apologetics.  If Christians had evidence they would present it instead of relying on tricks and fallacies.  I spent over 30 years inside the Church drinking the kool aid so I know the best arguments apologists have to offer.  I used those arguments.  I had them memorized.  I use to be right where you are now and I have moved on.

[bornagainathiest]

Gus wrote...

 

Oh right, ha-ha, I was thinking of it as american slang or something, missed that!

 

But I still have not mentioned this topic at all.

 

A point a clarification, Gus.

The links I've posted are refutations of the claim made by Melanie Phillips concerning the origin of science.  You linked to her article (The New Intolerance) concerning the alleged irrationality of Richard Dawkins in post # 270, two days ago.   So while you didn't mention or introduce anything to do with Stonehenge or the Mayans... I did.  I did so to refute Phillips.  Since I've demonstrated that her position is in error, her accusation of 'magic use' against Dawkins should now be seen in the following context. 

 

Firstly, Phillips' own position is the irrational one.

It is irrational for her to claim that Judaism is the true source of scientific thought.  A rational approach should also be an unbiased one.  However, since Phillips is a Jew it would seem that she is operating a selective historical and factual bias in favor of her own religious beliefs and against the historical record - which clearly shows that scientific thought arose independently in many different cultures across the world, independent of Judaism and Christianity.  Her bias is not founded on the historical facts but on her affiliation to and allegiance with Judaism.  That is not a rational position to take.  It is biased and irrational for her to say that the true source of scientific thought is Judaism because she is a Jew.  She should make her case based upon the facts, not upon her faith.

 

Secondly, she was engaging in the faulty use of an 'Argument from Authority' when quizzing Dawkins about the origin of the universe.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority  This is a logical fallacy, but Phillips compounds her error by falsely assuming that the Evolutionary Biologist and Ethologist Dawkins is a reliable authority on the subject of Cosmology.  Putting it simply... he isn't.  If he makes a comment about it, it's a cardinal error to assume that his words carry any authority about the origin of the universe.   Putting it simply... they don't.

 

Therefore, her riposte to him ( "Magic!" ) was made in the context of the following;

 * Her irrational and religiously-biased position on the origin of science.

 * Her flawed understanding of the history of science.

 * Her faulty use of a logical fallacy with regard to Dawkins authority in the science of Cosmology.

.

.

.

Now Gus, since you relied on Phillips' report about Dawkins' comment in post # 257, you are therefore relying on a seriously flawed piece of journalism to make a point about Dawkins' alleged self-contradiction.  In the God Delusion debate he said that he doesn't need to rely on magic to explain the universe.  You unfavorably compared this to Philips' irrational and faulty response ( "Magic!" ) to his reply about the origin of the universe.  You used her error-laden report as ammunition against Dawkins, taking his words and hers and making capital out of them when they shouldn't have been compared in the first place.

 

So Gus, I must now ask you some questions.

Do you still want to stand by what you wrote about Dawkins in post # 257?

Do you still wish to rely on Phillips to make your comments about Dawkins?

Now that you can see just how flawed, biased and unreliable her reportage is, do you still want to rely on it to draw a false, but disparaging comparison between his words and hers?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

[Ravenstar]

^^^  Nice deconstruction BAA!!  Bravo!

[Gus]

Gus wrote...

 

Oh right, ha-ha, I was thinking of it as american slang or something, missed that!

 

But I still have not mentioned this topic at all.

 

A point a clarification, Gus.

The links I've posted are refutations of the claim made by Melanie Phillips concerning the origin of science.  You linked to her article (The New Intolerance) concerning the alleged irrationality of Richard Dawkins in post # 270, two days ago.   So while you didn't mention or introduce anything to do with Stonehenge or the Mayans... I did.  I did so to refute Phillips.  Since I've demonstrated that her position is in error, her accusation of 'magic use' against Dawkins should now be seen in the following context. 

 

Firstly, Phillips' own position is the irrational one.

It is irrational for her to claim that Judaism is the true source of scientific thought.  A rational approach should also be an unbiased one.  However, since Phillips is a Jew it would seem that she is operating a selective historical and factual bias in favor of her own religious beliefs and against the historical record - which clearly shows that scientific thought arose independently in many different cultures across the world, independent of Judaism and Christianity.  Her bias is not founded on the historical facts but on her affiliation to and allegiance with Judaism.  That is not a rational position to take.  It is biased and irrational for her to say that the true source of scientific thought is Judaism because she is a Jew.  She should make her case based upon the facts, not upon her faith.

 

Secondly, she was engaging in the faulty use of an 'Argument from Authority' when quizzing Dawkins about the origin of the universe.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority  This is a logical fallacy, but Phillips compounds her error by falsely assuming that the Evolutionary Biologist and Ethologist Dawkins is a reliable authority on the subject of Cosmology.  Putting it simply... he isn't.  If he makes a comment about it, it's a cardinal error to assume that his words carry any authority about the origin of the universe.   Putting it simply... they don't.

 

Therefore, her riposte to him ( "Magic!" ) was made in the context of the following;

 * Her irrational and religiously-biased position on the origin of science.

 * Her flawed understanding of the history of science.

 * Her faulty use of a logical fallacy with regard to Dawkins authority in the science of Cosmology.

.

.

.

Now Gus, since you relied on Phillips' report about Dawkins' comment in post # 257, you are therefore relying on a seriously flawed piece of journalism to make a point about Dawkins' alleged self-contradiction.  In the God Delusion debate he said that he doesn't need to rely on magic to explain the universe.  You unfavorably compared this to Philips' irrational and faulty response ( "Magic!" ) to his reply about the origin of the universe.  You used her error-laden report as ammunition against Dawkins, taking his words and hers and making capital out of them when they shouldn't have been compared in the first place.

 

So Gus, I must now ask you some questions.

Do you still want to stand by what you wrote about Dawkins in post # 257?

Do you still wish to rely on Phillips to make your comments about Dawkins?

Now that you can see just how flawed, biased and unreliable her reportage is, do you still want to rely on it to draw a false, but disparaging comparison between his words and hers?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Yes I stand by it.

 

You have said a lot that really is irrelevant. So you don’t agree with what else she says. So what? It is not relevant.

 

And yes, she was being sarcastic about ‘magic’ and aliens, again so what?

 

All she is doing is reporting what he said.

 

And he does believe that. Again, it does not matter if he is a cosmologist or not, he is still regarded as vey intelligent, rational thinker and is held in high regard by the majority of atheists and has written several best sellers on these topics.

 

He does believe (faith!) that aliens could have seeded the earth (watching to much Prometheus maybe)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYb8gliZZEA

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiVoS78lNqM

 

And to quote him directly

 

“I am fully prepared to believe (faith again!) There are God like beings elsewhere in the universe” (definitely a fan of Prometheus)

 

Again, anything but God it seems.

[bornagainathiest]

 

(snip)

 

Yes I stand by it.

 

You have said a lot that really is irrelevant. So you don’t agree with what else she says. So what? It is not relevant.

 

Her stated (and incorrect) position on the origin of science informs her criticism of Dawkins.

THAT is relevant to her article, so I've confined myself to highly relevant matters in my last post to you.

 

And yes, she was being sarcastic about ‘magic’ and aliens, again so what?

 

Then what are you doing taking a sarcastic comment of HERS and using it to claim that he's contradicting himself?

 

All she is doing is reporting what he said.

 

But he did NOT say the word, 'MAGIC!'... SHE did!

That's HER false conclusion, not his!

You cannot compare something he said to something he DIDN'T say and then accuse him of contradicting himself!

 

And he does believe that.

 

NO.  He doesn't believe in MAGIC.  You and Phillips have concluded that he does, based on faulty premises and faulty logic.

 

Again, it does not matter if he is a cosmologist or not, he is still regarded as vey intelligent, rational thinker and is held in high regard by the majority of atheists and has written several best sellers on these topics.

 

You clearly don't understand why the Argument from Authority is a logical fallacy.

ALL logical fallacies undermine the arguments they're meant to support. 

Therefore, Phillips argument fails.  And so does yours, by association.

 

He does believe (faith!) that aliens could have seeded the earth (watching to much Prometheus maybe)

 

You clearly don't understand the difference between the confidence a scientist has (belief) in a physical, natural theory and the faith (belief) a supernaturalist like yourself has in a supernatural being or event.  The two are fundamentally and totally different.  If you understood that difference you wouldn't be making the humongous error of trying to conflate the two.  

 

But, as I said earlier, don't just rely on me - check this out with Bhim.

Or, if you like TheRedNeckProfessor.  Or RogueScholar.  They're all scientists.  You'll get exactly the same answer from them that I'm giving you now.  Please go for it!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYb8gliZZEA

 

Q. How is a computer-simulated reality something "supernatural"...?

A.  It isn't.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiVoS78lNqM

 

Q. Darwinian evolution of God-like beings?  How is that... "supernatural"...?

A. It isn't.

 

And to quote him directly

 

“I am fully prepared to believe (faith again!)

 

Belief, as in a scientists confidence in a non-supernatural, physical theory to explain the natural, physical universe..

Science is a purely agnostic investigation of purely natural, physical phenomenon and never invokes the supernatural to explain anything. This is not an example of Dawkins professing any kind of supernatural faith!

 

There are God like beings elsewhere in the universe” 

 

God-like does not equal supernatural.  Especially in Evolutionary science.

You are tarring Dawkins with the supernatural brush, when he ardent rejects all things supernatural.  He's talking about natural and physical beings who have EVOLVED to a God-like status, via natural and physical laws.  That is all.

 

 

(definitely a fan of Prometheus)

 

Again, anything but God it seems.

 

 

Exactly!

 

Dawkins is not a supernaturalist - as hard as you (mistakenly) try to paint him as one.

[Gus]

 

 

I was asking you check if there is evidence God is real.

 

Some of the writers I have recommended writings are from a scientific viewpoint in evidence for God.

 

You may also like to check historical literature on authenticity of the bible and historical of account of Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

 

This is not just based on checking 'a little bit of that tonight' in the bible.

 

But I guess the video I posted speak volumes.

 

We are simply not going to agree. 

 

 

 

There is no evidence of God.  All apologists can do is ask people to look inside and feel something.  That is a subjective response.  Any audience can hypnotize themselves into agreeing with anything.  Meanwhile God is nowhere we look.  God does not interact with our universe and our universe has no need for God.  We see exactly what we would expect if God were imaginary.  To put it another way there is just as much evidence of Jesus as there is for Ra, Zeus, the Tooth Fairy, Superman, Odin, Underdog, Baal, Merlin, Metipholese and so on.  Why don't you put your faith in any of those other characters?  You arbitrarily choose to believe in one and you reject the others.

 

That vid you posted is an hour long.  I'm not going to waste an hour of my time on crap apologetics.  If Christians had evidence they would present it instead of relying on tricks and fallacies.  I spent over 30 years inside the Church drinking the kool aid so I know the best arguments apologists have to offer.  I used those arguments.  I had them memorized.  I use to be right where you are now and I have moved on.

 

 

mymistake said…

To put it another way there is just as much evidence of Jesus as there is for Ra, Zeus, the Tooth Fairy, Superman, Odin, Underdog, Baal, Merlin, Metipholese and so on.  Why don't you put your faith in any of those other characters?  You arbitrarily choose to believe in one and you reject the others.

 

That is absolute rubbish. Come on now, are really comparing Superman to Jesus? Has this place got that silly?

 

What about the writings of Ed Sanders and Christopher Tuckeet, amongst many others. Or we can look at the writings of historians such as roman historian A.N Sherwin White who says in his book ‘Roman society and Roman law in the New Testament’

“For Acts (book of) the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd”

 

Luke was proved to be a first rate historian and therefore there is no need to doubt his records.

 

By the way, you can read on the history of Superman in a comic book shop.

 

So anyway, why would you not research this yourself…?

 

 

mymistake said

That vid you posted is an hour long.  I'm not going to waste an hour of my time on crap apologetics.  If Christians had evidence they would present it instead of relying on tricks and fallacies.  I spent over 30 years inside the Church drinking the kool aid so I know the best arguments apologists have to offer.  I used those arguments.  I had them memorized.  I use to be right where you are now and I have moved on.

 

Ah right, and there ladies and gentlemen we have double standards on this forum. If I had said this, I would be shot down so fast. But here, nobody bats an eyelid.

I’m not going to waste an hour of my life…

The vid was not about apologetics but you would not know that because you didn’t watch it.

We give evidence, you dismiss it. You don’t even want to look. So much for open minds and objective thinking. Which is exactly why I have said people should be looking themselves.

 

Yes you probably did just sit church drinking the kool aid and didn't bother to learn or research anything for yourself.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA I appreciate your respect for science, but in some ways you are turning it into your new religion.

 

You say science and religion (or in this case Christianity) are incompatible.

 

But many Scientists who are Christians would disagree with you.

 

I know people are frustrated with me on this thread now because I would not give evidence to prove God etc. But I can't just do that. The reader needs to look themselves at the evidence and make their mind up. I think most have probably done that.

 

But I wonder if they have really read some of the works of prominent scientists such as Alistair McGrath and Francis Collins.

 

I mean, take at a look at this list of scientists who are Christians (you may know a few) including many ‘fathers’ of modern science.

 

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

 

Are they all delusional? Mis-guided? Irrational?

 

Science and God do not have to be seen as two incompatible things.

 

You and I are using the words, "...compatible with..." in different ways, Gus.

 

If you can show me that religion is necessary or required for science to function properly, then I'll re-consider the compatibility of the two.

 

My position is that religion is neither required nor necessary for science to function properly.

These scientist you've listed could still perform their scientific work if they were atheists.  Therefore, any religious beliefs they have are optional extras and are not required or necessary for them to be scientists.  Thus, their religion is NOT relevant to their scientific work.

.

.

.

But, if you can demonstrate how their belief in Jesus is a requirement for them to perform a Fourier Transform please do so. Or if you can show me how their belief in the God of the Bible is necessary for them to calculate eigenvectors  and eigenvalues, I'd be fascinated to read about it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

What about the writings of Ed Sanders and Christopher Tuckeet, amongst many others. Or we can look at the writings of historians such as roman historian A.N Sherwin White who says in his book ‘Roman society and Roman law in the New Testament’

“For Acts (book of) the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd”

 

Luke was proved to be a first rate historian and therefore there is no need to doubt his records.

 

 

Gus, I have started a thread where we can discuss the historicity of the bible, over here:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63758-historical-literaonture--authenticity-of-the-bible-and-historical-account-of-christ%E2%80%99s-life-death-and-resurrection/#.U867suOSxyQ

 

And I did a quick google search on Sherwin-White, and found this blog that mentions William Lane Craig and Lee Strobels, which tells me everything I needed to know about this.

 

http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.co.nz/2007/11/apologists-abuse-of-sherwin-white.html

[Gus]

 

 

(snip)

 

Yes I stand by it.

 

You have said a lot that really is irrelevant. So you don’t agree with what else she says. So what? It is not relevant.

 

Her stated (and incorrect) position on the origin of science informs her criticism of Dawkins.

THAT is relevant to her article, so I've confined myself to highly relevant matters in my last post to you.

 

And yes, she was being sarcastic about ‘magic’ and aliens, again so what?

 

Then what are you doing taking a sarcastic comment of HERS and using it to claim that he's contradicting himself?

 

All she is doing is reporting what he said.

 

But he did NOT say the word, 'MAGIC!'... SHE did!

That's HER false conclusion, not his!

You cannot compare something he said to something he DIDN'T say and then accuse him of contradicting himself!

 

And he does believe that.

 

NO.  He doesn't believe in MAGIC.  You and Phillips have concluded that he does, based on faulty premises and faulty logic.

 

Again, it does not matter if he is a cosmologist or not, he is still regarded as vey intelligent, rational thinker and is held in high regard by the majority of atheists and has written several best sellers on these topics.

 

You clearly don't understand why the Argument from Authority is a logical fallacy.

ALL logical fallacies undermine the arguments they're meant to support. 

Therefore, Phillips argument fails.  And so does yours, by association.

 

He does believe (faith!) that aliens could have seeded the earth (watching to much Prometheus maybe)

 

You clearly don't understand the difference between the confidence a scientist has (belief) in a physical, natural theory and the faith (belief) a supernaturalist like yourself has in a supernatural being or event.  The two are fundamentally and totally different.  If you understood that difference you wouldn't be making the humongous error of trying to conflate the two.  

 

But, as I said earlier, don't just rely on me - check this out with Bhim.

Or, if you like TheRedNeckProfessor.  Or RogueScholar.  They're all scientists.  You'll get exactly the same answer from them that I'm giving you now.  Please go for it!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYb8gliZZEA

 

Q. How is a computer-simulated reality something "supernatural"...?

A.  It isn't.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiVoS78lNqM

 

Q. Darwinian evolution of God-like beings?  How is that... "supernatural"...?

A. It isn't.

 

And to quote him directly

 

“I am fully prepared to believe (faith again!)

 

Belief, as in a scientists confidence in a non-supernatural, physical theory to explain the natural, physical universe..

Science is a purely agnostic investigation of purely natural, physical phenomenon and never invokes the supernatural to explain anything. This is not an example of Dawkins professing any kind of supernatural faith!

 

There are God like beings elsewhere in the universe” 

 

God-like does not equal supernatural.  Especially in Evolutionary science.

You are tarring Dawkins with the supernatural brush, when he ardent rejects all things supernatural.  He's talking about natural and physical beings who have EVOLVED to a God-like status, via natural and physical laws.  That is all.

 

 

(definitely a fan of Prometheus)

 

Again, anything but God it seems.

 

 

Exactly!

 

Dawkins is not a supernaturalist - as hard as you (mistakenly) try to paint him as one.

 

Sorry, where and how have I done that? I never said that. Now your making it up.

 

If your taking that from the whole 'magic' comment, then you don't seem to have an idea what sarcasm is. That's okay, I know Vulcans have difficulty with earth humour.

 

I think anyone who reads what I have posted will see I am saying that Dawkins has some pretty extreme beliefs. And they are beliefs (faith), that very thing we Christians get blasted for so much.

[TrueFreedom]

 

 

 

I was asking you check if there is evidence God is real.

 

Some of the writers I have recommended writings are from a scientific viewpoint in evidence for God.

 

You may also like to check historical literature on authenticity of the bible and historical of account of Christ’s life, death and resurrection.

 

This is not just based on checking 'a little bit of that tonight' in the bible.

 

But I guess the video I posted speak volumes.

 

We are simply not going to agree. 

 

 

 

There is no evidence of God.  All apologists can do is ask people to look inside and feel something.  That is a subjective response.  Any audience can hypnotize themselves into agreeing with anything.  Meanwhile God is nowhere we look.  God does not interact with our universe and our universe has no need for God.  We see exactly what we would expect if God were imaginary.  To put it another way there is just as much evidence of Jesus as there is for Ra, Zeus, the Tooth Fairy, Superman, Odin, Underdog, Baal, Merlin, Metipholese and so on.  Why don't you put your faith in any of those other characters?  You arbitrarily choose to believe in one and you reject the others.

 

That vid you posted is an hour long.  I'm not going to waste an hour of my time on crap apologetics.  If Christians had evidence they would present it instead of relying on tricks and fallacies.  I spent over 30 years inside the Church drinking the kool aid so I know the best arguments apologists have to offer.  I used those arguments.  I had them memorized.  I use to be right where you are now and I have moved on.

 

 

mymistake said…

To put it another way there is just as much evidence of Jesus as there is for Ra, Zeus, the Tooth Fairy, Superman, Odin, Underdog, Baal, Merlin, Metipholese and so on.  Why don't you put your faith in any of those other characters?  You arbitrarily choose to believe in one and you reject the others.

 

That is absolute rubbish. Come on now, are really comparing Superman to Jesus? Has this place got that silly?

 

What about the writings of Ed Sanders and Christopher Tuckeet, amongst many others. Or we can look at the writings of historians such as roman historian A.N Sherwin White who says in his book ‘Roman society and Roman law in the New Testament’

“For Acts (book of) the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd”

 

Luke was proved to be a first rate historian and therefore there is no need to doubt his records.

 

By the way, you can read on the history of Superman in a comic book shop.

 

So anyway, why would you not research this yourself…?

Argument from authority.  I would compare Jesus to Krishna, maybe Mithras, Heracles...

 

How are you sure that we haven't done our research?  Are you even open to the possibility that you might be wrong?

[RipVanWinkle]

To Xtians anything and everything that is not consistent with Xtianity is extreme.   bill

[TrueFreedom]

 

mymistake said

That vid you posted is an hour long.  I'm not going to waste an hour of my time on crap apologetics.  If Christians had evidence they would present it instead of relying on tricks and fallacies.  I spent over 30 years inside the Church drinking the kool aid so I know the best arguments apologists have to offer.  I used those arguments.  I had them memorized.  I use to be right where you are now and I have moved on.

 

Ah right, and there ladies and gentlemen we have double standards on this forum. If I had said this, I would be shot down so fast. But here, nobody bats an eyelid.

I’m not going to waste an hour of my life…

The vid was not about apologetics but you would not know that because you didn’t watch it.

We give evidence, you dismiss it. You don’t even want to look. So much for open minds and objective thinking. Which is exactly why I have said people should be looking themselves.

 

Yes you probably did just sit church drinking the kool aid and didn't bother to learn or research anything for yourself.

 

Has anybody asked you to watch an hour-long video?

 

Research is what lead most of us to the conclusion that Christianity is based on incorrect thinking and its miraculous stories and claims are myth and legend.  What historical claims of other religions do you see as factual?  They have just as much "evidence" and "authority."

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm not sure how anyone who has read the OP would come to the conclusion that I have not done the research and examined the evidence thoroughly enough to draw a sound and logical conclusion.  I also fail to see how anyone could read the posts of my fellow Lions and think they are anything less than well-studied, well-versed individuals who have also committed themselves to ardent research.  How this thread has gotten de-railed into "study this book", "watch this video", and "read this guy's blog" is simply beyond me. 

 

The OP takes a look at what the genesis account actually says and then follows a logical progression to demonstrate that god's plan was to sell us all into sin so that he could buy us all back as slaves.  If anyone wishes to offer a logical progression that reaches a different conclusion, I'm all ears.

[Gus]

 

BAA I appreciate your respect for science, but in some ways you are turning it into your new religion.

 

You say science and religion (or in this case Christianity) are incompatible.

 

But many Scientists who are Christians would disagree with you.

 

I know people are frustrated with me on this thread now because I would not give evidence to prove God etc. But I can't just do that. The reader needs to look themselves at the evidence and make their mind up. I think most have probably done that.

 

But I wonder if they have really read some of the works of prominent scientists such as Alistair McGrath and Francis Collins.

 

I mean, take at a look at this list of scientists who are Christians (you may know a few) including many ‘fathers’ of modern science.

 

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

 

Are they all delusional? Mis-guided? Irrational?

 

Science and God do not have to be seen as two incompatible things.

 

You and I are using the words, "...compatible with..." in different ways, Gus.

 

If you can show me that religion is necessary or required for science to function properly, then I'll re-consider the compatibility of the two.

 

My position is that religion is neither required nor necessary for science to function properly.

These scientist you've listed could still perform their scientific work if they were atheists.  Therefore, any religious beliefs they have are optional extras and are not required or necessary for them to be scientists.  Thus, their religion is NOT relevant to their scientific work.

.

.

.

But, if you can demonstrate how their belief in Jesus is a requirement for them to perform a Fourier Transform please do so. Or if you can show me how their belief in the God of the Bible is necessary for them to calculate eigenvectors  and eigenvalues, I'd be fascinated to read about it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

I agree with you, it is not necessary.

 

But you’re missing the point.

 

It goes back your Mayan example. The very reason they could use the sun and stars to tell dates etc. is because it was designed that way, regardless if they knew God or not.

 

So the very fact you can do science, study it, acknowledge it has laws, systems etc. is because it was designed to be studied and points to a creative mind, something many scientists freely acknowledge.

You don’t have to talk about God when doing calculations in the same way you don’t have to talk about Steve jobs when building a laptop.

 

Scientists such as Matthew Maury acknowledge there where truths in the bible that could be studied scientifically. And it was it was credited to him that reading psalms and the paths of the sea made him consider looking for them, and found them.

 

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

[Gus]

 

 

What about the writings of Ed Sanders and Christopher Tuckeet, amongst many others. Or we can look at the writings of historians such as roman historian A.N Sherwin White who says in his book ‘Roman society and Roman law in the New Testament’

“For Acts (book of) the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming...any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd”

 

Luke was proved to be a first rate historian and therefore there is no need to doubt his records.

 

 

Gus, I have started a thread where we can discuss the historicity of the bible, over here:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63758-historical-literaonture--authenticity-of-the-bible-and-historical-account-of-christ%E2%80%99s-life-death-and-resurrection/#.U867suOSxyQ

 

And I did a quick google search on Sherwin-White, and found this blog that mentions William Lane Craig and Lee Strobels, which tells me everything I needed to know about this.

 

http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.co.nz/2007/11/apologists-abuse-of-sherwin-white.html

 

Well thats why I mentioned several others. If you don't agree with one, look at others and then you can decide.

[sdelsolray]

I agree with you, it is not necessary.

 

But you’re missing the point.

 

It goes back your Mayan example. The very reason they could use the sun and stars to tell dates etc. is because it was designed that way, regardless if they knew God or not.

 

So the very fact you can do science, study it, acknowledge it has laws, systems etc. is because it was designed to be studied and points to a creative mind, something many scientists freely acknowledge.

You don’t have to talk about God when doing calculations in the same way you don’t have to talk about Steve jobs when building a laptop.

 

Scientists such as Matthew Maury acknowledge there where truths in the bible that could be studied scientifically. And it was it was credited to him that reading psalms and the paths of the sea made him consider looking for them, and found them.

 

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

 

Mr. Mere Assertion speaks.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Sorry, where and how have I done that? I never said that. Now your making it up.

 

Please don't accuse me of fabricating things.  I don't do that.

 

If your taking that from the whole 'magic' comment, then you don't seem to have an idea what sarcasm is. That's okay, I know Vulcans have difficulty with earth humour.

 

Please don't be sarcastic.  There's no need for it.

 

I think anyone who reads what I have posted will see I am saying that Dawkins has some pretty extreme beliefs. And they are beliefs (faith), that very thing we Christians get blasted for so much.

 

 

You did it here, on July 20.

 

Richard Dawkins confesses that he does not know what caused the origin of the universe; but he believes (his faith shining out once more) that there will be a naturalistic explanation for it. In his God delusion debate, he said he does not need to rely on magic to explain the universe.

However in the press conference after, in responding to a question from journalist and author Melanie Phillips he said the universe could just have appeared from nothing.

"Magic', she said.

She reported that after the debate that Dawkins told her that an explanation for this universe in terms of little green men made more since than postulating a creator. Anything but God it seems.

 

The two portions highlighted in red are where you reported what Dawkins said and where Phillips reported her reaction to his reply.  In the first instance, these are his words.  In the second instance, these are not his words.  The inference you drew from this was that he'd contradicted himself.  You've compared his first statement (his rejection of magic to explain the universe) to his second statement (that the universe could have appeared from nothing) by citing Phillips' usage of the word, 'Magic' and falsely concluded that the second contradicted the first.  This is not so, as I've already explained.

.

.

.

I think anyone who reads what I have posted will see I am saying that Dawkins has some pretty extreme beliefs. And they are beliefs (faith), that very thing we Christians get blasted for so much.

 

No, you are wrong again Gus.

Dawkins has not and did not express any measure of faith or belief in anything magical or supernatural.  He was expressing his confidence in the scientific method to explain the natural, physical universe.  I've just explained this to you a few minutes ago.  Please go back and re-read my message.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA