tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post4536897442454352472..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: RFC from Atheists for Empirical Evidence That Refutes Biblical ClaimsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80574170513822987242008-01-15T12:14:00.000-05:002008-01-15T12:14:00.000-05:00@ evan: You have not shown that the Bible gives an...@ evan: You have not shown that the Bible gives an elaborated version of the events and thus have not shown legendary development or that the Bible could have been based on an older source which wasn't Utnapishtim. If was a great local flood then the bit about Greece and Egypt is irrelevant.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935690081044510024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60096520005732290382008-01-14T23:35:00.000-05:002008-01-14T23:35:00.000-05:00Hi James and The Dude,I made a place to debate the...Hi James and The Dude,<BR/>I made a place to debate the topic of "Belief is not a choice".<BR/>Click <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/01/people-cant-choose-to-believe-therefore.html" REL="nofollow"> here </A>to go there.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38516209891234571152008-01-14T22:47:00.000-05:002008-01-14T22:47:00.000-05:00James I just want to be clear with you that the fl...James I just want to be clear with you that the flood is NOT the only correspondence between Utnapishtim and Noah.<BR/><BR/>Here are the correspondences:<BR/><BR/>1. A God tells Utnapishtim to build a boat, giving him the dimensions, and to take "the seed of all living things" onto the boat with him.<BR/><BR/>2. Utnapishtim builds the boat and takes his family aboard it.<BR/><BR/>3. After all are aboard the boat, a god sends rains that flood the whole earth.<BR/><BR/>4. After the flood mountains appear and the boat comes aground on the top of a mountain.<BR/><BR/>5. Utnapishtim first releases a dove, but the dove comes back with nothing.<BR/><BR/>6. Then he releases a Raven.<BR/><BR/>Is this really historical memory? There is no similar story from Egypt or Greece.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23298818570093622162008-01-14T18:22:00.000-05:002008-01-14T18:22:00.000-05:00like japanChristian belief is more like saying 'I ...<I>like japan</I><BR/>Christian belief is more like saying 'I believe in Japan' rather than saying 'I believe Japan exists'. God has given us evidence for his existence so that evidence won't act as a barrier in coming to Him (but not so much people are forced into a relationship with Him) however belief in Him is more about trusting and loving Him.<BR/><BR/>People go to Hell because of their sin - not for believing God doesn't exist. People are saved from Hell by trusting in God. In other words everyone gets, at a minimum, what they deserve (i.e punishment for their sin). If some people get more than they deserve (i.e heaven) by trusting in God then how is that unfair?<BR/><BR/>I'm also curious as to why you appear to accept dualism, although I have no problem with that (i.e the belief that we aren't just robots) as most of the sceptics I've met claim that science suggests out brains are advanced computers running on chemical reactions and electrical signals. <BR/><BR/><I>In fact, I came to a hasty conclusion by being a christian. upon further reflection on the evidence which I dredged up through apologetics and bible study, and self education, my belief fell away.</I><BR/>I get the impression that you had a very weak understanding of Christian theology and apologetics before you became an atheist as you'd otherwise realise that when Christians talk about belief they don't mean simply believing God exists. <BR/><BR/><I>James, I would like to request that you take this to a different thread.</I><BR/>You point me in the direction of the thread.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935690081044510024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7706229976040346702008-01-14T14:55:00.000-05:002008-01-14T14:55:00.000-05:00James, I would like to request that you take this ...James, I would like to request that you take this to a different thread. The entire purpose for this blog post is out the window, as it's now become a debate session. Anyone else agree?The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951969586329333405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17538953762710888722008-01-14T14:22:00.000-05:002008-01-14T14:22:00.000-05:00There is a certain quality to evidence, especially...There is a certain quality to evidence, especially when it converges on a certain point and there is so much of it. <BR/><BR/>like japan, and like my ex. For christianity, the evidence didn't converge. In fact, I came to a hasty conclusion by being a christian. upon further reflection on the evidence which I dredged up through apologetics and bible study, and self education, my belief fell away.<BR/><BR/>Now, back to japan, is it there or not?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62070648054135030372008-01-14T14:14:00.000-05:002008-01-14T14:14:00.000-05:00Ah - but you're simply going to your own experienc...Ah - but you're simply going to your own experiences. Now I thought atheists criticised Christians for doing that. Atheists are critical when Christians ask the question 'is murder wrong?' and use your answer as proof for a universal moral law which God defines.<BR/><BR/>I also thought that you were also a Christian once and so aren't you proof that you can change your beliefs?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935690081044510024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91372727203529567152008-01-14T14:10:00.000-05:002008-01-14T14:10:00.000-05:00and about hitler, I think we talk about hitler as ...and about hitler, I think we talk about hitler as much as god.<BR/>anyway...<BR/>Hitler should have been rehabilitated or locked up so that he couldn't do any more harm.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30861099083031321342008-01-14T14:07:00.000-05:002008-01-14T14:07:00.000-05:00woah, there jesse, er, james,I never took responsi...woah, there jesse, er, james,<BR/>I never took responsibility for my beliefs, I guess you took it for me!<BR/><BR/>When my ex was messing around on me I tried every way imaginable not to believe it, but in the end, I had to admit that it was true. <BR/><BR/>Now, if you don't mind, would you answer the question, please? japan, is it there or not?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54168686365408850632008-01-14T14:03:00.000-05:002008-01-14T14:03:00.000-05:00Lee said:If yes, do you really think you could not...Lee said:<I>If yes, do you really think you could not believe if you wanted to?</I><BR/>That's not he point. Can we let Hitler off for his beliefs about the jews simply because he couldn't have changed them. You accept that we are responsible for our beliefs in any other context so why are we not be held responsible for our theological beliefs?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935690081044510024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13706640834594617012008-01-14T13:51:00.000-05:002008-01-14T13:51:00.000-05:00james, you don't really have control over what you...james, <BR/>you don't really have control over what you believe. Do you believe that Japan exists?<BR/><BR/>If yes, do you really think you could not believe if you wanted to?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5872714587354585562008-01-14T13:42:00.000-05:002008-01-14T13:42:00.000-05:00the-dude said:the catalyst for this chemical react...the-dude said:<I>the catalyst for this chemical reaction was in my full control. </I><BR/>then how do you know that the catalyst for you believing in God isn't in your control. You also haven't given any actual evidence to support your view - you've just stated what your view on the relationship between our brain and freewill is.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935690081044510024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42252269855401341932008-01-14T13:38:00.000-05:002008-01-14T13:38:00.000-05:00James said:The dude saisIt would be easy for a tra...James said:<BR/><BR/><I>The dude saisIt would be easy for a trained attorney to thwart anyone claiming that their ACTION was an involuntary chemical reaction.<BR/><B>In which case God can thwart anyone who claims they rejected him because of chemical reactions in their brain.</B></I><BR/><BR/>According to your bible, he created us, so if he really thinks we should have control over this type of thing, he should be accountable for this flaw and change the rules.The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951969586329333405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91182690024011523512008-01-14T13:35:00.000-05:002008-01-14T13:35:00.000-05:00James said:The-dude said:Things in the above analo...James said:<BR/><BR/><I>The-dude said:Things in the above analogy I have control over:<BR/><B>There is no more evidence that you decision to open the e-mail was not based on chemical reaction whilst your decision to believe it was.</B></I><BR/><BR/>Yes, my action to open an email is a chemical reaction, but it's AN ACTION that is voluntary. The action requires a chemical reaction to occur in order to send neurological signals to my body to perform the physical act, and the catalyst for this chemical reaction was in my full control. This is where action vs. reaction separate.<BR/><BR/>Actions are voluntary and are a result of free will.<BR/><BR/>Reactions are involuntary and are a result of biochemical/biological tendencies brought on by factors that are out of the control of the human individual.The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951969586329333405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48638403278211316222008-01-14T13:28:00.000-05:002008-01-14T13:28:00.000-05:00The dude saisIt would be easy for a trained attorn...The dude sais<I>It would be easy for a trained attorney to thwart anyone claiming that their ACTION was an involuntary chemical reaction.</I><BR/>In which case God can thwart anyone who claims they rejected him because of chemical reactions in their brain.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935690081044510024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78596147165850774932008-01-14T13:27:00.000-05:002008-01-14T13:27:00.000-05:00The-dude said:Things in the above analogy I have c...The-dude said:<I>Things in the above analogy I have control over:</I><BR/>There is no more evidence that you decision to open the e-mail was not based on chemical reaction whilst your decision to believe it was.<BR/><BR/>The-dude said:<I>So you're saying that we consciously make decisions and choices unconsciously?</I><BR/>No - I'm saying scientists don't know yet and that the jury is still out on this issue.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935690081044510024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23080273914829222292008-01-14T13:23:00.000-05:002008-01-14T13:23:00.000-05:00James said:the-dude said:Proving that humans have ...James said:<BR/><BR/><I>the-dude said:Proving that humans have no control over their minds coming to conclusions after information/evidence processing will be a huge step in debunking the biblical god's "believe or be punished" command as nothing more than, well, a myth.<BR/><B>It will no more impact to the doctrine than it will to anything. Otherwise we'll have people standing up in court saying that it isn't there fault they murdered their wife:it was just an inevitable result of a chemical reaction in their brain!</B></I><BR/><BR/>James, James...please see my most recent comment. It would be easy for a trained attorney to thwart anyone claiming that their ACTION was an involuntary chemical reaction. The anger that started the ball rolling was involuntary, as it began due to the natural, involuntary way that the murderer processes information. Let's use my list on your hypothetical situation:<BR/><BR/>Things which the murderer on trial <B>can</B> control:<BR/><BR/>1) Seeking out information about person he/she murdered.<BR/>2) Acting on the impulse of anger by seeking out the murder victim (the <B><I>act</B></I> of placing himself in the physical presence of the victim).<BR/>3) Acting on the impulse of anger by picking up and using the murder weapon.<BR/><BR/>Things for which the murderer has <B><I>NO CONTROL</B></I> over:<BR/><BR/>1) Biological, environmental and educational situations from pre-birth to adulthood that developed neurological tendencies to process information a specific way.<BR/>2) How he/she interpreted the information presented that <I><B>resulted</B></I> in the involuntary anger emotion.<BR/>3) Getting angry in the first place.The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951969586329333405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65319802945859677792008-01-14T13:16:00.000-05:002008-01-14T13:16:00.000-05:00Lee said:This supposed to be "friendly competition...Lee said:<I>This supposed to be "friendly competition".</I><BR/>I am happy to treat it as a bit of fun as long as we're all clear that it doesn't prove much.<BR/><BR/>I've looked at your article on the resurrection and I'd like to make a few points - firstly most sources in ancient history for an event are decades apart. There is nothing odd about this. Most scholars think that John was written independantly of the other gospels. <BR/><BR/>It is unlikely that Jesus survived the crucifixion - everything we know about the Romans suggests that they were organised and that their victims didn't survive. The bible also documents Jesus' side being pierced by a spear (which is not unheard of in the Roman world) It is also unlikely that someone who had been crucified could escape a Jewish tomb. You don't really analyse much of the other evidence for the empty tomb.<BR/><BR/>It is true that people suffer for Islam but isn't that evidence that they are sincere in their beliefs? They might be sincerely wrong but they aren't being dishonest and so the same can be said about the first Christians. Now take Paul, hardly anyone disputes that he wrote 1 Corinthians and yet in it he claims that he saw Jesus risen on the road to Damascus and other people (many of whom were still alive) have seen Jesus risen. As we've established that the first Christians were sincere in their beliefs it seems unlikely they lied. Therefore they were either mistaken (how were so many people mistaken?) or were telling the truth.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935690081044510024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41126921569486610422008-01-14T13:11:00.000-05:002008-01-14T13:11:00.000-05:00James said: the-dude said:You're not looking into...James said: <BR/><BR/><I>the-dude said:You're not looking into this deep enough. While one can most definitely choose what evidence to expose themselves to<BR/><B>You can't have it both ways! If we have no control over how we analyse the evidence then we must have no control over whether we do analyse it! Otherwise my decision to go onto this blog was simply a chemical reaction in my brain and there is no point in me responding to your post as all I'll do is output the result of one big chemical reaction! How do you know that our decision to look at evidence is not a chemical reaction?</B></I><BR/><BR/>As I said, you're not going deep enough. You're saying that the choice to begin to analyze and the choice to force yourself HOW to analyze are one in the same. However, one can indeed choose to begin analyzing information, and a as a result can choose their actions upon the conclusion. But, one <B><I>can't choose the conclusion that is the result of the processing of the information presented</I></B>. Let me try and use an analogy to help you separate these concepts:<BR/><BR/>You make a claim to me in an email that you saw a pink mule with wings yesterday. I open my email software and see that I have an email from you. At this time, I have the option of choosing to read your email, which I do. By opening the email, I chose the action based on free will (the only case that "free will" is applicable in human behavior is the choosing of an action). By making this choice, I have chosen to begin the processing of the information in your email, and thereby have chosen that I will begin analyzing it. <B><I>HOW I analyze the information is 100% out of my control</B></I>, as is my conclusion. There are some <B><I>actions</I></B> that I can now <I>choose</I> based on the initial result of the involuntary processing of your information, but the initial conclusion is out of my control - that you didn't see a pink mule with wings. Some possible actions that I can choose are: investigate further either on my own or by asking you for more information, as your claim is merely a claim with no supporting evidence. <BR/><BR/>Things in the above analogy I have control over:<BR/><BR/>1) Opening my email software.<BR/>2) Reading the list of emails received.<BR/>3) Clicking your email.<BR/>4) Reading your email.<BR/>5) Starting to analyze the information presented in your email.<BR/><BR/>(note that all of choices above are <B><I>actions</B></I> that are the result of involuntary information processing)<BR/><BR/>Things in this scenario I have NO control over:<BR/><BR/>1) Neurological processing of the information presented in your email.<BR/><BR/>2) Conclusions that result from the processing of this information (involuntary). <BR/><BR/>3) Biological, environmental and educational conditions that I underwent from pre-birth until adulthood that resulted in the natural, involuntary neurological pathways I possess today.<BR/><BR/><BR/>James said: <BR/><BR/><I>The-dude:Either you do or you don't, it's that easy.<BR/><B>consciousness and freewill etc are still big unknowns in the world of science. Much (genuine) research is being done into how these relate to our brain.</B></I><BR/><BR/>So you're saying that we consciously make decisions and choices unconsciously? Again, this supports my point - if we are doing things unconsciously, then why are we to be held morally culpable for the result of unconscious information processing?The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951969586329333405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37754923532347990482008-01-14T12:51:00.000-05:002008-01-14T12:51:00.000-05:00The-dude said:Proving that humans have no control ...The-dude said:<I>Proving that humans have no control over their minds coming to conclusions after information/evidence processing will be a huge step in debunking the biblical god's "believe or be punished" command as nothing more than, well, a myth.</I><BR/>It will no more impact to the doctrine than it will to anything. Otherwise we'll have people standing up in court saying that it isn't there fault they murdered their wife:it was just an inevitable result of a chemical reaction in their brain!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935690081044510024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58367900979445288932008-01-14T12:49:00.000-05:002008-01-14T12:49:00.000-05:00the dude,awesome point.thanks for the contribution...the dude,<BR/>awesome point.<BR/>thanks for the contribution.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32071869492696050972008-01-14T12:48:00.000-05:002008-01-14T12:48:00.000-05:00Hi James,First off, you are reading too much into ...Hi James,<BR/>First off, you are reading too much into this. This supposed to be "friendly competition". I fully expected there to be a slew of christains clamoring to input data into the christian RFC.<BR/><BR/>But since you mention the Resurrection, <BR/><A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/03/reasonable-doubt-about-resurrection.html" REL="nofollow"> here </A>is an article I wrote on that very subject a while back.<BR/><BR/>As far as the 'not contributing yet yelling "no its not!" ', thats all you buddy. I made the playground and added the first 12 or so items.<BR/><BR/>You seem to be afraid that you don't have anything decent to add to the christian RFC regardless of what you said before.<BR/><BR/>anyway, thats all I have to say about that. The floor is yours.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91250949864484064092008-01-14T12:46:00.000-05:002008-01-14T12:46:00.000-05:00Lee Randolph said:stick around because this month ...Lee Randolph said:<BR/><BR/><I>stick around because this month i'm going to post at least two articles based on neuroscience research. The ones in progress are about the 'the problem of evil as a test and harmful effects of stress', 'the soul', and 'morality', 'traits that humans and animals share as it relates to the soul'.<BR/><BR/>In fact all this stuff I've been writing lately are geared to bust up my complex argument into smaller pieces and it all started with 'biological bases for behavior'.</I><BR/><BR/>Very looking forward to it. I think that the idea that humans form beliefs based on involuntary, natural information processing has the potential for undoing everything the Christian doctrine of salvation stands for. Proving that humans have no control over their minds coming to conclusions after information/evidence processing will be a huge step in debunking the biblical god's "believe or be punished" command as nothing more than, well, a myth.The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951969586329333405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-92232242402384791432008-01-14T12:45:00.000-05:002008-01-14T12:45:00.000-05:00the-dude said:You're not looking into this deep en...the-dude said:<I>You're not looking into this deep enough. While one can most definitely choose what evidence to expose themselves to </I><BR/>You can't have it both ways! If we have no control over how we analyse the evidence then we must have no control over whether we do analyse it! Otherwise my decision to go onto this blog was simply a chemical reaction in my brain and there is no point in me responding to your post as all I'll do is output the result of one big chemical reaction! How do you know that our decision to look at evidence is not a chemical reaction?<BR/><BR/>The-dude said:<I>In other words, belief is an involuntary result of natural human biochemical processing and acceptance of evidence provided. </I><BR/>You can't have it both ways - either all my beliefs (even ones you share) are meaningless results of chemical reactions or none of them are.<BR/><BR/>The-dude:<I>Either you do or you don't, it's that easy. </I><BR/>consciousness and freewill etc are still big unknowns in the world of science. Much (genuine) research is being done into how these relate to our brain.<BR/><BR/>The-dude said:<I>It is illogical, unjust, unfair, and far from "loving" of the biblical god to punish or reward humans based on the involuntary disability/ability to force themselves to believe. Therefore, this alone debunks the entire Christian doctrine of "you just have to believe" and you're IN!</I><BR/>Until you've got the basics sorted then there is no point in looking at issues such as predestination. If you're really interested look at Romans 9:19Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935690081044510024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10226415570942894272008-01-14T12:20:00.001-05:002008-01-14T12:20:00.001-05:00James quoted and said: Shygetz said:The dude did n...James quoted and said: <BR/><BR/><I>Shygetz said:The dude did not point this out, and you are making a statement without evidence<BR/>In the dude's own words:<BR/>The problem with this biblically-stated doctrine is that humans are naturally unable to choose to believe in anything<B> My point was that if we can't choose to believe in anything then your blog is a waste of time.</I></B><BR/><BR/>James:<BR/><BR/>You're not looking into this deep enough. While one can most definitely choose what evidence to expose themselves to (and ultimately choose to subject their minds to the processing of the evidence), one cannot control or choose how their mind interprets (e.g., chemically processes)this information/evidence, and as a result, they have no control (or ability to "choose") how their belief is formed. <BR/><BR/>Not having the ability to <B><I>choose</B></I> to force ourselves to believe something, even in the face of uncontrollable perceptions of the evidence presented, doesn't mean we <B><I>can't believe</B></I>, it means simply that we can't make the conscious decision to go against our natural biochemical information processing that <B><I>resulted</I></B> in our conclusion of belief. <BR/><BR/>In other words, belief is an involuntary <B><I>result</I></B> of natural human biochemical processing and acceptance of evidence provided. <BR/><BR/>In a nutshell: one can make the conscious decision (or choice) to <I>begin the processing of information in the form of evidence for a claim</I>, but cannot control the biochemical processing of this evidence and force themselves to <B><I>believe</I></B> that it is true. Either you do or you don't, it's that easy. <BR/><BR/><B>My point:</B> It is illogical, unjust, unfair, and far from "loving" of the biblical god to punish or reward humans based on the involuntary disability/ability to force themselves to believe. Therefore, this alone debunks the entire Christian doctrine of "you just have to believe" and you're IN!The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951969586329333405noreply@blogger.com