tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post7111931784187375012..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Is It Really Because We Have a Hard Heart That We Don't Accept Christianity?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63693927312398282442007-05-19T02:20:00.000-04:002007-05-19T02:20:00.000-04:00Showstopper, Gummby? Hardly. Here are just a few...Showstopper, Gummby? Hardly. Here are just a few ways God can provide sufficient credible evidence of his existence.<BR/><BR/>http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/03/how-could-god-reveal-himself-to-us.html<BR/><BR/>And if we mere mortals could come up with these, surely God can do even better :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45798908182964164002007-05-15T05:02:00.000-04:002007-05-15T05:02:00.000-04:00Certainly god(s) are not exist. The idea of god is...Certainly god(s) are not exist. The idea of god is created to give the premitive people a security living in a hostile world. <BR/><BR/>I think the American should revise the USD notes, because it mentioned "IN GOD WE TRUST".<BR/><BR/>The terorists and also Chousenhui beheaviers cannot be blamed, if you trust in god. because they believe in God too and they thought what they did have been approved fm god. If god did not allow them, it won't be happend.<BR/>rgds/HenryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52658208376226659312007-05-15T01:04:00.000-04:002007-05-15T01:04:00.000-04:00It never ceases to amaze me how that question ends...It never ceases to amaze me how that question ends up being a show-stopper.Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19102190015825049162007-05-13T13:57:00.000-04:002007-05-13T13:57:00.000-04:00indeed one necessitates the other.if people were i...indeed one necessitates the other.<BR/><BR/>if people were inherently good, they could just look inside themselves and see moral truth.<BR/><BR/>so the problem of original sin had to be created to justify deferring ones own morals to the power of an institution.Matt Sunderlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15911840820699987142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79535514301851432282007-05-13T13:53:00.000-04:002007-05-13T13:53:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Matt Sunderlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15911840820699987142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33516663139188942152007-05-13T13:11:00.000-04:002007-05-13T13:11:00.000-04:00Curiosis: There is more than enough evidence.Two ...Curiosis: There is more than enough evidence.<BR/><BR/>Two things I am sure in life. Mans sin and God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29772152146256124822007-05-12T16:13:00.000-04:002007-05-12T16:13:00.000-04:00curiosis,So what constitutes "sufficient credible ...curiosis,<BR/><BR/>So what constitutes "sufficient credible evidence," in your mind?Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15593422798746574822007-05-12T09:21:00.000-04:002007-05-12T09:21:00.000-04:00So now I know what happened to bigfoot the other d...So now I know what happened to bigfoot the other day. He was suppose to have lunch with me, that no good two timer. Now I have to add humor to the list of faults? ah dang!<BR/><BR/>Curiosis I would agree with you that it is reasonable to doubt God without proof, but I also believe it is reasonable to believe in God exists without physical proof that all can see. I think I can be an educated, skeptical, reasoning, thinking, and funny believer. If that's just me, I'm ok with that.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50493177150773013622007-05-12T00:55:00.000-04:002007-05-12T00:55:00.000-04:00Gummby,Yours is an example of skepticism without r...Gummby,<BR/><BR/>Yours is an example of skepticism without reason.<BR/><BR/>You, yourself, have experience writing posts. You no doubt know others personally who have made posts on a website. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that someone like myself is capable of making the previous post.<BR/><BR/>My making a post is within your own experience and doesn't require you to accept anything extraordinary.<BR/><BR/>If you said that you walked to the end of the street today, I would most likely accept that as truth. But if you said that you flapped your arms and flew to the end of the street, I would reasonably be skeptical.<BR/><BR/>The existence of god is an extraordinary claim outside of our regular experience. Therefore, it is reasonable to doubt until sufficient credible evidence has been offerred.Curiosishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14499563937438812742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49149591881075532942007-05-11T22:58:00.000-04:002007-05-11T22:58:00.000-04:00Ok. So it's time for me to stop being gullible and...Ok. So it's time for me to stop being gullible and start being skeptical. I'll try to do this by putting curiosis' principles into practice. On his post. <BR/><BR/>curiosis, prove to me that you wrote that post.Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76176738827258146572007-05-11T16:24:00.000-04:002007-05-11T16:24:00.000-04:00A christian's belief in god is not a personal opin...A christian's belief in god is not a personal opinion, but an attempt to describe the reality that we all share.<BR/><BR/>No one would argue with me if I said that I think red is the best color. But everyone should be skeptical if I say that I had lunch with Bigfoot today.<BR/><BR/>Everyone here, including the christians, would want some proof that Bigfoot exists before they would believe me. If I showed you a partially eaten turkey leg, and said, "See, here's proof. He munched on this," you would say that this only proves that someone ate something, but not that Bigfoot exists.<BR/><BR/>As an athiest, I require some evidence of god's existence. This is isn't hard-heartedness anymore than your disbelief about my lunch with Bigfoot is.<BR/><BR/>However, if you just accepted my word that Bigfoot is real, that would be intellectual dishonesty. I've offered no credible evidence. You have no good reason to believe.<BR/><BR/>Remember, the opposite of skeptical is gullible.Curiosishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14499563937438812742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77037888016266005212007-05-10T19:24:00.000-04:002007-05-10T19:24:00.000-04:00Anonymous the latest (6:01):If you read our introd...Anonymous the latest (6:01):<BR/>If you read our introductions, or even the header to the blog, you'd see that most of the people here -- I'm an exception -- were in fact ministers whose job was to preach Christianity. To better do their job, they researched their topic -- mostly expecting, I'm sure, that they would better grasp the truth of Christianity. Instead, they discovered its falsity. But they did not study in atheistic Universities, as far as I know.<BR/><BR/>In my case -- and you will see a slightly different angle in my posts, I was an atheist before I reached college, but the only course I took on the Bible was taught by the Chaplain of the University -- and this was over 40 years ago. I am an 'auto-didact' who has always been interested in religion as a <B>human</B> activity, and have spent much time researching and reading about it. But in most of my posts, you will see that I tend to turn Christians' arguements against themselves, or use the errors in the Bible to make my points.<BR/><BR/>I also resent the statement that we 'belittle' others. Someone who comes here knows the purpose of our site. We do challenge them, yes, but if you look at the various threads, you'll see we try and be respectful to most of the people who come here -- if for no other reason (and there ARE several) than we can not get someone to hear us out if we attack them. (Of course, I cannot speak for everyone, and certainly I can lose my temper at times.)<BR/><BR/>I think if you actually read what we have written, not just one thread, but look at the archives, you'd see where we get our information from. I know I try, in general, to source my own comments, especially when I am referring to the Bible itself.)Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20858013385576682192007-05-10T18:30:00.000-04:002007-05-10T18:30:00.000-04:00Anonymous, glad to know you heard my interview, an...Anonymous, glad to know you heard my interview, and thanks for visiting. For me, <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/11/christian-scholarship-led-me-to-reject.html" REL="nofollow">Christian scholarship </A>lead me away from Christianity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37277586928999939922007-05-10T18:01:00.000-04:002007-05-10T18:01:00.000-04:00I am very sad right now. I heard your broadcast o...I am very sad right now. I heard your broadcast on WORD fm, thought I would look at your web site, and am very disappointed! I am a Christian and I do use my mind and the reason I was given to determine my beliefs and my actions. I do not believe that Athiests are all heardharted. I do believe that they do not share my beliefs. (I have my own reasons for believing in God that really do not apply to the topic here.) As a reasoning individual with a logical thought process, I don't think criticism, judgement and belittling of others is the best way to make a point. If you do not believe in God, so be it. If you truly believe that Christians are so very "un-intellectual" why do you try so very hard to convince everyone that you are "right" and we are "wrong"? <BR/><BR/>I also wanted to ask this question: There seems to be a theme here of Christians not thinking for themselves because we defer to the Bible for guidance. Where do Athiests get there information to "debunk Christianity"? I don't mean this to sound rude, but I don't truly believe that you all just got up one morning and decided to figure the whole world out all by yourselves. So who are your sources? Who are you trusting? Your college professors, other people whose thoughts and insights agree with yours? And why are you more thoughtful and reasoning for looking to these sources?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43031925600059249352007-05-10T15:48:00.000-04:002007-05-10T15:48:00.000-04:00What are you talking about Prup?I tried to throw i...What are you talking about Prup?<BR/>I tried to throw in some humor with Alvin's definition of a fundumentalist.<BR/><BR/>I thought it was funny anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52364798117167682172007-05-10T11:40:00.000-04:002007-05-10T11:40:00.000-04:00I will be commenting shortly -- a warm-up before I...I will be commenting shortly -- a warm-up before I <I>finally</I> get around to drafting Part II B, which hopefully will be up tomorrow. But first, since a number of theologians and theological blogs have been mentioned here, I'd like to make a surprising recommendation to people on 'both sides' here, a blog by an evangelical Christian and doctoral student -- under Max Turner -- at Tubingen. It is Chris Tilling's CHRISENDOM<BR/>http://www.christilling.de/blog/ctblog.html<BR/><BR/>For those on 'my side' it's worth reading to see -- as contrasted to some of the commenters here -- the best the other side has to offer. And with frequent guests such as Richard Bauckham, the blog qualifies. This is also why I continue to try and convince Chris to make time in his absurdly busy schedule to comment here.<BR/><BR/>For those on the 'believer side' it's worth checking out to see how some of their 'pet notions' are treated. (For example, in a recent -- admittedly humorous -- poll on the FAITH AND THEOLOGY blog for the 'worst theological invention of all time' the winner was Biblical inerrancy -- actually tied with 'Christendom,' but as I pointed out to Chris, that's because a number of the voters were poor spellers. And the rapture came in a close second.)<BR/><BR/>The third reason for all of you to read it is that Chris is also one of the funnier bloggers around and while many of his posts are very serious, he tries 'as best as I can to squeeze in a decent amount of inappropriate baloney on the way.' (His constant running mock-battle with Dr. Jim West is particularly worth noting.) Since our own Christians seem to be particularly humorless, the contrast is refreshing.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53697280112216111032007-05-10T09:22:00.000-04:002007-05-10T09:22:00.000-04:00Prup,Thanks.ES,Sure. For eg:- when my Mom calls up...Prup,<BR/>Thanks.<BR/><BR/>ES,<BR/><BR/>Sure. For eg:- when my Mom calls up to say that dinner is ready, I would just get to the table without any logic/reason. But when someone tells me the earth is oval in shape, I would look for proof. <BR/><BR/>Let me expand of what Grummby said: <BR/><BR/>I might take my doctor's word when he tells me smoking is injurious to health. The only underlying logic is that I trust him as a qualified practitioner and that, at that moment, he has more knowledge on the matter than me. When one of you quote from Bible, I hardly re-check if the verse is right as I trust you on that. <BR/><BR/>But claims of anything supernatural is different. That is almost similar to philosophical claims. When I hear a First Cause Argument or an Existentialist claim, I would rather gather as much information as possible, debate within myself with my set of logic and reasoning and come to a conclusion. I might not even come to a conclusion. I might just go on searching about it or just abandon it realising it isn't worth my time.<BR/><BR/>We all might agree that excessive smoking is injurious to health. Or that we need to eat & drink to sustain. For that matter I won't even refute when you point out any personal miracle; though my reasoning woukd still say it is mere psychological. <BR/><BR/>Problem with a god hypothesis is that this can only be proven at a personal level. It can never be disproven at a personal level. I can, not in a million years, completely understand what exactly are you going thru. But when it comes to a universal value, atleast so far, no one could prove the existence of a god unambigously; by no chance a god defined by any of the established religions.<BR/> <BR/>While you confine the whole universe to one book, we are so excited with the abundant knowledge outside it. While you literally interpret it and choose as you book of life, we choose to learn and live. We are open to scientific/philosophical adaptation. We are not haunted by any dogma. We live here fully, without waiting for any reward after death.<BR/><BR/>NinaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10679144769286102902007-05-10T08:21:00.000-04:002007-05-10T08:21:00.000-04:00ES: You pose an interesting question. My answer wo...ES: You pose an interesting question. My answer would be yeah, I can think of other areas. <BR/><BR/>If it was an area where a) someone else is better informed than I am, and b) I trusted that person, I would. <BR/><BR/>I would also argue that there is a difference between abandoning reason and logic and accepting that reason and logic won't ultimately answer the question you are asking.Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70429449300978542752007-05-10T08:04:00.000-04:002007-05-10T08:04:00.000-04:00"Do the Atheists believe there is a life or anothe..."Do the Atheists believe there is a life or another life after death ?"<BR/><BR/>We believe in life before death.elwedriddschehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04618405641828051472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14256587986545044872007-05-10T07:48:00.000-04:002007-05-10T07:48:00.000-04:00Atheism is simply the nonbelief in dieties. There...Atheism is simply the nonbelief in dieties. There can be atheists who do believe in the supernatural and in an afterlife or in reincarnation (some Buddhists for example).<BR/><BR/>But most of the atheists here are nonbelievers in the supernatural. Their atheism is just a subset of their more general view that there is no reasonable basis for belief in supernatural entities or forces.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43580653427761400472007-05-10T05:25:00.000-04:002007-05-10T05:25:00.000-04:00Do the Atheists believe there is a life or another...Do the Atheists believe there is a life or another life after death ?<BR/>HenryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14187032386335437032007-05-10T01:34:00.000-04:002007-05-10T01:34:00.000-04:00Matt,Is there any other topic on earth on which yo...Matt,<BR/>Is there any other topic on earth on which you would accept someone's word that you should not apply reason and logic? Just "trust me on this"?<BR/><BR/>Doesn't that sound kind of like a scam to you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80933537476772914462007-05-10T01:06:00.000-04:002007-05-10T01:06:00.000-04:00Fascinating conversation. I'm always challenged by...Fascinating conversation. I'm always challenged by what I read here. <BR/><BR/>Particularly interesting are the mention of Geisler and Craig, both of whom I would consider, vs. others not mentioned who would be presuppositionalists. <BR/><BR/>I've been wrestling with how exactly to word this question I have. <BR/><BR/>Let me try it this way. I'm a presuppositionalist. I accept the Bible's claim that men are sinners, and that their nature is such that no part of them remains unaffected by that sin (including the ability to reason properly). As a result, it will take something other than pure reason for them to "get to God," so to speak. <BR/><BR/>If you can indulge me in a bit of "willing suspension of disbelief" (literally) for just a moment, let me ask this: Let's assume for a moment that what I just stated above about man's ability to reason is true. Where does that leave you? Or is that notion something that atheists just cannot (would not) accept? <BR/><BR/>Thanks. <BR/><BR/>MattMatt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63664401166079563712007-05-10T01:05:00.000-04:002007-05-10T01:05:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42975862208642287462007-05-10T00:16:00.000-04:002007-05-10T00:16:00.000-04:00as livingdust said "modern sciences cannot solve t...<I>as livingdust said "modern sciences cannot solve the underlying problem - we're dying. Modern science, no matter how hard it works will never stave off the fate of every human being - death.</I><BR/><BR/>Death isn't a "problem", it is a fact of life. Yes, science can help us prolong life a little bit more and it can certainly make the quality of what life we have better. But I don't know that it will ever be able to overcome death or that it should. Regardless, death isn't something that most atheists worry about. We accept it for what it is. It seems that the religious among us are usually the ones preoccupied with death. Sort of a death cult if you will.Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11338993634025153018noreply@blogger.com