tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post7528874745648778558..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Loftus vs Wood Debate: My Opening StatementUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91582823748644644932010-03-15T12:52:25.348-04:002010-03-15T12:52:25.348-04:00From the, um, site called "Debunking Atheists...From the, um, site called "Debunking Atheists" (no really) this little discussion about the debate : <br /><br />https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7771612431511732960&postID=7121219313653095149Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11002628037154288374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40619483241495537212010-03-15T10:35:11.509-04:002010-03-15T10:35:11.509-04:00I think it's great, John. I like the CEO part...I think it's great, John. I like the CEO part. I like how you pointed out that Christians don't expect much from their God.<br /><br />Calling them brainwashed-probably not a good idea. How can you like someone who thinks you are a brain-washed idiot? <br /><br />I love the Outsider test. It's eye-opening to realize that there are many very smart people in this world, and that the Christians COULD have it wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81414150098421555302010-03-15T08:12:13.132-04:002010-03-15T08:12:13.132-04:00Thanks for your comments on my 20 minute opening. ...Thanks for your comments on my 20 minute opening. I think the debate went well, although I can't say for sure until I watch it later. It was recorded and will probably be put on YouTube sometime in the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66783536184818043872010-03-15T07:45:58.330-04:002010-03-15T07:45:58.330-04:00I think the above is a great opener, and I'd l...I think the above is a great opener, and I'd like to mention two points that I think you might want to guard against in future debates.<br /><br />1) You speak of negative evidence, but your audience might not be familiar with that phrase or its usage. It is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false. But, it has another side. If I look in all the likely places for God but don't find him, and if it's reasonable to think that God would be there for the finding, then couldn't one argue that God probably isn't there? I think Vic Stenger and others have refuted the whole "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" thing elsewhere.<br /><br />2) You say one cannot be 100% sure of anything. And I can see the Christian smugly retorting "Ha! Can you be 100% sure of that statement you just made?" I imagine you'd have to be ready for that.<br /><br />Thank you for the great post. I look forward to hearing future debates.BJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08566871921754668721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83749313927576408832010-03-15T02:49:38.819-04:002010-03-15T02:49:38.819-04:00Soul Crushed wrote: Most Christians I know aren...Soul Crushed wrote: <b>Most Christians I know aren't anywhere near having the hostility or suspicion towards science and reason that John presents. And I certainly don't fit under the strawmans in his statement.</b><br /><br />Soul, <br /><br />I think what John is referring to is the boundary which Christians, and supernaturalists in general, claim exists between nature and the supernatural. <br /><br />For example, solipsists claim that we simply cannot know if anything really exists beyond our own consciousness. It might be that the earth is surrounded in a giant and elaborate planetarium which only simulates a vast universe around us, including returning images with light that is red-shifted to simulate vast distances, captures and returns space ships with precisely the right amount of fuel missing, manufactured telemetry data and astronauts with altered memories, etc. <br /><br />Surely, each of these positions are logically possible, but why should we think the boundary falls here, rather then there?<br /><br />Solipsists claims this boundary falls at the brain, self or or soul. Giant Planetarium theorists claim this boundary falls at some point not far beyond the earth's orbit. Theists (among other supernaturalists) claim this boundary exists with the supposed creation of nature though the existence of some contra-natural realm - the exact location of which varies depending on the particular theology they subscribe to. <br /><br />Christian fundamentalists would likely claim the development of human beings falls outside this boundary. Common decent would be equivalent to an external reality to the solipsist or the planet Mars to a Giant Planetarium theorist. <br /><br />However, in the case of more liberal Christians, the boundary doesn't disappear - it's just pushed out further to meet their particular theology. For you, the belief that human beings have a non-material soul likely falls outside this boundary, despite our ability to detect decisions before we're consciously aware of them, the impact of brain trauma and diseases such as Alzheimer's. etc. <br /><br />My personal view is, if God did exist he'd be part of nature we haven't discovered yet. <br /><br />But it's likely you'd have none of this as some aspects of God must remain mysterious and beyond our understanding. It's not merely that we lack the capacity - there are simply some things we're not meant to know or grasp and attempting to do so somehow degrades them or belittles them. As such, you claim these things exist beyond the boundary you personally define.<br /><br />In other words, just because your boundary extends farther than other Christians doesn't mean you're not 'superstitious' of the scientific method.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90105490840361764642010-03-15T01:48:01.194-04:002010-03-15T01:48:01.194-04:00Brad wrote,
"And so you do have a statistica...Brad wrote,<br /><br />"And so you do have a statistically valid sample that backs your mere opinion that Christians think this or that about science or believe or don't believe such and such?"<br /><br />Great word, "mere." Just the right touch of condescention, considering the sarcasim I've directed toward you any way. To answer you question, I never made any claims about what Christians think. I was actually asking you that question, but made a punctuation error by ending it with a period insead of a question mark. <br /><br />I really can't believe you missed my point, but I'll write it differently. You were trying to claim that John's arguments were invalid becuase they didn't apply to your brand of Christianity or to Christians you know. My point was that who cares if your brand of crazy, along with the Christians you know, is different. How many millions of Christians do you think John is accurately depicting?<br /><br />Cheers again,<br />TobyThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3899325500591736532010-03-15T01:34:32.793-04:002010-03-15T01:34:32.793-04:00You have to love people like Brad - even though th...You have to love people like Brad - even though their type of apologetics is becoming quite the rage all over the internet. <br /><br />They get something like John's statement to deal with, and the response is a lot of head-shaking, tongue-clucking, knowing smiles (that wonderful Christian brand, the one that says "you are an ignorant sinner, I know it all because Jesus told me so, but I will pray for you") - some promises of devastating critiques to follow, and that is that. <br /><br />Doesn't do much for me, but hey, millions of believers can't be wrong, now can they. Oh wait - that would make Islam "true". And Buddhism. And Hinduism. And Mormonism. And ...Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11002628037154288374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31976740268050439792010-03-15T01:34:15.898-04:002010-03-15T01:34:15.898-04:00Hi Brad,
Great! I look forward to your arguments....Hi Brad,<br /><br />Great! I look forward to your arguments. Here is how you can best convince me. Answer this question, "What can your God do that can be scientifically tested whereby proving your specific God exists?" <br /><br />I really shouldn't be that picky. If you can show any god or gods to exist, I'll be impressed. I'll even direct you to James Randi so you can collect his million dollar prise.<br /><br />Jack Nickolson said to Adam Sandler in Anger Mangement, "Sarcasim is anger's ugly cousing." Good movie. <br /><br />I tip my beer back to you with a "Cheers!"<br />TobyThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68128406517217553782010-03-15T01:29:13.311-04:002010-03-15T01:29:13.311-04:00This is good, solid, well-expounded stuff, John. G...This is good, solid, well-expounded stuff, John. Given the format of these debates I believe that this is the way to win (for whatever that means) - get the foot in the door and keep it there, relentlessly. <br /><br />And outside the context of a debate, this opening statement can really be printed and stuck on the world's fridge door - it says it all. <br /><br />Looking forward to the whole debate.Lazarushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11002628037154288374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31404379066051252232010-03-15T00:05:08.088-04:002010-03-15T00:05:08.088-04:00Hi Toby,
"Even if you know 2000 Christian we...Hi Toby,<br /><br />"Even if you know 2000 Christian well, how many of them fully support the science of evolution, a well-backed and accpeted thoery by 99%+ of PhD level scientists in related fields of study."<br /><br />And so you do have a statistically valid sample that backs your mere opinion that Christians think this or that about science or believe or don't believe such and such? And if you don't, please see my previous post. Cheers.<br /><br />Brad (Soul Crushed)Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03184505091838154270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67943914232200715272010-03-15T00:00:21.607-04:002010-03-15T00:00:21.607-04:00Hi Toby,
"I guess you attempted to have subs...Hi Toby,<br /><br />"I guess you attempted to have substance 'with, ;Most of the Christians I know.'"<br /><br />You mean like..."Well, I used to be a a super-duper evangelical, fundamentalist Christian but then I read XYZ with an "open mind" and.... "<br /><br />I'm keeping my power dry here, Toby. No need to spend an hour refuting John's opening remarks with a couple thousand word point-by-point response that will be skimmed by a bunch of guys rah-rahing John.<br /><br />But Perhaps I'll put something up on the blog later this week, and should some one here actually care what I have to say. then maybe we'll have a meaningful conversation about it. But until then, I'll just trade my experiences (which I agree are no proof at all) with yours.<br /><br />Brad (Soul Crushed)Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03184505091838154270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7139687551733683302010-03-14T22:38:56.011-04:002010-03-14T22:38:56.011-04:00Correction:
"Meaning OR morality" above....Correction:<br />"Meaning OR morality" above.<br /><br />Candidate for an assault on the moral soundness of basic Christian doctrine:<br />http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2010/03/may-innocent-be-punished-in-place-of.html<br /><br />How could Christ die (be punished) for our sin?Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02594317489026507409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23928916627645750232010-03-14T22:01:56.003-04:002010-03-14T22:01:56.003-04:00As politely suggested above, point 5 makes the mis...As politely suggested above, point 5 makes the mistake of treating the Bible as if it wasn’t 66 quite diverse books, only some of which are open to the criticisms directed at “it.”<br /><br />Point 1 will be dismissed by 90% of your listeners, who will find each of your supposed characterizations of God implausible and inconsistent with the understanding and experience of the world.<br /><br />Scientific explanations are genuinely explanatory. “God did it” is no explanation at all. But his isn’t an easy point to make clear, and in dragging on other gods, you seem to concede that one or the other of them might provide a genuine explanation. To make the point--the absence of explanatory power in theistic explanations, the power of scientific explanations--would require ten times more exposition than is provided here.<br /><br />Listeners won’t begin to accept your characterization of their faith.<br />t causes believers to pray rather than take their children to the doctor. I TOOK THEM THERE A WEEK AGO.<br />It causes believers to be more trusting of other people because they trust in God. <br />NOT ME. I TRUST GEORGE JUST FINE, AND HE’S A CATHOLIC.<br />It causes believers to take completely unjustified financial risks. <br />I INVEST ONLY IN BONDS.<br />It causes believers to accept social injustice because of a hope for heaven. <br />I WORK FOR A CHARITY.<br />It causes believers to support abstinence only sex education programs. <br />YOU’RE PUSHING PROMISCUITY.<br />It causes believers to prohibit brain stem research. <br />YOU’RE ONE OF THOE BABY KLLERS.<br />It causes believers to unquestionably support Israel which in turn provokes Muslim aggression. YOU WEREN’T KEEPING UP WITH NEWS AT CHRISTMAS TIME?<br />It causes believers to sell everything and wait on a hill top for Jesus to return.<br />THAT’S A ZANY FEW, NOT ME, AND NOT ANY OF US.<br /><br />I break off my point by point here. <br /><br />My advice:<br />Make three points, elaborately and clearly.<br />One, surely, an elaboration of your eighth, the problem of evil--as you seem to agree, maybe best natural evil, <br />Then some particular Christian belief that’s conceptually, empirically, normatively problematic--maybe atonement.<br />Maybe an anticipatory cutting off of his strong points, fine tuning and who started it all.<br />Maybe something about meaning of morality.<br />But for sure, much much less than throw out. And above all much less that’s bound to be dismissed as false or misattributed by a majority of the listeners. You have to find points of agreement to work out from, instead it’s as if you’re raising as many points of disagreement as you can.<br /><br />IJameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02594317489026507409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51663362191438774002010-03-14T21:38:05.483-04:002010-03-14T21:38:05.483-04:00John, how was the debate? Was there a clear winner...John, how was the debate? Was there a clear winner? Anyone hear/watch the debate? Care to give us a report on how it was? Will the debate be posted?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57915551915656644052010-03-14T21:35:56.320-04:002010-03-14T21:35:56.320-04:00Soul Crushed,
So you accept the common descent of...Soul Crushed,<br /><br />So you accept the common descent of man? Even if you do, do you really think that most Christians do?Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78910121261550154222010-03-14T21:08:51.468-04:002010-03-14T21:08:51.468-04:00HA! I should spell check...
convience should be ...HA! I should spell check...<br /><br />convience should be convenience.Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75818334596080685842010-03-14T21:06:58.872-04:002010-03-14T21:06:58.872-04:00Soul,
I guess you attempted to have substance wit...Soul,<br /><br />I guess you attempted to have substance with, "Most of the Christians I know." The reason that this likely meaningless is because its a convience sample that you haven't really sampled. Even if you know 2000 Christian well, how many of them fully support the science of evolution, a well-backed and accpeted thoery by 99%+ of PhD level scientists in related fields of study. I would guess that you haven't a clue as to how many of them reasonably understand or support the theory of evolution. Even if you had sampled all 2000 of them, it is a convience sample of your cohorts. Compared to the 2 billion world-wide adherents, it represents .0000001% of them. <br /><br />TobyThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6824198875856974762010-03-14T20:58:13.224-04:002010-03-14T20:58:13.224-04:00John,
I loved this opener. I look forward to the...John,<br /><br />I loved this opener. I look forward to the whole debate! <br /><br />Nice work... really!Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83168825110689693122010-03-14T20:55:56.296-04:002010-03-14T20:55:56.296-04:00Soul,
How compelling! You didn't actually sa...Soul,<br /><br />How compelling! You didn't actually say anything of substance to backup your statements, but you have me convinced! <br /><br />I find that ancient wise kings words applicable to your posts as well, "Everything is meaningless."<br /><br />Nice work.Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09484481246432964371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59920726736187372912010-03-14T20:13:05.273-04:002010-03-14T20:13:05.273-04:00Raul,
Most Christians I know aren't anywhere ...Raul,<br /><br />Most Christians I know aren't anywhere near having the hostility or suspicion towards science and reason that John presents. And I certainly don't fit under the strawmans in his statement.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03184505091838154270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71449956223040352622010-03-14T19:48:58.344-04:002010-03-14T19:48:58.344-04:00John, I had never heard the "double-standard&...John, I had never heard the "double-standard" argument, before. Compelling. Are you able, or were you intending, to post any of Mr. Woods' comments or rebuttal? From the looks of the "Answers" web page, I don't expect much in the way of "fair-and-balanced".<br />--JustinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46478759034049780352010-03-14T19:09:47.430-04:002010-03-14T19:09:47.430-04:00Yup,the contrargument "You're not arguing...Yup,the contrargument "You're not arguing against true christianity" isn't new either.<br /> Still,Soul,could you give a few examples of what you call "mischaracterizations"?Raulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07044923386251931322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27049807184687075742010-03-14T19:00:22.433-04:002010-03-14T19:00:22.433-04:00In the words of an ancient wise king: "there ...In the words of an ancient wise king: "there nothing new under sun" here. John's arguments are pretty standard fare for most atheist apologists, most of which resorts to mischaracterizations as to what Christians actually argue and believe. That said, I do appreciate John's sincerity.Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03184505091838154270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52014618174203448412010-03-14T17:41:49.130-04:002010-03-14T17:41:49.130-04:00When you refer to "brain stem research,"...When you refer to "brain stem research," was that a typo for "stem cell research," or is there another controversy I'm unaware of?AdamKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03358326607421570423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29634745828679998442010-03-14T16:44:19.071-04:002010-03-14T16:44:19.071-04:00Great stuff!
About the fifth point, faith in the ...Great stuff!<br /><br />About the fifth point, faith in the Bible:<br /><br />- There is no such thing as "The Bible". No "Bible" defines itself. So if a con artist claims to have decoded gold plates from God and must be included as part of a "Bible", Christians have no logical refutation.<br /><br />- The concept of a "Bible" is an afterthought in the evolution of the Christian sects. In fact, it was 350 years after the relevant events supposedly took place that the concept was finally solidified. The founders of most Christianities - Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, etc - had no clue about such a concept. If they did, they would have written a "Bible" with some irrefutable definition. Or God/Jesus could have "materialized" a Bible like the fish and loaves that fed 5000. That certainly would have been a more meaningful miracle.<br /><br />For protestants, the concept of a "Bible" is even more troubling. They must believe that God decided to keep the "real" version hidden for 15 centuries. And when Martin Luther attempted to put together the first protestant Bible, he could not decide if "Revelations" belonged.jimvjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00248531411914608742noreply@blogger.com