tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post8069007273426835588..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: What Would Convince Me Christianity is True?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61407467568723340232013-02-06T21:02:58.163-05:002013-02-06T21:02:58.163-05:00The more atheists talk the more ignorant they appe...The more atheists talk the more ignorant they appear in their opinions. Half of the things in this; are explained in the bible, are not as he says in the bible, or he is taking it out of context. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15468181406004143922010-06-09T08:17:13.509-04:002010-06-09T08:17:13.509-04:00One correction, if I may, regarding, "placed ...One correction, if I may, regarding, "placed planets haphazardly around the sun, some revolving counter-clockwise and in haphazard orbits."<br /><br />You meant rotating, not revolving. All planets in the solar system revolve in the same direction. Also, as viewed from "the north pole," most of the planets rotate counter-clockwise; two exceptions:<br /><br />Here:<br /><br />The rotation period of Venus cannot be decided through telescopic observations of its surface markings because its featureless thick atmosphere makes this impossible. In the 1960's, radar pulses were bounced off of Venus while at its closest distance to the Earth, and it was discovered that its rotation period, its day, was 243.09 +/- 0.18 earth days long, but it rotated on its axis in a backwards or retrograde sense from the other planets. If you were to look down at the plane of the solar system from its 'north pole' you would see the planets orbiting the Sun counter clockwise, and rotating on their axis counterclockwise. Except for Venus. Venus would be rotating clockwise as it orbited the Sun counterclockwise. Venus is not alone. The axis of Uranus is inclined so far towards the plane of the solar system that it almost rolls on its side as it orbits the Sun.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23580578520817543092010-06-07T04:54:31.489-04:002010-06-07T04:54:31.489-04:00No rational person who ever read the bible from co...No rational person who ever read the bible from cover to cover would ever believe in Christianity. (or Judaism or Islam for that matter) It is a nonsensical patchwork of fiction. <br /><br />The only way such idiocy would get published today is if the author had the dubious cachet of Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. (Well need I say more?)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16773724930527217746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43410530326628637012010-06-06T13:24:26.630-04:002010-06-06T13:24:26.630-04:00I would summarize my requirements, as a rational a...I would summarize my requirements, as a rational atheist, as follows:<br /><br />1) On those points where evidence currently refutes Christian claims, further evidence would need to be provided to overwhelmingly demonstrate the invalidity of the existing evidence.<br /><br />2) Sufficient evidence would then need to be provided that supports all aspects of the Christian hypothesis.<br /><br />3) The internal inconsistencies and logical holes would somehow need to be resolved.<br /><br />I do not see a possibility for this happening.<br /><br />"Ah hah!" cry the religious, "You're admitting your mind is closed!"<br /><br />Not at all. It's simply that the amount of evidence that exists AGAINST the Christian hypothesis is SO overwhelming that it's difficult to conceptualize the counter-evidence that would invalidate it all. Furthermore, it is then difficult to conceive why a religion that claims to be based on faith and mystery and supernatural beings would desire to, or how it could, provide solid evidence that its claims are all true. And finally, what would resolve the silliness and logical contradictions and holes in the theology and scripture, which alone are overwhelming and refute the reality of the claims? A contradiction is a contradiction, and no amount of evidence is likely to change that at all.<br /><br />I suppose one might pare back the definition of "Christianity" until you're just proving there's some guy called Jesus who could do magic tricks, but even then is this guy likely to appear today for scientific study, and would that really still be Christianity?<br /><br />I would be far more likely to be convinced of something without internal contradictions that it would be easy to provide evidence for, such as aliens or ghosts, yet I doubt that will happen any time soon.<br /><br />At the end of a day, even were there, by some miracle (pun intended) sufficient evidence and reason that suggested Christianity was true, and I therefore accepted the hypothesis, I would still have to keep an open mind for the possibility of further evidence that again proved it was false. That's what being rational, skeptical, and scientific means.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02317643475959400591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62681505941222134342010-06-06T12:44:52.293-04:002010-06-06T12:44:52.293-04:00I'm late to this party, I'm afraid.
John, ...I'm late to this party, I'm afraid.<br />John, I agree that even 1/3 of the evidence you presented would make for some good proof.<br />However, even though I could believe in a god, I could not follow him. He is far too cruel and inhumane to all of his creations as things stand right now.<br />Listening to his own explanation of why he did the things he did/does would be much like listening to a chronic abuser make excuses for his behavior.<br />"Yeah, I hit her because she made me really angry."<br />Even with evidence, I could believe. But that level of malevolent behavior by a divine being who is supposed to know better? I cannot forgive.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10212354720443056025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90424813452387210352010-06-03T17:52:41.282-04:002010-06-03T17:52:41.282-04:00What I think gets lost in this "Which religio...What I think gets lost in this "Which religion, if any, is True" or "Which religion is THE ONE" is that there is contained, in all the great world religions including Christianity, knowledge of human life. They all tell stories about the human condition, which includes all kinds of ways of behaving. At their best, they help people understand how to live in society and get along with other people.<br /><br />Sure, they might be fairy tales, but fairy tales serve a purpose. Reading the story, we know the fox and the stork could not in real life talk to each other in English, but the story tells us something about some aspect of ourselves and helps us understand ourselves better.<br /><br />I don't feel like I have to believe everything in the Bible as having actually happened as described. The Old Testament was written by people who were trying to make sense of their world (just as we do today) but they had fewer technological/scientific resources and they had a very different worldview than modern people. This must be taken into account. The formation of the world in Genesis is a perfect example. We have been into space and we know that the stars are not just on a giant dome around our planet. Yet, if we read the story of Adam and Eve as an allegory talking about how humans took the fruit of the tree of knowledge and then their relationships fell apart. Their relationships with the earth, with each other and with god. We know that knowledge gives humans great power and that they can use that power to help or to harm. The idea is that God can use the knowledge to turn what is harmful into what is helpful, but humans have the tendancy to take what is helpful and use it for harm. (For example, humans used splitting of the atom to make terribly destructive weapons, but that same knowledge can be used to generate electricity.) Humanity should strive to be more Godlike in that it seeks to help and heal.<br /><br />Sure, the Bible contains a lot of awful stuff, but that doesn't have to stop people from finding what is beneficial in Christianity. It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing-with-us-or-against-us sort of situation.<br /><br />My philosophy is: Try what the religion suggests that you do. If it brings good fruit, then keep doing it. If that behavior brings bad fruit, then reevaluate that belief/behavior.<br /><br />I firmly believe in "Love your Neighbor" because I have seen it work. We have evidence of nonviolent protests and loving actions towards enemies as helping to make change or at the very least preventing escalation of conflict (Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington, the Dahali Lama). This message is found in the Bible, which describes Love as patience, humble, kindness, etc.<br /><br />Why do people have to fight over this? No one can prove God exists and no one can prove God doesn't exist. In the end one is choosing their beliefs, whatever they are. Ultimately, though, what matters are our actions and not our beliefs, because what matter is it that you believe in the "true faith" but you commit horrible crimes against humanity? <br /><br />The most spiritual people I have known have also been the most radiant, peaceful and tolerant people. I never found them quibbling over doctrine, but rather saw them acting out their faith and love in being a wonderful human being.<br /><br />Then again, I'm a pragmatist, and arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin seems absolutely pointless. I agree with the message expressed here: http://truthseekersunite.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/hello-world/Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04208073914077855638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68898992577532463192010-06-03T17:46:19.002-04:002010-06-03T17:46:19.002-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04208073914077855638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46389627101825070552009-10-09T04:08:56.044-04:002009-10-09T04:08:56.044-04:00This article makes me pray the more for you in the...This article makes me pray the more for you in the western world. <br />Read the link below and wake up. I have witnessed an evil event, when Jesus was called in to save a possessed man. And the evil spirits fled. Also, watch haunted on national geographic. Why is God and Jesus called in ? You people only believe in things you see. Come to Africa and witness evil spirits. You will wake up. Trust me, Jesus is true and God exists. The bible says it all. Wake up or be doomed. No wonder we now have more natural disasters. <br /><br />God bless you. <br /><br />http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14842438381145083091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78590429767732687722008-06-18T07:16:00.000-04:002008-06-18T07:16:00.000-04:00Thanks david. It looks like you're having some fun...Thanks david. It looks like you're having some fun. Fun is good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3780894058017294142008-06-17T23:41:00.000-04:002008-06-17T23:41:00.000-04:00This is cool, I pasted the text of this post onto ...This is cool, I pasted the text of this post onto this website's textbox, and it shows the word usage if lots of forms:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://wordle.net/gallery/John_Loftus" REL="nofollow"><BR/>http://wordle.net/gallery/John_Loftus</A><BR/><BR/>Really brings out the meaning :)davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08071763988772047093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5017256121609193972008-05-27T10:49:00.000-04:002008-05-27T10:49:00.000-04:00sorry, at the end i meant to say, "that you don't ...sorry, at the end i meant to say, <BR/><BR/>"that you <B>don't</B> simply reject it as garbage."<BR/><BR/><BR/>There are a few other errors i have noticed while looking through what i posted, sorry, i hope you can somehow decipher what i intended to say.<BR/><BR/>(another major correction is: <I>The God who made this universe <B>out</B> of nothing clearly knew man would listen to the devil, and (if you take the story literally) bite that fruit.</I>)Reformed and Thinkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01638455538965545865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16059888359111102102008-05-27T10:39:00.000-04:002008-05-27T10:39:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Reformed and Thinkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01638455538965545865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8639945585526422942008-05-27T04:18:00.000-04:002008-05-27T04:18:00.000-04:00Hey, Bill Curry, i have read your thread with grea...Hey, Bill Curry, i have read your thread with great interest. I am a Christian, and i would like to apologize for the attitude of many out there who claim to be Christians (only God knows if they truly are).<BR/><BR/>I just wanted to address the questions brought up when you said:<BR/><BR/><I>"What immediate "percept" do you have that gives you reason to think 1) Jesus was sent from God to die, 2) He was raised on the third day )3 these occurred specifically to remedy our situations with respect to sin, 4) etc? I understand that you do have a sense of creatureness but I don’t understand why your argument doesn’t equally justify Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, and Deism."</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>I have an answer for you.<BR/><BR/><BR/>To make my response more understandable i just want to share with you the heart of the Christian world-view, and its difference from the man's natural view of things.<BR/><BR/>Naturally man, being man himself, sees man as the center of reality. What mans natural mindset sees as problems are seen as problems because of how things fit or don't fit with man--with his rights and needs and expectations. <BR/><BR/>The Christian world-view starts with the assumption that God is the center of reality. All thinking, then, starts with the conviction that God has basic rights as the Creator of all things. He has goals that fit with his nature and perfect character. Then the biblical mindset moves out from this center and interprets the world, with God and his rights and goals at the center as the measure of all things.<BR/><BR/>What the Christian world-view sees as basic problems in the universe are usually not the same problems that the secular mindset sees because what makes a problem is not related to the rights and needs of man, but what fits the goals of God. <BR/><BR/>A good example of these conflicting world-views is how you claimed in your thread that God should have made the universe in such a way to give man the rational ability to trust in him. But would that be God's goal?<BR/><BR/>Christianity postulates that God created the universe in order that man might be separated from God, in order that he may, then, freely choose to accept him. The reason for this is a simple one--God wants man to be in a loving relationship with him. God could not do this if we were intellectually FORCED to believe in him, making mankind mere puppets on strings. To put is bluntly, you cannot put a gun to someone's head and make them love you. <BR/><BR/>Christianity claims that God's major goal is to have a loving relationship with his creation--namely, the most intelligent species: man. Therefore, it is my strong contention that God purposely made believing in him a choice of will, by leaving quite sufficient evidence of his existence, but not irrefutable evidence.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, when i say God left us with evidence of his existence, do not think i claim that this evidence points to the Judeo-Christian God--but it does point to a God of some sort. And the deep sense of morality that all men have, lends us to understand that this "being" is essentially good. <BR/><BR/>Now this is the problem that Jesus answers. <BR/><BR/>1) God is Good<BR/>2) Man freely does wrong<BR/>3) If God is perfectly good he will administer perfect justice--thereby punishing everyone who has ever done wrong.<BR/><BR/>Before addressing Jesus, i would like to explain that this is why Hell is not immoral at all (as many have claimed). Remember, sin is not God's will; it is a deviation of man's will away from God's will. There is not moral contradiction here. Sin is the byproduct of freewill, which is a necessary component to any loving relationship. However, because God is perfectly good, all sins must be perfectly punished in Hell. Only because of hell, a perfect equilibrium of good can be maintained. A good God cannot let a single sin go unpunished, and a good God could never exist without some kind of hell. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, don't limit God to think he messed up with man. The God who made this universe of of nothing clearly knew man would listen to the devil, and (if you take the story literally) bite that fruit. He wanted us to be separated from him. That was HIS goal. And moreover, original sin does not condemn man to hell itself. It simply has adjusted man's nature to be naturally inclined to sin--it has separated man from God. Thus, it causes all men to naturally sin, and is the root of our condemnation, but it is not the condemnation itself. <BR/><BR/>Thus, mans nature leaves us in a bad situation because all of us are destined for hell--excluding, quite possibly, young children, or mentally handicapped who are unable to reason right and wrong. However, man's separation also leaves God in a bad situation too, because due to Gods just nature, all people are destined for Hell, and unable to have a relationship with him.<BR/><BR/>This was the problem that Jesus came to fix. God made a way to maintain his justice, while still forgiving man and carrying out his goal. The bible claims that the spirit, who created the universe, manifested himself inside Mary. Yes, God still remained all around us, but also, uniquely, completely inside this one man. This man, although he was unlike God in his conscious and physical being, shared absolutely the same eternal spirit as God. Because Jesus had the spirit of God, he did not sin, and he was worth more to God than anything or anyone. Jesus then freely choose (as God foresaw he would) to bare the full wrath of his Father, and be crucified, in order that the wrath which man deserves would be placed on him. Jesus--the most loving and truthful man that ever lived--was then tortured, spit on, crucified, and sent to hell for 3 days. <BR/><BR/>Christianity teaches that if anyone accepts his sacrifice, and repents from ALL sin in their life, God will send his spirit into that believer and he will be saved.<BR/><BR/>Thus, the answer to the long question is, in short:<BR/><BR/>Christianity holds that there is something behind this universe that caused it to be. This "being" is perfectly good and perfectly loving. This being separated mankind from himself in order to allow us to freely choose him, and thus, have a loving relationship with him. Because we are separate from this being, or God, we have lost harmony with both nature and God--causing us to freely sin. Because God is perfectly good, he is forced, by nature, to punish all our sins. However, it was God's intended goal to have a relationship with us, so he sent his own Son to bare the full force of his wrath, in order that whoever accepts his sacrifice as a gift will never receive punishment, and will be able to have an eternal loving relationship with God.<BR/><BR/>I hope that helps you understand some doctrine... I know you may not believe in it, or you may disagree with it, but hopefully you understand it more clearly. <BR/><BR/>As for the evidence of Christianity over other religions. Well, that would come from the Historical foundation of the religion's revelation. Unlike Mohammid, who wrote the Qu'ran in a cave, or any non-historical religion, Christianity has vast historical appeal. <BR/><BR/>We have 13000 ancient fragments of the New Testament, which, if you do your research ECLIPSES any other ancient event by thousands. It is a newsflash from history. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, the tomb of Jesus was unmistakably empty, and his resurrection is the best answer for this. If the tomb of Jesus was not empty then the authorities who were persecuting Christians would have just exhumed the body of Christ and destroyed the religion. Furthermore... what on earth caused the early disciples to abandon everything they owned, risk persecution, and eventually die while proclaiming the gospel? What caused the rapid spread of the early Church? The valid explanation would be that he really did rise from the dead. <BR/><BR/>This is a VERY brief explanation of the historicity of the resurrection--a better article is found here: <BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html<BR/><BR/>a great video can be also found here:<BR/><BR/>http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3986644701975339116&q=william+lane+craig&ei=g8I7SJyNGpHk-AHEiZTxAw&hl=en<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, I have seen a lot of debate about science and the bible on this thread. Personally, i believe the bible is a book strictly about man's relationship to God, and how man can become reconnected to God. It is not a science or physics textbook, and it is written to people of all times, places, and ethnicities, so everyone can relate and understand it. I hope that just because the bible doesn't give an exposition on modern understandings of mathematics, geography, and science, that you simply reject it as garbage. <BR/><BR/>I hope you keep your mind open. I enjoyed reading your thoughts. <BR/><BR/>ThanksReformed and Thinkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01638455538965545865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15126974228987848202008-05-21T23:48:00.000-04:002008-05-21T23:48:00.000-04:00Mr. Loftus: If these conditions were true, you w...Mr. Loftus:<BR/> If these conditions were true, you would not be able to operate this blog. Would that be a loss? You seem to find fulfillment with what you do. <BR/> You have the privilege to question the very meaning of our existences. You can post discussions on a website that are hotly contested by some and well received by others. Your emotion is reflected in your writing, despite a predilection for rationalism. It is, moreover, the existence of warranted skepticism that provides you with your identity and your significance. <BR/> Perhaps you are correct, perhaps not. Your passion for what you do is apparent, and it is afforded by merit of your stipulated conditions not being met.<BR/> Is this reality not better than coming to the realization that you are an exhibit in a cosmological terrarium, a whim of divine fiat, an unwilling participant in a theological theme park in which nothing ever goes wrong?Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234276835550242159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18316038073526582462008-04-26T12:05:00.000-04:002008-04-26T12:05:00.000-04:00Touchstone said...At the same time, however, I've ...<I>Touchstone said...At the same time, however, I've learned to incorporate parts of my intuition -- understandings that don't break down cleanly in a reductionist way -- to good effect.<BR/><BR/>I think intuition is nothing more than the reasonable hunches or guesses that the subconscious brain makes you conscious of. You may not be able to rationally explain these conclusions precisely because they come from the subconscious parts of your brain. You are only conscious of the conclusion since the reasoning behind it takes place subliminally, and this does not equate to deriving knowledge irrationally.</I><BR/><BR/>I think the answer is even simpler than this. People talk about "female intuition," but it's not really intuition. It's reading body language and tones of voice. Even if they aren't consciously aware of having learned either, or if they haven't studied it formally, they have usually observed certain features and linked them up to certain behaviors. So if your face is getting a bit red, your eyes are shinier than usual, and you're bristling if not downright trembling--you're angry and hurt.<BR/><BR/>We do the same with other things that we credit to intuition, when it's knowledge absorbed so deeply that we don't think about the processing of it anymore. We "leap" past the step by step, and jump straight to a conclusion. Just like we don't tell ourselves when we're walking to lift right foot off the ground, extend leg forward from the hip, put foot on ground, lift left foot off ground, and etc. We just do it.<BR/><BR/>Our brains work the same way when we know something well enough not to have to think about how to do something, or choices to make. When I did letter encoding for the USPS, I was very slow at first, because I was thinking about how the coding worked, making decisions, etc. After a few weeks, I'd noticed that letter images had flown by, and I hadn't remembered a single one of them. I'd just typed away, without thinking about whether or not I was following the coding rules.<BR/><BR/>Mozart was Mozart not only because he was a genius, but also because he spent hour after hour, day after day, playing the piano, from a very young age. Music was literally encoded into his mind to the point that he didn't have to "think" too much about what would sound right. He knew.Aquariahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07578444793424041263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59391310602775295952007-06-02T17:13:00.000-04:002007-06-02T17:13:00.000-04:00(If God is God, could he not create a world that i...(If God is God, could he not create a world that is billions of years old in only six days.) <BR/><BR/>I can do it in six seconds, though definitely not as thorough as God. You will never get around this statement. It breaks through everything. Its implications on the properties time space matter and our ways of knowing things are innumerable. Booyah baby! <BR/><BR/>You will never get to know God unless you get to know God. The questions you ask need to be addressed to him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19180346994072091162007-05-29T14:32:00.000-04:002007-05-29T14:32:00.000-04:00Hi Touchstone,You wrote:I think you were the one (...Hi Touchstone,<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><EM>I think you were the one (or was it Loftus?) who disputed my suggestion that the delta here was to be found more in our input sources than our rational algorithms. When you ask where you evidence is different or wrong from mine, my immediate and sustained sense is that is very much the immanent intuitions of natural theology and moral law.</EM><BR/><BR/>I think we would agree on the algorithm. My point is that the disagreement in hypotheses definition is in a sense more fundamental than the evidence under consideration. If we don’t agree about what options are under consideration, it is very likely that we will talk past each other. The hypothesis definition in turn can help clarify what evidences are relevant to the discussion. I brought this up because I think that Biblical errors are often relevant to the issue of the resurrection, as I explained in my previous post.<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><EM>This 'evidence' is non-reasoned, immediate as a perception.</EM><BR/><BR/>I don’t have a problem with intuition as a source of knowledge. I think that often, intuition is a means of rapidly making valid inferences. It can still be valid even though we cannot articulate how we arrive at a particular conclusion. I accept that we can have moral intuitions and a sense of a moral law that provide knowledge. I don’t claim to be able to we need to explain moral knowledge. I don’t know if the source of morality is secular or not.<BR/><BR/>I am merely trying to make inferences from moral intuitions that I have. One of the intuitions I have is "It is wrong to kill infants for the crimes of their ancestors." I don’t have a real justification for this knowledge. I think that it is basic in an epistemological sense. I take that truth to be basic in the sense that 2+2= 4 is basic. The rules of arithmetic may be derivable for the Peano Postulates, but I am surer of 2+2=4 than I am of the Peano Postulates.<BR/><BR/>It is in this sense that I think Christianity specifically violates my intuition. I know some things about morality, even if I don’t know how, and that knowledge seems to conflict with the claim that Jesus was vindicated by God.<BR/><BR/>What immediate "percept" do you have that gives you reason to think 1) Jesus was sent from God to die, 2) He was raised on the third day )3 these occurred specifically to remedy our situations with respect to sin, 4) etc? I understand that you do have a sense of creatureness but I don’t understand why your argument doesn’t equally justify Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, and Deism. <BR/><BR/><EM>I think we would find nearly complete overlap as to the evidences in view. The differences, I believe, are my "built-ins", intuitions (rational or not) that factor into my overall epistemology in such a way as to strongly incline me toward the Gospel as moral meta-narrative.</EM><BR/><BR/>I expect that many of our "built-ins" coincide. I hope that we could find a common set and build inferences from there.<BR/><BR/>BillBillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07085090154615107259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23929581491997346242007-05-28T23:54:00.000-04:002007-05-28T23:54:00.000-04:00Hi Touchstone,Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Wi...Hi Touchstone,<BR/>Thanks for the thoughtful reply. <BR/>With regards to your lack of evidence for a potential DoS attack and requirement for vigilence non-the-less, that is quite understandable. <BR/><BR/>But you do know that DoS Attacks exist because you have hard evidence for them. Sometimes they hit you in an undeniable way.<BR/><BR/><B><I>But the very nature of the thesis is such that it defies the kind of examination, feedback and audit we can expect from Kelly and her Samba shares on the company network.</B></I><BR/>The god hypothesis is metaphysical and denies the kind the examination , feedback and audit much the same way ESP, and Bigfoot, and UFO's do and Sea Monsters used to. Anything of this sort is very hard to pin down. Why? One explanation could be because it doesn't exist.<BR/><BR/><B><I>But at the same time, my understanding that things in principle *might* be otherwise doesn't compel me withdraw my beliefs and retreat to some kind of solipsistic shell.</B></I><BR/>So you've decided to err on side of caution with regards to God.<BR/><BR/>At least your honest about it.<BR/><BR/>Thanks. Thats all I have to say about this but I welcome any rejoinder you may have. Looking forward to seeing you on another topic.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82266850712524310742007-05-28T18:39:00.000-04:002007-05-28T18:39:00.000-04:00Hi Lee,You said:I find your postion on God at odds...Hi Lee,<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><B>I find your postion on God at odds with your stated job in network security for the double standard you seem to be using for you conclusions about god. And in your rejection of YEC. On one hand, evidence is not necessary for a belief in god, and on the other existence of evidence plays a part in your rejection of YEC. </B><BR/><BR/>This is overimplifying, but only slightly: YECs must say that what is visible doesn't exist. I am saying that there are things that are wholly invisible, but yet exist. These are not the same, or even similar concepts. Both YEC views and my views may be false, but if so, they are not both false in the same way.<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>In reference to finding evidence of God you said<BR/>If anything, it's superfluous to God's purposes as I understand them,<BR/>Sure it is to you, you're going to heaven. The rest of the 70% of the world are going to hell, right?<BR/>Before you block ips, or bring allegations of improper use of company equipment, you have your evidence and case built as tightly as you can don't you? I don't imagine you make any assumptions, it risks job security doesn't it?<BR/></B><BR/>Yes and I understand you in pointing to my professional work as an example; I'll even help you out and say that I'm quite aggressive in stamping out what I call "voodoo", precisely for the reasons you are thinking of. It's a risk multiplier to indulge in whimsy with resources and strategies that all have serious consequences and opportunity costs associated with them.<BR/><BR/>But, if this is the analogy we're going to use (wouldn't be my first choice, but will roll with it), I would say the analogy in network security would be an "out-of-band" set of communications -- persistent communications -- that stress that a large and potent threat of a certain kind, say a colossal denial of service attack, needs to be defended against, rigorously. It's difficult to analogize something like the "sensus divinitas" here, but maybe we suppose I have the odd sticky note stuck to my windshield and computer monitor screen when I go to work in the morning saying:<BR/><BR/>"Beware the colossal DoS attack!"<BR/><BR/>Maybe related news clippings or technical footnotes to IETF specs are occasionally attached, highlighted with a yellow pen in key areas...<BR/><BR/>Anyway, in the presence of such input, I have a decision to make regarding this "out-of-band" input: is this something I reject outright, something I accept blindly, or do I do something in between those extremes?<BR/><BR/>Where it's fallen out for me is to accept that input as a hypothesis, and see where it leads. Asx it turns out, the networks I look after and the larger mesh of external networds *are* vulnerable to massive DoS attack, along the scales of what my out-of-band warnings suggest. It's not a "free" choice; in re-configuring my network resources to make "defend against the Colossal DoS" a part of our "best practices", I must necessarily diminish the fortitude and resources of the other parts of the defense/detection system. There's an opportunity cost there that makes it "right or wrong". If no such threat is practical or actual, then defending against it at the cost of other defensive positions is poor stewardship of my responsibilities.<BR/><BR/>That's the best I can do analogically off the top of my head to work with what you have here. I *don't* have such sticky notes on my windhsield, of course, and this it's a non-issue in practice. But what's at issue here is the credibility of "out-of-band" input. <BR/><BR/><B>Also it seems your general attitude is that since it doesn't matter to you, we should not try to think of ways of getting evidence for god. That's not a very truth seeking principle is it?</B><BR/><BR/>No, and I would disavow such an attitude. If we can build an epistemic case for such an investigation -- did God configure the cosmological parameters? for example -- then I'm all for vigorous investigation, and going wherever the evidence leads. <BR/><BR/>My understanding is that God does not seek to be found through reductionist epistemological processes, useful and important as they are for our everyday lives. But even so, I freely allow that it's possible (in principle at least) that there is some structured, reliable heuristic that may providing a validaiton or a falsification of the "God hypothesis". I don't discourage such investigations, and moreover, don't commit to shutting my eyes and singing happy songs to myself if such an investigation doesn't go the way theists would like/expect.<BR/><BR/>Given my understanding of the Bible's picture of God, I think that empirical investigations are hard to connect to a metaphysical proposition.<BR/> <BR/><B> You may be certain that Kelly in accounting is sharing her MP3 with her friends but you can't do anything about it till you prove it right? Why would you want to prove it if you were so sure of yourself? You need to convince other people, build a case.</B><BR/><BR/>That's right, but I'm immediately struggling with that as an analogy. As Loftus pointed out upthread, it's useful to suppose that intuition is a kind of report or "escalation" event from the subconscious, which may be assimilating and integrating rational and objective data that are simply missed by our conscious processes. Really good network sleuths have "gut instinct" that's hard to dismiss based on their performance. They intuit things that later turn out to be based on real and present signals, but signals that are quite subtle and indirect, only perceived and conceptualized by those with finely honed cognitive processes.<BR/><BR/>Back to Kelly and here illicit mp3 library, though, I get stuck mapping this to metaphysics, because her scenario is so rich in verifiable data and evidence. We can think of a dozen reliable ways to detect, catalog, document and otherwise objectively establish the illicit behavior. It's a context with a phenomenal feedback loop, which is what's missing from the hypothesis of, say, continuing consciousness beyond death.<BR/><BR/>If the Christian thesis is true, there's every reason to "build a case", as you say. But the very nature of the thesis is such that it defies the kind of examination, feedback and audit we can expect from Kelly and her Samba shares on the company network. <BR/><BR/><B><BR/>So on one hand at work you need to build a proper case including grounds/data and warrants/principles and conclusions but for god you just believe what you want to and don't worry about if the conclusion is warranted by the grounds/data. I say that all your grounds have acceptable alternate natural explanations and logically you can't choose one over the other, so logically you should be agnostic.</B><BR/><BR/>Yes, but only if I'm failing to account for my internal sense of my "creatureness", of moral law. Setting aside the rationality of accepting that sense in the first place for the moment, if we admit this sense, arguendo, then the kind of agnosticism I believe you're prescribing for me here isn't workable; non-theistic models don't jibe with it, and competing theistic models do only nominal better compared to Christianity (and sometimes worse!).<BR/><BR/>I understand and anticipate your response questioning the legitimacy of accepting and integrating this sense into my overall epistemology, but nevertheless, if it *is* to be admitted, it makes things quite lop-sided in favor of the Gospel. <BR/><BR/>Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but it seems you are thinking that if I have <I>n</I> theoretically plausible solutions to the question at hand, that makes me an agnostic in some egalitarian way (no discernible preference of one solution to be commended over another). If my choices are only "absolute epistemic certainty of God and the Bible" and "agnostic", then I'd have to go with "agnostic" even as I protested the choices. For I don't have or claim such annihilating certainty. You'd have to go dig up a van Tillian presup'er if you want that kind of specimen under your microscope. <BR/><BR/>But at the same time, my understanding that things in principle *might* be otherwise doesn't compel me withdraw my beliefs and retreat to some kind of solipsistic shell. My acknowledgment of my fallibility in judgment is just that: a nod to my infallibility. I don't have to be infallible, however, to weigh the inputs, make my judgments and put a stake in the ground as to what I believe, even if it is at some risk of being wrong.<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82643917606964518402007-05-28T16:44:00.000-04:002007-05-28T16:44:00.000-04:00Bill Curry,I thought you were implying that a disc...Bill Curry,<BR/><BR/><B>I thought you were implying that a discussion of the relation between the Mosaic Law and New Covenant would be relevant to the argument I presented in my post “Moral Knowledge vs. Christianity. I thought perhaps we would continue the discussion there. I didn’t mean to say that I had a post specifically on Mosaic Law.</B><BR/><BR/>I see, and re-reading, the understanding is my fault. Apologies. Not my best bit of crisp, clear communications there last week, I'm afraid.<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>My purpose on this blog is not really to defend atheism, but to defend my rejection of Christianity. It is my experience that most of the “defenses” of Christianity are merely attacks on materialism and arguments for the existence of some sort of God, not really defenses of Christianity itself. I think that even you are a theist; it makes sense more sense of the evidence to reject Christianity. I used to think that our sense of a moral law was one of the best evidences for Christianity, as argued by C.S. Lewis. Now I think that the existence of moral law written on our hearts is strong evidences against Christianity.</B><BR/><BR/>I've a good friend who is in the same position. However, I've always held C.S. Lewis "in tension", even back reading the <I>Screwtape Letters</I> as a teen. I loved then, and I love now the way Lewis writes, and thinks, generally. But even back then, I had a strong sense that Lewis really did not understand dis-belief/atheism at all. I had plenty of occasion as a young man disillusioned by the fraud that is YEC/fundamentalism to doubt and "disbelieve" enough to realize that Lewis was either quite ignorant or quite unfair in his portrayals and treatments of unbelief.<BR/><BR/>I point this out because I realize that most of Christian community comes to the table with this polarized dichotomy; either the world embraces order, rationalism and altruism through Biblical truth, or the world embraces utter chaos, "chance" giving rise to a social/cultural milieu that would make ol' Dante's hair turn white. <BR/><BR/>But I've never thought that such a bit of binary thinking was even remotely reasonable; man's choices may be *clear*, but they aren't so stark as many Christians would have it, Lewis included, unfortunately.<BR/><BR/>So it's not an "Aha!" moment for me to realize that secular morality (or maybe I should say non-Christian morality) isn't *necessarily* a quick inevitable slide into the abyss of murder, rape, theft, assault, and all manner of mayhem, with Barbra Streisand records playing in the background all the while, just to make sure every one knows the world has indeed slipped into the Abyss.<BR/><BR/>I understand you see non-Christian morality as not only viable, but preferable and more natural. I do not. But neither do hear Barbra Streisand playing in the background when I imagine a culture that embraces non-Christian starting points for their moral anchors.<BR/><BR/><B>Now I know you disagree, but I would like to know why you think my reasoning is incorrect. I don’t think that I am rejecting evidence on the basis of a materialist philosophy, primarily because I am not a materialist. If you think there is evidence I am ignoring, I want to know what that evidence is. If my arguments against Christianity are flawed, please show me where. If my arguments are valid and we have good reason to think they are sound, I hope you would reconsider your acceptance of Christianity. Obviously, I will do my best to be intellectually honest as well.</B><BR/><BR/>I think you were the one (or was it Loftus?) who disputed my suggestion that the delta here was to be found more in our input sources than our rational algorithms. When you ask where you evidence is different or wrong from mine, my immediate and sustained sense is that is very much the immanent intuitions of natural theology and moral law. <BR/><BR/>This 'evidence' is non-reasoned, immediate as a perception. Objectivists reading closely will probably take issue with my classification of that as a percept, so maybe the right way to frame my sense of "creatureness" and natural theology is a "concept" detached from purely physical stimuli, even indirectly. I'm well aware of the objections that arise even then -- that such must be classed with hallucinations and other epi-conceptual construct. However, I remain convinced, through *experience* in working *against* that immanent sense of my "creatureness" and my subordination, that such a position grates on me -- continuously -- as intensely irrational on an internal basis, and "whistling dixie" as I work to discount a strong "experience". <BR/><BR/>I've had plenty of good folks try to psycho-analyze me, online and off. I don't relish it, and don't find it has been particularly productive in past attempts, but I realize that my basic *difference* is an internalized "sense" that is hard to put off or silence, and this sense provides the foundation of my grasp of existential realities beyond just my physical/moral context. <BR/><BR/>I realize from experience that that is likely to be unsatisfying for you in two ways. 1) It's "internal" and doesn't it lend itself to outside review, and 2) It's intractable in the sense that if I'm just "projecting" my insecurities or whatever here and abdicating my natural skeptical reason in integrating this moral "sense" into my personal epistemology, it's self-fulfilling as a delusion; if a man has his reasoning impaired, it's a very hard problem, especially if your planning on using reason to help him recover -- his "corrective faculties" may be the source of the problem!<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I don't want to put words in your mouth; please feel free to give me your take. But here's the simple reductio:<BR/><BR/>1.) I maintain a strong sense of natural theology/moral law.<BR/>2.) Given 1, the compelling option as a means of resolving the moral imperatives I sense is the embrace of the Christian Gospel.<BR/>3.) None of that has me thinking that Christianity is the only possible recipe for establishing an ordered society, reliant on moral imperatives for identifying virtue and vice.<BR/><BR/>So, if you were to lay out your evidence for some non-Christian moral framework, I think we'd find many points to disagree as to which was "better", in part or as a whole. But I do not expect to be surprised by the idea that workable practical moral frameworks can be built without appeals to the God of the Bible. I won't discourage you from going there, but I don't have a list of empirical evidences in mind -- like fossils pulled from the limestone strata -- that I think you are missing. <BR/><BR/>Outside of our heads and hearts, I think we would find nearly complete overlap as to the evidences in view. The differences, I believe, are my "built-ins", intuitions (rational or not) that factor into my overall epistemology in such a way as to strongly incline me toward the Gospel as moral meta-narrative. Since you are one actively working to refute Christianity, I think it's safe to say you dismiss this sense in yourself (if you ever had such), and in me and everyone else as imaginary/synthetic. That's where your questions leads.<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67387231734164499512007-05-28T06:18:00.000-04:002007-05-28T06:18:00.000-04:00Hi Robert,I agree the bible should be read in the ...Hi Robert,<BR/>I agree the bible should be read in the context of its intent and when it was written. <BR/><BR/>However, that doesn't absolve it in my mind of the charges atheists bring against it, most notably, support of slavery.<BR/><BR/>If you go look at where the bible came from, it is very similar to lots of other documents in the near east. I call it a compliataion of near eastern myths. <BR/><BR/>since we have to take a more metaphorical reading of the bible and we have to accept the psalms (for example) as re-writes of psalms to other gods (See Ugarit) and the earliest record of the golden rule came from egypt, and the ten commandments predate gods writing them on tablets in front of moses, etc, etc, etc how can we be sure of any of it?<BR/><BR/>we need some corroborating evidence that shows in principle, the bible is everything it says it is.<BR/><BR/>I think you have made a case of special pleading, for the bible.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43017154428397326772007-05-28T04:39:00.000-04:002007-05-28T04:39:00.000-04:00Hi Touchstone,I find your postion on God at odds w...Hi Touchstone,<BR/>I find your postion on God at odds with your stated job in network security for the double standard you seem to be using for you conclusions about god. And in your rejection of YEC. On one hand, evidence is not necessary for a belief in god, and on the other existence of evidence plays a part in your rejection of YEC.<BR/><BR/>In reference to finding evidence of God you said<BR/><B><I>If anything, it's superfluous to God's purposes as I understand them,</B></I><BR/>Sure it is to you, you're going to heaven. The rest of the 70% of the world are going to hell, right?<BR/>Before you block ips, or bring allegations of improper use of company equipment, you have your evidence and case built as tightly as you can don't you? I don't imagine you make any assumptions, it risks job security doesn't it?<BR/><BR/>Also it seems your general attitude is that since it doesn't matter to you, we should not try to think of ways of getting evidence for god. That's not a very truth seeking principle is it? You may be certain that Kelly in accounting is sharing her MP3 with her friends but you can't do anything about it till you prove it right? Why would you want to prove it if you were so sure of yourself? You need to convince other people, build a case.<BR/><BR/>So on one hand at work you need to build a proper case including grounds/data and warrants/principles and conclusions but for god you just believe what you want to and don't worry about if the conclusion is warranted by the grounds/data. I say that all your grounds have acceptable alternate natural explanations and logically you can't choose one over the other, so logically you should be agnostic.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69108162376930706082007-05-28T00:05:00.000-04:002007-05-28T00:05:00.000-04:00G'day mate, before i get started i do want to appo...G'day mate, before i get started i do want to appologise that i am not going to be able to convincingly argue with you from an academic stand point. i am not the most academic of men. but i have seen some potential errors in your basis for your needed proofs of Christianity. firstly is a missunderstanding of what is a prophecy is. In no way is prophecy in the bible based on predicting the future or up comming events. it does contain elements of this, but more it is a two faze message from God. Firstly it is a message to a specific people in a specific time and place, for a specific reason. in most instances it is a call to account for the nation if Isreal. Isreal made a promise to God and they broke it, with God in his law having told them the concequences and so God is letting them know that he knows and he will do something about it. in pretty much all instances this involves a judgement, that looking at the history of Isreal is carried out within the next 50 years or so, and also a means of grace both in that if they repent the judgement will be averted and also that he will diminish the consequences (often saying that he will bring back the people to him and reinstate them.)<BR/><BR/>this is the part that is most often of a more long term nature, and can be applied to all history, often which points to Jesus (or so we claim) as the promises of redemption are not seen played out in any real sense until the ime of Jesus. So to call prophecy a prediction of the future is ignorant because God in prophecy isn't aiming to tell us necessarily what will happen but instead to engage with us. That is why Moses is called the greatest prophet, he did very little in predicting the future, but instead acted more as an intermediate between God and man on God's behalf and the priestly role was opn the behalf of man.<BR/><BR/>I acknowledge that this is an error that alot of Christians make as well, but this is because they view the bible through a western mindset as apposed to allowing the bible to express itself within the context it was written, that of someone from the ancient near east.<BR/><BR/>THis is a mistake that people make when looking at creation, and i think one that you make as well. Genisis (as the main basis of Christian ideas of Creation) should not be used up against science as an understanding of the method of creation as much as it is more an explanation of the basis and reason of creation. If you want compare genisis to anything else compare it on the terms it is written, that of a creation epic and a prime eval narrative. the purpose of which is to explain the way things are as much as they came to be, and the reasons behind it not the methods.<BR/><BR/>If you do this you will see that genesis can't really engage with Darwin theory, or physics because that is not even relevant to its purpose. instead it would be better to compare it to the creation accounts of other ancient near eastern document, such as the enuma elish, and its like and you will see that the book has a whole lot more to say, and also is much more applicable to modern thought.<BR/><BR/>THis extends to your arguments and ideas of a barbaric God, if you view the OT especially God does seem barbaric, but if you view it within the context of other ancietn near estern documents, especially the law codes of other ancient nearestern nations, God comes across not only much less barbaric but also much more counter cultural.<BR/><BR/>i find that in my understanding of the bible, the more i leave my own culture out of it, and try and read it within its original frame work the more logical it is, but also the more it speaks to my culture. I know this is impossible to do on a total level as we are as much products of our culture, but it is something to try.<BR/><BR/>If you do this i think you will both be able to deal with the bible better, but if you still insist on arguing aginst it, you will have a much stronger basis.<BR/><BR/>sorry if i cause offence, and that i am not totally the scholar but i hope this engages you as much as your argument engages me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56513407430096051252007-05-27T10:25:00.000-04:002007-05-27T10:25:00.000-04:00Bill said...My purpose on this blog is not really ...Bill said...<I>My purpose on this blog is not really to defend atheism, but to defend my rejection of Christianity.</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly. That's my purpose as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7052610503684930892007-05-27T10:18:00.000-04:002007-05-27T10:18:00.000-04:00Touchstone,I am afraid we have both misunderstood ...Touchstone,<BR/><BR/>I am afraid we have both misunderstood each other. When you wrote:<BR/><BR/><EM>I understand very much where you are coming from. I'm tempted to jump into a Mosaic Law -> New Covenant discussion here, based on your comments (another time/thread perhaps), but that would be hard to keep even nominally on point here, I think. I didn't see that post when it came out, but wish I had.</EM><BR/><BR/>I thought you were implying that a discussion of the relation between the Mosaic Law and New Covenant would be relevant to the argument I presented in my post “Moral Knowledge vs. Christianity. I thought perhaps we would continue the discussion <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/05/moral-knowledge-vs-christianity.html" REL="nofollow">there</A>. I didn’t mean to say that I had a post specifically on Mosaic Law.<BR/><BR/>My purpose on this blog is not really to defend atheism, but to defend my rejection of Christianity. It is my experience that most of the “defenses” of Christianity are merely attacks on materialism and arguments for the existence of some sort of God, not really defenses of Christianity itself. I think that even you are a theist; it makes sense more sense of the evidence to reject Christianity. I used to think that our sense of a moral law was one of the best evidences for Christianity, as argued by C.S. Lewis. Now I think that the existence of moral law written on our hearts is strong evidences against Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Now I know you disagree, but I would like to know why you think my reasoning is incorrect. I don’t think that I am rejecting evidence on the basis of a materialist philosophy, primarily because I am not a materialist. If you think there is evidence I am ignoring, I want to know what that evidence is. If my arguments against Christianity are flawed, please show me where. If my arguments are valid and we have good reason to think they are sound, I hope you would reconsider your acceptance of Christianity. Obviously, I will do my best to be intellectually honest as well.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>BillBillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07085090154615107259noreply@blogger.com