RELIGION VS SCIENCE - the wrong discussion!

[ReasonToFollow]

Need I say more?

Please do.

All in the Bible. Be my guest and read it.

[mitchellmckain]

Nope.

These are objectively undecidable issues. There is nothing compelling one conclusion or the other.

Well I disagree at this point. Because a controversy is objectively undecidable does not mean one side cannot be subjectively compelling.

Yes but since we cannot site such subjective compelling things as justification to others except for our conclusions in the area of objectively undecidable issues, then this must publicly remain in the arena of free will and choice. The bounds and limits are precisely the same as far as anyone else is concerned. This must be a matter of freedom that is protected in a free society.

You give the example that the issue of whether we have free will may be objectively undecidable but the reason most people feel that they have free will is that subjectively they feel they do, and that feeling is very compelling. I just don't feel that I exercise free will in relation to beliefs or for that matter values (so I really do think the existentialists have this one wrong - except Berdyayev who talks about creating values rather than choosing them).

I do not believe that there is anything absolute or universal about free will. It can be different between different people and indeed be lost or gained in the course of a persons life by habits and awareness. So the fact is that I very much do feel that I excercise free will in relation to beliefs and values. For me these were indeed a matter of choice. And thus I do conclude that regardless how some people may feel that they themselves have no freedom in this, that this is still something that in general must be counted as in the realm of free will and choice.

If someone says I think this is true because I have chosen to believe it I find that hard to buy. How can my choice be a reason for thinking something is true.

That is because this is not a reason at all. But I think that most people say this, not because they have no reason, but only because they find it difficult to articulate those reasons. Not everyone is of the philosophical or theological mindset that they can clearly explain such things. Some of those will be able to read the explanations of others and say "yeah, that's my reason" while other will find even this difficult.

If the choice is not utterly arbitrary then the reason for choosing would have to be because I want it to be true. Normally when we say to someone you only believe this because you want it to be true we think that is an invalid ground for belief.

In some arenas such as science, I very much agree with you. That is an endeavor where we have found a means to obtain truths apart from what people may want to be true. But a pretense to absolute objectivity in all arenas of life is delusional. What we want is an enormous part of what life is and an insistence upon pursuing life as an objective observer only is distortion that does a great deal of harm. The gospel especially is about what we want and the Bible speaks in no uncertain terms about this being something that one chooses to believe. In this the exclusion of what we want that science makes in its endeavors most certainly does not apply.

[Keep The Reason]

Haha.. you're actually being serious KTR? The mere fact he didn't write anything means he never existed?

No, it means he didn't actually say anything you can point to.

Your statement is that "if he isn't who he said he was, then that would convince you there is no god".

Well, he didn't say anything. Whether or not he existed is a different question, but on the question of him "saying something" -- he did not

This isn't even worth rebutting but I'll do it because it's by far the cheapest shot I've heard at disproving God EVER.

Christian and non-Christian historians alike say that there's MORE evidence of the existence of Jesus than ANYONE from his time. Serious historians don't deny the letters from the NT are real either.

So you're telling me that the witness accounts of the NT are made up? Let me ask you this then; would you risk your life for a hoax? John the Apostle was the only one that died of natural causes. The rest murdered for their belief in who Christ was.

Your arguments are simply terrible. Simply and utterly awful -- totally devoid of coherency and focus.

We both know you're here to preach (so you admit in your PM to me).

We don't accept your nonsensical circular arguments that Jesus is god because the bible says Jesus is god and we know this because the bible says Jesus is god. That's 2 year old argumentation and won't work here. Your claptrap argument that "there is more evidence for Jesus existence" is Kirk Cameron idiocy. You're sinking fast, pal. You're a parrot for fundamentalist arguments and the worst guy here is better at it than you are so far. And I'm already seeing that veneer of "Hey kids, how about this!?" cracking in you-- with the true underlying misanthropy coming out-- all in one forum thread. It won't be long before the spewing will begin, I'm sure.

Oh, and you did precisely what I said you would-- you moved the goalposts (actually, you lifted them up and removed them completely from the stadium). Argue all you want, but Jesus still said utterly nothing, and therefore your claim you'd change if it could be shown he wasn't who he SAID he was has been met.

[ReasonToFollow]

I don't see why half the time you focus on me. Sorry that my arguments aren't up to your standard, but you're not convincing anyone that there is no God by bad mouthing me.

Yes I get what you're saying, that Jesus didn't grab a pencil himself and write something. So what? Does that mean that we can throw away ALL the history of significant people that wasn't written by them? Why do writers bother with biographies then??

"We both know you're here to preach (so you admit in your PM to me)."

I'm sorry but this is such a typical atheist move. You're twisting my words here. I've brought up only ONE verse (in our PM) and that's all the preaching I've done. It wasn't even a spiritual verse, just the fact that the Bible states before ANY scientist that the Earth is a sphere. So far I've only been telling you about history and the way you're going I think I'll believe the generations before us over you. I mean how trivial is it to say that someone in the past had to WRITE something to count as having existed.

So answer me, would you write about something that's not real and just a hoax and then when faced with death defend it?

[mitchellmckain]

Here's my reasoning as to why God exists and why science never had a thing to do with it, but rather they live IN PERFECT HARMONY.

NOTE: these 5 steps I will show you are all hypothetical. Here we go:

1) Let's suppose there is a god. This means the teachings of jesus are 100% correct. He said 'follow me and you shall have eternal life' i.e. spend eternity with god.

2) Jesus said he was the son of god i.e. like god. Therefore if we disprove jesus as a person then there is no god. Through a scientific experiment prove to me that he never set foot on earth.

3) Science can't touch the existence of a person therefore it can't disprove jesus therefore it can't disprove his teachings which are of god because he WAS god.

4) In conclusion science is parallel to the word of god. That is, they can never and WILL never intersect and disprove each other.

5) If this is the case, then why would god want us to prove an infinite amount of scientific facts so that we can eventually say 'yes god, you are real' (still hypothetically thinking there is a god). Humanity would never enter heaven because of the nature of how they will trust god to be god.

I believe that God does exist, but I have to say that what you wrote here does not provide any reasoning why God exists, that I can see. Furthermore, science is a good source of truth about the universe we can see and as such it places limitations on claims about God that are reasonably believable and thus it IS relevant to the question in so far as what kind of God it is reasonable to believe in. That is not to say that science can even come close to dictating the nature of God -- not at all.

It is my observation that the respective methodologies of science and relgion mean that although the claims of relgion can have no bearing on the conclusions of science, the claims of science most definitely has bearing on the conclusions of religion.

My question to you atheist is this: If your life depended on answering the 'god question' right, who would you trust? Jesus christ i.e. god or a scientist claiming 'no' for the time being UNTIL (if ever) he gets an answer?

But why should the atheist believe that his "life depended on answering the 'god question' right"? For that matter, why should I? Because although I am a Trinitarian Christian, I do not believe that. That assertion is the claim of what I call gnostic legalism, a distortion of Christianity that has people saving themselves by works of the mind. Your question implies what could be called intellectual blackmail and it puts in mind a god who can be likened to a gunman who puts his gun to your head and tells you say you believe what he says or else he will shoot you. I don't believe in that kind of god at all.

Furthermore Jesus is not here but only you claiming to speak for him, so the choice you are really presenting here is one between the scientist who seeks the truth by means that seeks to remove subjective bias, or someone who uses threats to blackmail people into agreeing with him. Given such a choice, I have to say that I certainly put my trust in the scientist! So you may ask WHY I am a Christian then? Well I was not raised a Christian and I am in fact a scientist myself and so I could only consider the question of whether there was any truth to Christianity on the basis that the truth of science was taken as a given first.

As a scientist I know the advantages and limitations of its methods very well. Thus I know very well the difference between the work and conclusions of science and the philosophical/theological opinions of someone who just happens to be a scientist. So when Einstein, Hawkings and Dawkins say "no" to the question of God's existence that most certainly is not the same thing as science saying no to this question. There certainly may be certain kinds of gods where science may be able to give an answer to the question, but those do not include the kind of thing that I can call God. So on the of the existence of the God I believe in, science itself can say nothing. Some of the admittedly subjective reasons I have for believing in God do come from conclusions of science, but my reasoning in this matter does not count as science any more than the opinions of Einstein, Hawkings and Dawkins.

[Keep The Reason]

I don't see why half the time you focus on me. Sorry that my arguments aren't up to your standard, but you're not convincing anyone that there is no God by bad mouthing me.

It's your thread, so what would you prefer? I focus on Sweden's cheese output?

I'm dissecting you arguments, which are badly offered and carbon copied from the Fundie Book of Debate.

Yes I get what you're saying, that Jesus didn't grab a pencil himself and write something. So what? Does that mean that we can throw away ALL the history of significant people that wasn't written by them? Why do writers bother with biographies then??

You're moving the goalposts again. You said you'd abandon belief in god if Jesus wasn't who he said he was. Well, you are now agreeing that he didn't write a thing, and so he didn't SAY ANYTHING. And so now you are back pedaling by asserting that biographies of people are a solid analogy. But biographies are not flawless records of anyone's life, and sometimes are completely at odds with their subjects as well. Ever hear of "unauthorized biographies"?

Maybe the bible is a good biography, or maybe it's crap. I happen to conclude its crap as far as a biography is concerned, and really would prefer not to play out yet another page of the Theist Carbon Copy Handbook as to how "accurate" the endlessly rewritten and retranslated bible is, which I'm sure you're going to pull out (you already have).

"We both know you're here to preach (so you admit in your PM to me)."

I'm sorry but this is such a typical atheist move. You're twisting my words here. I've brought up only ONE verse (in our PM) and that's all the preaching I've done. It wasn't even a spiritual verse, just the fact that the Bible states before ANY scientist that the Earth is a sphere. So far I've only been telling you about history and the way you're going I think I'll believe the generations before us over you. I mean how trivial is it to say that someone in the past had to WRITE something to count as having existed.

I made a predictive statement based on this statement you made in the PM:

I'm trying to lead the discussion to the divinity of Jesus because NOTHING else matters

.

Your words, zero twisting. You're heading toward preaching. You've already done it, in this thread.

Its not trivial at all. Heres the plan for the salvation of humanity, and the key player doesnt say a WORD about it directly, lol. I'd say that was a pretty bad failing on Jesus' part. If a presidential candidate took that approach and only let others record his thoughts and platform, would you vote for him? I doubt it.

You're going to continually fail if you insist on comparing bios of mere mortals with that of the Supreme Author of All Things. The claims in the NT are extremely unique, and mere books with questionable provenance are not extraordinary enough to support that claim that our eternal disposition rests on these bronze age superstitions.

Finally, you're purposely twisting me saying he has to write something in order for his existence to be proved. I said his existence is a different argument, but I never said he had to write something in order to have existed. I said YOU said if it could be shown he was not who he said he was, you'd give up belief in god. Well, he didn't SAY ANYTHING. Whether or not he existed has nothing to do with that. Now, are you going to not get it yet again? I bet you won't get it, yet again.

So answer me, would you write about something that's not real and just a hoax and then when faced with death defend it?

Gee, maybe you should ask the David Koresh folks about that. Or Jim Jones's people. There are endless examples of people dying to defend ideologies that you'd consider a hoax. Like the Nazis. And communists. And believers in Zeus, or Isis, or Quetzacoatl, etc. Do you really think only the believers in Jesus were willing to die for their beliefs?

Really, please try to do better.

[ReasonToFollow]

Interesting points Mitchell! Long story short the reason why I use 'blackmail' is to make the atheist realise that by default they have to take a side. Is there or is there not a God? There's no neutral position. Therefore, this is a question we must answer. And so to answer the question who would you trust? Jesus i.e. GOD HIMSELF or science which hasn't been able to confirm or deny the existence of God?

The idea of my 5 points is to strip away everything else that's not really relevant and get the Atheist asking 'was Jesus divine or not? Did he die for my sins?' If this question could somehow be answered through science and the answer happens to be that Jesus was God, well then how many generations have gone to Hell because of intellectual barriers?

I think God never intended for us to trust that He's real through earthly faith which is science.

[ReasonToFollow]

KTR I'm not 'moving the goalposts' because Jesus said who he was and people witnessed that. It's in the NT... What kind of evidence did you want? A podcast from the bronze age? Had Jesus written an auto biography would that be any more convincing? How about I write a book on the reasons why I'm the Son of God instead of someone externally seeing WHY I actually am the Son of God and then telling others about it.

God was clever in that he gave us signs to look for Him. As I said somewhere before, Jesus fulfilled 232/232 prophecies during his life. It's no coincidence. What's not to believe here?

Also, I'd appreciate it if, with all due respect, you could PLEASE cut the crap.

"It's your thread, so what would you prefer? I focus on Sweden's cheese output?"

[Christoff]

...Jesus said who he was and people witnessed that. It's in the NT...

That's a very weak argument to make. David Koresh also said who he was. People witnessed that. WE witnessed that. It was even in the news papers and on TV. I doubt David really was who he said he was, though. And I also doubt Jesus was who the NT says he was.

I also doubt that all the quotes, sayings and actions attributed to Jesus in the NT are authentic. For example, we know that the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman (John 8:1-30) is a later insertion into John, dating to around the 11th century. So the words He spoke in this text clearly never crossed his lips. We also know that the NT was written by individuals who were NOT eye-witnesses to the purported events since these authors were not contemporaries of Jesus or never met him. These texts were all penned down later, via hearsay. So, CLAIMING eye-witnesses doesn't prove that there WERE any eye-witnesses.

As for your reference to the 232/232 prophecies. If you're willing to research a bit more about what contemporary scholars actually say about these "prophecies" and how they were "retro-fitted" into the Jesus-stories to make them seem "fulfilled", you'd be very reluctant to use that as "evidence" in future discussions with non-believers.

Use the birth of Jesus (its purported coinciding with Herod's life, as well as with Quirinius' term in office and the sensus that was held), and you'll quickly realise (I hope) that Jesus' birth was "forced", in hind-sight by the story-writer(s), to have happened in Bethlehem, since, according to one of those 232 prophecies, the Messiah MUST be born there. Why the heck anyone would've been asked to go to the birth-place of some distant forefather to be counted there for a sensus, is absurd. But it DOES make sense if you realise that THAT's the trick used by the writer(s) to get the actors (Jesus, mom and dad) to the correct town to make it fit the prophecy. Nicely done.

Why do I say all of this? To show that your claims, like the statement:

...Jesus said who he was and people witnessed that. It's in the NT...

Is utterly useless at proving anything. Every claim in this statement has been pulled into question above.

Welcome to the Forum, though. It's a fun place to hang out.

[Keep The Reason]

KTR I'm not 'moving the goalposts' because Jesus said who he was and people witnessed that. It's in the NT... What kind of evidence did you want? A podcast from the bronze age?

Well, you're the one arguing that this is the work of the most amazing, most powerful Entity in all of existence. Don't complain to me that his "evidence" is empty and indistinguishable from just about all other kinds of superstitious, religious mythology from a primitive, pre-technological era.

You look at the bible and see proof. I see a book, flawed and just about the most "not proof" you can find. You consider me blind in my unbelief, and I consider you gullible and childish in your belief. You crave "eternal salvation" and thus believe everything in this book is accurate. I consider "eternal salvation" to be a myth of a bygone era, the human cost of our sapience, and symptomatic once again of a childish outlook on life that cannot confront the truth of our mortal reality.

In addition to this, you are literally in "pre-school" here by comparison to the theists who haunt this place. Your arguments --and I use the term loosely-- are long destroyed, and most of the theists here are a few light years beyond this sort of nonsense you peddle. You're illogical, and incoherent in your approach. You misinterpret basc concepts, and conflate wholly unrelated elements and think you have some superior perspective. You told me clearly that you have but one intent, and that is to lead the discussion to the divinity of Jesus and that nothing else matters-- in short, you think you are here to win souls for Jeebus.

When I greeted you, I said, "Welcome to the Kitchen". In PM I told you I won't shy away from taking your every argument to task. Well, welcome to the Kitchen! If you cannot take the heat, I'm sure you can find the door.

Had Jesus written an auto biography would that be any more convincing? How about I write a book on the reasons why I'm the Son of God instead of someone externally seeing WHY I actually am the Son of God and then telling others about it.

God was clever in that he gave us signs to look for Him. As I said somewhere before, Jesus fulfilled 232/232 prophecies during his life. It's no coincidence. What's not to believe here?

An autobiography would be more compelling from the pen of Jesus rather than ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER. Remember, the standards for the Son of God is a bit higher than Mere Mortal Aristotle.

Your claims regarding prophecy fulfilled is silly. Let's say you never heard of Jesus which is not a hypothetical-- at some point in your life, you were not aware of Jesus. Now along comes someone who says, "Look at this, this guy Jesus fulfilled 232 out of 232 prophecies!". Now, someone who is reasoned will say, "well, what is more likely here? That human beings wrote that this person fulfilled these claims in a book called the Old Testament, or this guy, who also by the way supposedly raised the dead, cured blind people with spit, walked on water, sent demons into pigs, and came back from the dead himself! actually did any of this?".

I could write a book today about a person who "fulfilled all the prophecies" and without any corroborating data, it could be believed decades hence to be accurate. There is utterly nothing surprising about this, particularly when we are talking about a primitive people. The problem only comes about when a 21st century person collapses in awe and utter belief over a 1st century mythology. There is something crippling about that, which is very much evident in your stark disbelief that your weak arguments are being called to account.

In reality, I find much of value in the messianic mythology, and can adopt it to a modern sensibility very easily and without rancor. There are some excellent lessons in the bible, but that doesn't make it an accurate portrayal of a real history. One can easily venerate the lessons of Jesus without making the childish mistake that would insist he is real or really the demigod you theists are obsessed with making him into. I respect the mythology far too much to render it the childish nonsense you want to insist it is.

Also, I'd appreciate it if, with all due respect, you could PLEASE cut the crap.

"It's your thread, so what would you prefer? I focus on Sweden's cheese output?"

You don't like it? Then leave. I'm not here to make your stay here comfortable and happy crappy. I'm here to shred your arguments to pieces, to counter your views, and to expose your model as nonsense. If you don't like it, well, too bad.

[ReasonToFollow]

Kristoff and KTR:

Let's try a different angle. So far it seems as though I'm the ONLY one putting forward evidence from history and all you guys do is talk poetry and assemble words in a very nice manner and call that evidence.

Show me ROCK SOLID evidence that the Bible is flawed and that Jesus can't possibly be divine. As for the John verse that was added in later I don't believe it. The Bible was reproduced so fast after the NT being written that it was easy to tell when someone added something in that wasn't original. It's not as easy as chucking in extra lines and therefore it's been flawed forever.

KTR: a little advice. Just drop the whole hostile act. Seriously, if that's what Atheism is then I'd actually rather believe in something false than be some naive person being wreckless towards others and not even caring. That's just low...

How about a constructive discussion without the hate? Is that too much to ask?!?!

[ReasonToFollow]

Also, as you wish KTR. Let the forum speak up in terms of our PM.

Ok, there's a lot of points I'd like to discuss from your message but there's just too much for me to be able to stay on track with what I want to say. I'll just pick out the more significant ones I guess.

"Next you say "Science has had nothing to do with Christianity"."

What I mean by that is that why should the natural world affect our decision to trust Christ or not? The opposite is also true. Jesus teaches me to be generous.. how will that ever disprove science on ANY level? If anything the Bible makes off shoot comments about the natural world that are absolutely right. Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle (hebrew for sphere) of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.

"If there is conflict, it's because Christian theists insist on shackling scientific endeavors, and you don't have any right to do that. And Christians do it because they recognize above all that science has the evidence, and theism has the empty assertions. It's the psychology of fear from the sore loser."

What evidence is it that you have? I'm studying to be an engineer and so far not once has anything I've learnt been in conflict with my faith. And again, why should it??

I'm trying to lead the discussion to the divinity of Jesus because NOTHING else matters. The moment it's all a lie that he was resurrected is the moment that he was just a very VERY nice person but not God. And this is where reason should make you realise this is all real. The very first Christians by definition were the ones that saw him resurrected. Instant belief because they saw first hand. Some of these first Christians even followed Jesus around. Next thing you know they wrote what they saw in letter form to early churches. New Testament. The way Christians came to be shows you how historical this is.

Had Jesus not been resurrected then I wouldn't even be talking to you right now because this website wouldn't exist.

[Keep The Reason]

Ok, there's a lot of points I'd like to discuss from your message but there's just too much for me to be able to stay on track with what I want to say. I'll just pick out the more significant ones I guess.

"Next you say "Science has had nothing to do with Christianity"."

Let's take care of this post first. The reason I question your personal integrity is because behind the scenes, this was your reply to me when I asked you to make this a public debate:

Re: Your post about faith
Sent: Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:49 am
From: ReasonToFollow
To: Keep The Reason

Ok so my last message stumped you. Then logically it follows that you can't deny that Jesus has nothing to do with science. So are you going to confess He died for your sins or keep denying?

You wrote this in response to my telling you to be open about this discussion, but also that it's not going to be my job to supply you with research information a simple web search will afford you on your own. Here's MY response to you that prompted your assertion that you somehow "stumped" me (your comment is in red, mine in blue):

Re: Your post about faith
Sent: Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:03 am
by Keep The Reason

ReasonToFollow wrote:
Still waiting for a reply.

A reply to what? If you wish to debate, do it in the light of the forums. And if you need to learn about scientific progress and how religion has stood in its way, crack open a history book or ten. Or read the news. Do your own research, I'm not here to be your tutor.

So I question two things about you right off the bat. The first is your intellectual honesty; I can see you coming a mile away and I will address that in the request for "ROCK SOLID EVIDENCE" regarding the bible. The second is your personal integrity. You're here to preach, that is very evident. Your very comments to me are of an evangelical / preaching nature: "So are you going to confess He died for your sins or keep denying?" I find that to be arrogant, insulting, and dismissive. So on the public side of things, you're playing like you're interested in debate, but privately, behind the curtain, you're foisting an evangelical line. Rest assured, I'm happy to out you.

Secondly, you might as well get used to it-- we see through this crap. We're not morons here, all wide eyed thinking you've somehow conjured brave-new-world arguments. I've said this more than once now, and I've specifically attacked your lame arguments; if you look at my posts, they are focused primarily on your arguments, and to warn you that we're not rubes here.

But you insist on playing the game. Ok-- I will play a little bit -- because I am open in my agenda: My agenda, so that you know it under the full light of transparency -- is not to convince you of anything. I'm not here to prove a thing to you, because you already display yourself to be immune to any and all rational arguments. You are a thorough-going, immutable Christian theist, and nothing will sway you-- you are certain that your view is right, and you will never move an inch no matter what argument I(or anyone else) mount(s), or no matter how I show you your arguments fail.

What I am here to do is to show other people who come here and read these damned things that the theist consistently cannot mount a rational, cohesive, and convincing argument for their theism. And they have been unable to do so for quite a few thousand years. My goal is not you -- you're effectively a hopeless case in terms of online debate. But people on the fence -- they are the ones who will wander across this field and see once again how thew theist only has the same dreary flawed arguments, the specious assertions, the empty undemonstrable appeal to "special dispensation" and "authority" in the form of an ancient book, and that we dismantle these same bad, weak, and collapsing arguments over and over and over again.

[Keep The Reason]

Kristoff and KTR:

Let's try a different angle. So far it seems as though I'm the ONLY one putting forward evidence from history and all you guys do is talk poetry and assemble words in a very nice manner and call that evidence.

Do yourself a favor and read through the forum posts and you'll find all of your arguments rebutted already; you'll also find a number of great, complex, and compelling responses from theists here as well-- certainly a lot better than what you've offered so far. What you want is for us to write them all out once again. I don't know that I care to do that yet again. This doesn't mean you have "stumped" anyone-- it means you haven't yet been deemed worthy enough in your approach for me to bother answering your questions we can safely title: "Now Asked and Answered for the Billionth Time".

Show me ROCK SOLID evidence that the Bible is flawed and that Jesus can't possibly be divine. As for the John verse that was added in later I don't believe it. The Bible was reproduced so fast after the NT being written that it was easy to tell when someone added something in that wasn't original. It's not as easy as chucking in extra lines and therefore it's been flawed forever.

To what purpose? Here's where I can see you coming from a mile away -- Let's skip over the part where I offer you countless examples of flaws within the bible and preempt this process a bit just by noting what your responses will be to every critical comment made.

1. "You are reading it out of context". This is the stalwart and primary reply to most biblical criticism. It's always the person you are not in agreement with who is "reading it out of context"; Christians even beat each other over the head with this one (which is an improvement, as for most of your history you merely murdered one another over it). This one also is embedded in the "You have to read the bible as an ENTIRE WORK" apologia, which you've already used as part of your OP -- that somehow we have to take your 5 steps as some holistic unit that is greater than the sum of its parts. Well, it's easy to argue away every criticism when you refer to some vague and impossible standard of "taking it all as one" -- the bible, being a collection of stories and moral tales, cannot "be taken as one" as it's a huge amount of disparate bits of information. But when you try to dissect any of those bits of information, you have to somehow squash all of the bible into one mass and "take it all as one", else you are "reading it out of context".

2. "It's an analogy!" This is the second gambit Christians throw out with regular abandon. Talk to a fundie, and Genesis is literal. Talk to a progressive, and "it's all an analogy". Point out that "If the story of the Garden is merely an analogy, therefore sin is simply a symbolic element in that analogy" and you're told "Well, no sin is literal". Whenever a Christian wants to keep a fabulous tale in place, out comes the "symbolism ray gun". Creation is symbolic, resurrection is literal. Yahweh drowning the world in a flood is symbolic, but non-believers going to a torturous agony in Hell is literal.

3. "It's a miracle, you have to accept miracles!" This is similar to #2 in that every single event in the bible that makes utterly no sense is simply cataloged as a miracle by a god who can do no wrong even if he slaughters entire cities or whole planets for that matter. Go to Numbers Chapter 22:22 and you'll be treated to the story of Balaam and his Talking Donkey ("Francis" I believe was its name); Christians will simply argue that there is nothing untoward about this story-- that god can cause a donkey to not only talk, but to dress up in top hat and tails and sing Cole Porter tunes if he is so inclined. Of course, this is a Win! Win! Win! gambit for the theist who can dismiss every single contradiction in the bible as part of the miracle.

4. "You must have faith!" This one is last in the list because it's the final refuge of the theist. When all the countering arguments are done, when the wall is bloody from us smashing our heads against it over and over and over, the Christian simply pulls out the dinghy of "faith" and leaves the sinking ship to its fate.

The above methods are used over and over to support why we should "believe the bible" -- though no Christian would dare to suggest we adopt the same principles towards, say, the Quran or Bhagavad Gita. No, these special dispensations will be applied only to the bible to support the Christian contention that the bible is the accurate word of god.

So what is the point of this argument? Are you, RTF, willing to take the bible as a book -- to stand on criticism of it without endless calls to it's "special nature" that we have to accept? Remember, you claim the bible is somehow an important document for our well being. In that case, it cannot err if it is from a divine god-- there can be utterly no contradiction-- even the slightest, smallest error brings it all crashing down. No matter how mundane. No matter if it's merely the number of people killed (murdered) in one slaughter or another -- and will you be honest about the criticism, or appeal to the 4 special dispensation claims listed above?

Frankly, I doubt you'll agree to the rules being-- "as objective as is humanly possible" in a discussion about the bible. You will not budge an inch and accept that maybe-- just maybe -- the bible is simply a book of bronze age beliefs and morals, ethics, and mythology.

Here's another thing you will do. You will ignore entire arguments in favor of "just answering one or two points" as if answering each point is somehow too difficult (I agree-- it is hard to answer each point; but that's not my worry-- it's yours). How do we know you'll do this? Becuase you already have done it. Let's note that in my post previoous to these two, I make some salient points you haven't even rmeotely addressed. Also, let's quote your PM to me again:

Re: Your post about faith
Sent: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:02 pm
by ReasonToFollow

Ok, there's a lot of points I'd like to discuss from your message but there's just too much for me to be able to stay on track with what I want to say. I'll just pick out the more significant ones I guess.

So-- tell me-- what's in it for me doing all this work just to have you wave it all away with dismissal, special pleading arguments, "But, why can't you see???" appeals to emotion, and simply ignoring key debate points? Nothing. It'll be a lot of typing with you ignoring most of it.

So until you prove to me that you're a worthy opponent, I'm not going to do this work yet again. Like I said-- read the forums a bit and you'll find your every argument soundly rebutted.

KTR: a little advice. Just drop the whole hostile act. Seriously, if that's what Atheism is then I'd actually rather believe in something false than be some naive person being wreckless towards others and not even caring. That's just low...

How about a constructive discussion without the hate? Is that too much to ask?!?!

I don't hate you. I just find you to be dishonest-- and too lazy to read what this forum has already offered. And you already do believe in something false. But your advice is misplaced. I am happy to be hostile to your arguments and rest assured I will not be less hostile to them going forward. And I don't care that you think "this is what atheism is" -- I have utterly no problem publicly dismantling your arguments. I get that you don't like it, but--- like I said, that's just too bad. I get hammered here too at times, and don't whine about it. So buck up, and learn better arguments.

[humanguy]

I'd like to ask you a question, Reason to Follow, if you don't mind. Maybe two questions. Okay, make it two questions.

Your signature says "Science can't touch the existence of Jesus, so how is it rational to turn to science for an answer to there being a God?"

Here's my first question. What exactly do you mean by science not being able to touch the existence of Jesus? The assertion makes no sense to me.

Second question. Where do you get the idea that someone would turn to science for an answer to there being a God?