Calling all atheists… we need a debate opponent :-)
28 February 2008
75 Comments
We have a top Christian scholar coming to New Zealand in June. Are there any first-class atheists in New Zealand who would be willing to take the platform and give us all something to think about? (And what is that bird on the left?) I’m afraid none spring to mind, although I have had a couple of suggestions.
Btw, an atheist friend send me this today:
This is why I prefer atheism. It’s a non-prophet religion…
Of course, much could be said about this, including the disgrace it brings to Christianity and Christ when money preaching charlatans like Benny Hinn practice their foul deeds.
I quite like this one:
Strictly speaking, ‘atheists’ *don’t* exist!
Atheism is the categorical denial that God exists.
What the people that make this claim fail to realise that this is a logically impossible assertion.
Allow me to explain: “I know there is no God” or simply “There is no God” are absolute statements. For those statements to be true the speaker would have to have absolutely all knowledge of all evidences, everywhere for all time, which of course if they are being honest they will admit they do not possess.
So, since they cannot in reality claim that they know that there is no God, then the more truthful statement should be, “I do not at present know whether God exists or not.”
While this irrefutable logic doesn’t conclusively prove God’s existance, it does disprove the categorical denial of the existence of God! and thereby existance of atheists (in the strictest sense) for as I have shown they must be agnostic!
Since to be agnostic means to be ignorant (without knowledge) ‘atheists’ out of pride have invented terms like “strong” and “weak” atheism. This is simply a cop out since there is no real difference detewwen agnosticm and ‘weak’ atheism.
Atheism is the categorical denial that Vishnu exists.
What the people that make this claim fail to realise that this is a logically impossible assertion.
“I know there is no Vishnu” or simply “There is no Vishnu” are absolute statements. For those statements to be true the speaker would have to have absolutely all knowledge of all evidences, everywhere for all time, which of course if they are being honest they will admit they do not possess.
So, since they cannot in reality claim that they know that there is no Vishnu, then the more truthful statement should be, “I do not at present know whether Vishnu exists or not.”
While this irrefutable logic doesn’t conclusively prove Vishnu’s existance, it does disprove the categorical denial of the existence of Vishnu! and thereby existance of atheists (in the strictest sense) for as I have shown they must be agnostic!
“I know that there is no Elvis” or simply “Elvis is DEAD, people!” are absolute statements. For those statements to be true…
Being deliberately obtuse is quite telling that one has nothing valid by way of a refutal.
Ouch. I’m wounded.
So…do you think that Elvis is still alive?
I don’t doubt that most atheists are aware of that particular flaw.
I’ve always liked Dawkin’s take on it which goes something like “philosophically I’m Agnostic as Atheism is an untenable position, but if the man in the street asks me I’m quick to tell him I’m an atheist”
These things shouldn’t really be encouraged. Being Iron Age myths and all that.
Of course just as an Atheist cannot disprove God’s existence by extension of the very same criteria a theist cannot prove God’s existence. They can point to a book and say various things that happen are miracles, but these follies and trifles don’t in themselves prove the existence of God anymore than gigantic footprints and broken trees prove without doubt the existence of Bigfoot.
Hence we come to faith. Which is very weak sauce.
“Faith is the amazing ability of man to believe in things he knows to otherwise be untrue”
“Atheism” is misunderstood. It is the natural, neutral state every human is born with: no baby is ever born with an instinctive, innate belief in the supernatural, or the existence of a god or gods—let alone the authorised JudeoChristian version. Thus we are all “atheists” and it is incorrect to describe atheism as a “belief” as such, let alone a religion as some apologists ludicrously try to insist.
We choose our beliefs in the supernatural although in many cases these are inculcated in us by our parents, peers and teachers, and above all the culture into which we are born and raised. Many of us later see through the veneer of religious beliefs (basically elaborations of ancient myths & legends) and return to that natural, neutral state of our atheistic birth.
The “logic” used to show that atheists cannot categorically deny the existence of God can be applied to any make-believe being with the same “logical conclusion”: i.e. that such a being, e.g. the Tooth Fairy, actually exists.
Such is the daftness of religious apologetics!
Tim,
In reply to your first paragraph: your definition of atheist seems to be the version that contemporary atheists are using. Under this definition, my cat is an atheist. Atheism using this definition is simply a psychological state to which I would reply: “who cares then?”
It is more honest, and actually meaningful, to define atheism as the belief that God does not exist. But this is plainly a claim that can never be proven.
Additionally, I disagree that we are born atheists, but before you jump on me, let me explain what I mean. I mean that we are born with a natural propensity to belief in God. My children find this belief totally natural while finding the giant spagetti monster belief to be silly. I believe Alvin Plantinga, credited by one atheist as having been responsible for the 25-33% of professional philosophers in the USA now being (evangelical?) Christians, bases his philosophy on the idea of basic beliefs that are built into the properly functioning person. That is, the person who is functioning as they were designed by God to function (probably excludes atheists
).
2nd paragraph: Personally, I was raised atheist but I later saw “through the veneer of [atheist] beliefs (basically elaborations of ancient myths & legends [and Darwinism]) and return to that natural, [properly functioning (Plantinga)] state of [my] birth.”
3rd paragraph: And atheism is a projection of the sinful hatred of God that the non-Christian has toward Him perhaps? Read the start of the marvelous book of Romans by the Apostle Paul. It should take you all of 10 minutes.
Cheers.
Precisely, ‘Admin’, precisely.
Admin said…”I mean that we are born with a natural propensity to belief in God.”
What do you mean “we”?
What do you mean by “God”?
For most of human history, people have believed in Gods or ‘spirits’, not God.
Polytheism and Anamism are much older that Monotheism.
Greeks? Pre-Christian Rome? Celts? Babylonians? Vikings? Egyptians? Hittites? Incas?
Aztecs? Myans?
Every (pre-European contact) aboriginal tribe or nation in Asia, Africa and South America and Australia?
Where was their “natural” propensity to believe in God?
Admin said…”atheism is a projection of the sinful hatred of God”
Rubbish.
You yourself said…”My children find this belief totally natural while finding the giant spagetti monster belief to be silly.”
See?
They don’t “hate” the flying spagetti monster. They just find the belief to be silly.
How many minutes a day do you spend “hating” Baal? Or Odin? Or Mithra?
Admin said…”to define atheism as the belief that God does not exist. But this is plainly a claim that can never be proven.”
How about defining atheism as the belief that Vishnu does not exist. But this is plainly a claim that can never be proven?
Or perhaps defining atheism as the belief that Orisis does not exist. But this is plainly a claim that can never be proven?
How about to define atheism as the belief that Kishar does not exist. But this is plainly a claim that can never be proven?
Dawkins said it best…”We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
“Polytheism and Anamism [sic] are much older that Monotheism.”
Prove your claim.
“We are all atheists…”
I have heard Dawkins make that claim. Clever, but hardly convincing.
“…hating…”
There are different ways to hate. I was suggesting that yours is perhaps a spiritual problem, as described in Romans 1/2. Within the Biblical framework, this would plainly be the case. If so, you are in rebellion against your creator, and it is made evident from your beliefs, such as denying what is obvious, e.g. creation.
Yes, I know you are going to ask how it is obvious. This again would be a spiritual problem re Romans 1/2. We both look at creation and see something totally different. I see the hand of the creator; you presumably see blind material processes and unjustified scientific magic. (If not, then tell me how life began, and cite sources please).
PS. Just curious — how do ***you*** define atheism?
Admin said:
“Under this definition, my cat is an atheist.”
Who is smarter, a cat with no concept of its mortality, or an advanced primate with modern scientific knowlege in its hands, who scared of death clings to an ancient myth of immortality.
It’s a pity your cat isn’t blogging instead of you.
admin said
“I have heard Dawkins make that claim. Clever, but hardly convincing.”
phase 1:
premise1:
there are many different stories of gods and creators.
premise2:
theism: the belief. in the extence of a God or Gods. (collins)
premise3:
atheism: the rejection of belief in god or gods. (collins)
illustration:
q1: admin do you belief in vishnu?
answer: No
conclusion: Admin is atheist towards Vishnu.
phase 2.
presmise 2a
there is no one who believes in all the gods that have ever been spoken of.
conclusion
all humans are atheist.
The moderation bot still says…”Your comment is awaiting moderation. February 13th, 2008 9:23 am”
(waiting, waiting, waiting)
Hi all, just found your site and quickly browsed this page. Have any of you read the new book “The Irrational Atheists” by Vox Day?
It is available as a free PDF download from the authors blog site – http://irrationalatheist.com/downloads.html. Here is a review of it by an atheist. http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1727
He says it was “Amazing. And depressing.”
The moderation bot still says…”Your comment is awaiting moderation. February 13th, 2008 9:23 am”
(waiting, waiting, waiting)
and…
more waiting.
This has been reposted for some reason.
Is it a genuine request.
And who is the “we” making the request.
Yes, this is a genuine request Ken.
The “we” is a group of people including TSCF and a few churches. Brian Edwards would be a potential opponent. Who else would you suggest?
Who are TSCF and what churches? There must be some sort of organisational motive behind this.
Actually I don’t know the theistic beliefs of the sort of personalities you are after. It is, after all, not a very important characteristic in assessing personalities – unless it is part of their specific messages. In NZ that is usually not the case.
Why don’t you approach those people you are naming directly.
Is this a YEC thing?
If so, how about a mainstream Christian vs a YEC’er?
Of course atheists can be sure that there is no god. It was personally revealed to me that god doesn’t exist.
Of course atheists can be sure that there are no pixies.
It was personally revealed to me that they don’t exist.
(Aten on the other hand is, however, very real.)
As somebody once said…”Has anyone provided a proof of Aten’s inexistence?
Not even close.”
I think Cedric has the right idea here – why involve atheists in such a debate – they aren’t centrally involved (and I assume this audience is not really interested in atheist arguments).
Surely the conflicts over science, big bang theories, fine tuning arguments (indeed any involvement in science to “prove” a god) are within religions. Why not have other Christians as the debating partner?
Why involve atheists? Because this is where much of the debate lies. Ken and Cedric disagree with me because of a clash of worldviews: atheistic versus theistic, Darwinist versus Christian. This is why we cannot agree on many things — we have incompatible starting assumptions.
The idea that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria is simply false — both sides are speaking into the other, as has been demonstrated over and over in these discussions. This is why the debate needs to happen.
I disagree. The conflicts are within religion and specifically within Christianity.
“Darwinist vs Christian” – come off it. That is just an attempt to misrepresent the situation.
Many evolutionary scientists are Christian and in fact the Dover trial used expert witnesses for both complainants and the defendants. The Christians Behe and Miller were on opposite sides. It was a legal battle between majority Christians and a group attempting to impose their minority religion of ID on their school science classes. No wonder most Chrsitians were offended and voted out that Education Board.
And look at the Clergy letter project – a huge number of Christians are mobilising to defend evolutionary science against a small Seattle-based clique (the Wedge) who are trying to impose their own pre-enlightenment religious view on society – including all those other Christians.
It is dishonest to see the controversy of ID as atheist vs Christian. The fact is that in NZ, for example, most Christians accept evolutionary science – approx. 40% reject it. So that is where the debate has got to take place. That is where the controversy is.
The attempt to rope in atheists for this debate is a dishonest attempt to portray science as atheistic – which just isn’t true.
Ken said…”The attempt to rope in atheists for this debate is a dishonest attempt to portray science as atheistic – which just isn’t true.”
Yep.
There are plenty of scientists who are religious.
Hindus, Catholics, Muslims etc.
A debate between a sane, educated, mainstream Christian who is also a scientist vs a YEC’er would be much more appropriate.
Even better; how about an ex-YEC’er vs a YEC’er. Now that would be interesting.
Someone like this…http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
And the other dishonesty about the proposed debate is that the “top Christian scholar” who is being presented as representing Christianity would not be accepted by most Christians.
Even more reasons for this debate to be between Chrsitians.
Surely there would be plenty of Christian leaders who would be well capable of debating with him – about his interpretation of Christianity, if not science.
I don’t mean to nag but…
Your comment is awaiting moderation. February 13th, 2008 9:23 am
(This moderation thingy is getting silly.
Can something please be done about it?)
The fact is that in NZ, for example, most Christians accept evolutionary science – approx. 40% reject it. So that is where the debate has got to take place. That is where the controversy is.
My Reply to Ken
As an atheist I can completely understand the 40% who reject it, the 60% who accept evolutionary science and still call themselves Christians I have trouble understanding, it seems to show just how strong the need is in humans to believe in a God and an afterlife even though accepting evolutionary science
makes the christian God very unlikely.
“I know there is a God” or simply “There is a God” are absolute statements. For those statements to be true the speaker would have to have absolutely all knowledge of all evidences, everywhere for all time, which of course if they are being honest they will admit they do not possess.
So, since they cannot in reality claim that they know that there is a God, then the more truthful statement should be, “I do not at present know whether God exists or not.”
My theory is that this website is actually being run from Seattle. (It does claim to be sponsored by “Right Wing American Fundamentalists”).
The Wedge people have too much on their plate at the moment and haven’t been able to keep up with things here.
That would explain a lot.
Plenty of pro-ID web-sites were set up in a flurry of advertising but the initial enthusiastic glow faded, (especially after the Dover trial).
The volunteers who manned the sites started to drop off.
At the Pandasthumb website, on the “Uncommonly dense” thread, they occasionally mention other failing ID-friendly websites.
“Overwhelming evidence” (for example) can have WEEKS (!!)between comments plus the articles posted are now exclusively just links to O’Leary’s “Buy my book” dismally repetitive blogs.
Another dead duck is the ICON-RIDS website which became famous when porn spam gathered for months and nobody bothered to delete it
.
(At least I think it was ICON-RIDS)
It was only when somebody at PT made a running joke about it that the porn spam backlog was finally removed.
They want to re-define science but their own web-sites struggle with a lack of interest.
I agree Ken, this is an internal argument for Christianity to hold. If the issue is one of ‘creationism vs evolution’ there are plenty of people in both camps within Christianity – moving it to an atheist vs theist level shifts the scope of the debate.
The question is, will Christians chose the search for truth over solidarity?
Who is the ‘Christian Scholar’ and is the debate about whether there is a God or not, or Young Earth Creationism vs Evolution? The two are very different.
As others have pointed out, the latter doesn’t necessarily need to include an atheist and Ken’s right, Darwinism vs Christianity is a false conflict for a lot of Christians.
Ken, very few Christians that I know accept evolution as our means of getting here. I bump into the odd theistic evolutionist and know only one personally. The vast majority tend to be either YECs or OECs. Some are hybrids or like myself who have leanings both ways. I personally am happy to say the jury is out and there is a lot more science to come regarding this issue.
The “top Christian scholar” can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig
Here’s your opportunity for instant fame Ken
I think the date is July this year.
The NMR poll data indicate that very approx. 40% of NZ Christians reject evolutionary science and prefer a literal bible explanation. This suggests that your Christian contacts are only partially representative (no criticism here – we all have on-representative communities).
But this does reinforce the argument – given this big divide in Chrsitianity I would think that your conference/debate/or whatever could really benefit from airing this internal conflict.
Wouldn’t you welcome that discussion?
“I personally am happy to say the jury is out…”
How can you be ‘happy’ to say that?
One side has got to be wrong.
Very wrong.
Insanely wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDERsZUVn0
Ignorance is something to be deplored.
Ignorance about something so elemental as the age of the Earth is shameful, especially for someone living in the 21st Century in a Western country with access to free education and Internet access.
Shameful.
Admin, we have been having quite a discussion about this debate and realise we don’t really have much in the way of details (see What is the subject of this debate?).
Could you clarify things please?
Are you actually involved in organising this debate?
If so, what is its subject(s) nature?
Specifically is it about ID, evolution?
You suggested in one comment that it would cover Christianity vs “Darwinism” or evolutionary science – is that meant to be part of the debate?
Look forward to your carification.
Admin, would it be O.K for one of the debaters to wear a clown suit?
http://cectic.com/105.html
“Wouldn’t you welcome that discussion?”
Hi Ken. Sure, given enough time. I think we all need to pick our battles and weigh up carefully the best strategy. In this case, the battle I see Christians facing is not over whether the earth is 6000 years old or 4.5 billion years old.
Clown suit? Glad to see you have a sense of humor/humour Cedric. I was starting to wonder
Ignorance is something to be deplored.
Adamantly believing / evangelizing / proselytizing the faith that there is no God when we are so ignorant about something so elemental as the origin of life or the origin of the universe is shameful, especially for someone living in the 21st Century in a Western country with access to free education and Internet access.
Shameful.
Well put Cedric!
So, I assume (because you didn’t answer my question) that you ‘admin’ have nothing to do with organising this debate and can’t clarify our questions.
Am I wrong?
Ken, Sorry I missed your questions. I am loosely affiliated with those organizing the debate. I don’t think a subject has been finalized yet, and I have not been informed whether or not an opponent has been found. Science and ID? I hope so,
Thanks for the info – I’ll pass it on.
Admin said…”Adamantly believing / evangelizing / proselytizing the faith that there is no God…”
You are confused.
‘Not believing in God(Gods)’ is not a faith.
‘Not collecting stamps’ is not a hobby.
Admin, we don’t know much about the origin of life or the origin of the universe.
Nothing shameful about that.
There’s a lot we don’t know.
We do however know about the age of the Earth. That’s fairly easy (by comparision).
That’s because we have multiple lines of evidence and many different, independent methods for figuring out how old things are.
All of the physical sciences (ALL OF THEM!!) agree that the Earth is ancient.
The jury is not “still out”.
There is no scientific controversy.
The Earth is old.
If anybody tells you different, then it’s because they are ignorant, delusional or lying.
Admin said…”In this case, the battle I see Christians facing is not over whether the earth is 6000 years old or 4.5 billion years old.”
The Earth is not 6000 years old.
Honest.
When a Christian says something like that, they make Christians in general look gullible and stupid.
Benny Hinn is a liar and a fraud.
When Christians get suckered into giving him truckloads of money, they make Christians look gullible and stupid.
St Augustine of Hippo.
St Augustine of Hippo.
???
Hey, we agree on something: Hinn.
Go argue with http://www.creationontheweb.org about dating.
“‘Not believing in God(Gods)’ is not a faith.”
Cedric, if you make the claim: “there is no God”, don’t you think that that requires certain knowledge?
Here is the CMI video program dealing with exactly this issue:
Episode 6—What the Science says about the Age of the Earth
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5661
St Augustine of Hippo.
(354 – 430 AD)
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, while presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics. … If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well, and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about the Scriptures, how then are they going to believe those Scriptures in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven? How indeed, when they think that their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?”
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/528_science_religion_and_evoluti_6_19_2001.asp
Hey, we agree on something: Hinn.
So why are you prepared to swallow nonsense like a 6000 year old Earth yet you reject Hinn?
(If you’re interested in how people like Hinn get exposed as frauds, feel free to click my name to get to James Randi’s web-site. He’s not a Christian by any means but his efforts help protect Christians from fraud.)
“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”
Cedric, if you make the claim: “there is no God”, don’t you think that that requires certain knowledge?
Burden of proof.
If you make the claim “I have an invisible friend” then it’s not my job to provide evidence to the contrary.
Don’t expect people to take you seriously if you say…”I have an invisible friend! I dare you to prove me wrong. I double dare you.”
You make the claim. You provide the evidence.
(Oop, made a few typos. Bit rushed today. Apologies for any confusion)
Admin, you referred me to a creationist web-site.
Here’s their attitude to science.
““By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”
Do you agree?
Is this how good science is done? Seriously?
What creationist seem to forget about atheists is that we don’t just not believe in god. We don’t believe in “gods” plural. This includes any form of higher being no matter how fantastic they may sound.
And i doubt any atheist of significance would debate with your “scholar” because that would just give the appearance of your scholar having some form of credibility when im sure he is no doubt a nobody with an agenda to push.
Good luck, most of us atheists don’t feel much of a need to argue the point. You can’t prove god exists we can’t prove he doesn’t. Then again, who are you trying to impress? Yourselves or someone whose existence we atheists don’t give much credence to, so why would we bother? I just like that we live in a free enough society that we can ALL hold our views without persecution. Something thats wholly a modern phenomenon, and mostly acheived by eroding the power of various religions / churchs.
2 posers that i have never had any worthwhile response to.
#1 How do you rationalise “man/creatures/earth/universe must be created for we are/it’s all so complex”, with “GOD was not created”, despite god being vastly more complex?
#2 Timeline of Satan entering the garden of eden.
Satan was an angel, got jealous of man (I am guessing of Adam and Eve), fought against god, (despite knowing as an angel would how futile that was), was banished to hell, escaped to enter the garden of eden and do his deeds.
Firstly how does an omnipotent god have a ‘focus of attention’ when god as you describe him is omnipotent, to make satan jealous in the first place?
Secondly what kind of perfect paradise has Satan in it ?
Thirdly Why does god punish man for the trickery of the devil, which must have been some pretty good trickery when you consider either satan did it without gods knowledge (making him a fallible god) or god condoned it in the first place.
The atheists reading this should look up the “presumption of atheism”.
Claiming: “We don’t believe in “gods” plural. This includes any form of higher being no matter how fantastic they may sound.” is a claim that requires the atheist to bear the burden of proof. Do you not understand this? If you make the claim, you bear the burden of proof.
OK. One can’t prove a negative directly. What one does is sets up a specific hypothesis and puts that to the test.
The problem with religious gods is that nobody actually advances a specific hypothesis. You can talk to a number of Chrsitians in the same congregation and their concept of god is different for all of them.
So – this question is (as Geering points out) a stupid question – unless a specific god hypothesis is proposed.
Ball in your court!
“What one does is sets up a specific hypothesis and puts that to the test.”
Not at all Ken. You are making a category mistake suggesting that God can be reached using the scientific method. The Christian God, (the only one I argue for), is outside of nature. No experiment is going to prove His existence.
Geering is just applying modernist methods to God — but they won’t work. Not all truth comes from science as you know. So it turns out that Geering is a man trapped in a worldview that cannot allow access to that which he a priori has rejected.
“The Christian God, (the only one I argue for), is outside of nature. No experiment is going to prove His existence.”
So would that explain why nobody is doing or can do experiments with Intelligent Design?
As you know Cedric, scientific experiments can never give us 100% certainty. So what do you mean by proof? Mathematical proof?
What sort of experiment would you suggest would satisfy your requirements?
Deleted due to arrogant content.
Oddly enough, the subject of what “ID scientists” could be doing in the way of simple research or experiments to demonstrate the value of ID is the subject of a very interesting article at the Pandasthumb.org
It’s called Behe vs Lampreys: A modest proposal.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/behe-vs-lamprey.html#more
Does it sound fair to you?
Admin- you have just avoided the question of what your god hypothesis is. Talk to your fellow relgionists. I bet they all have different concepts of their “god.”
Sot their is no agreement on what you lot believe in – except pehaps that it can’t be shown to exist. And, of course, if you define something as outside reality (nature) there is is no way a group of people can agree on it.
Isn’t it a bit arrogant to then demand that someone who doesn’t share you belief should have to somehow prove their belief.
Or perhaps I could be dishonest and claim the non-god I believe in is outside nature and therefore can’t be poroven – you just have accept my belief. Stupid isn’t it.
Cedric, I have deleted your post.
This website is not a place 4 u 2 spit off your sarcasm. From here on in, you will comment in a decent respectful manner (take some hints from your friend Ken). If you cannot do this, you account will be terminated without further warning.
Admin
Hi Ken,
My “God Hypothesis” is what Christians have always believed, more or less. Like scientists, “we see thru a glass dimly” and do not agree on all points. That is so obvious that it hardly needs stating.
To hint as some do that we disagree on everything is simply false. Take the Apostles Creed for example. I believe this just as Christians have for almost 2000 years.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
In fact, we recited this at church this morning (first time I have ever done that, and shame on the churches generally for ignoring this and being generally dumb instead!)
Yet you can’t describe your god hypothesis. And I don’t think most “believers” can either.
Stones and glasshouses!
Quite honestly Ken, I am not really sure ***how*** I would formulate such a thing so as to satisfy you. Christians simply do not see this in the category that you appear to be trying to force it into. Give me an example of how you would go about it. e.g.
1. Observe God…
2. Formulate hypothesis…
Cheers.
Until you can I suggest you stop being so critical of others who have different beliefs to yourself. Just accept that they might not see things “in the category that you appear to be trying to force it into.”
If you were to take your own advice Ken, I guess you would have to close down your website?! I suspect you don’t have much insight into the way Christians operate. Let be briefly explain if that helps.
We believe in General Revelation and Special Revelation.
The first reveals God in nature.
The second reveals God from the Bible — God’s special revelation to His followers.
Thus we have 2 forms of revelation, and they should operate as per the correspondence principle in quantum mechanics.
Now, we cannot derive much theological truth from general revelation. We would say, as per the letter the Apostle Paul wrote to the Roman church in the New Testament, that there is enough truth about God revealed thru nature for people to stand condemned on the day of judgment. You Ken, therefore, will be without excuse when you at some future time stand before Jesus Christ and bow your knee to him. He will say to you, “you had enough evidence from nature to know there is a God”.
Revelation about the nature of God, His plan, purposes thru Christ and so on are only available thru special revelation — e.g. the Bible. The Bible alone explains how you, Ken, can be made right with a holy God who is otherwise going to condemn you to hell for eternity as per his perfect righteous and holy judgment.
Conclusion: Science (and ID) can help show the fact that there is a God, but not prove it. The Bible gives us the special revelation that we require to be made right before the holy God, creator of the universe, because of the work of Jesus Christ. Science will have enormous trouble reaching this form of knowledge
Cheers.
“Cedric, I have deleted your post.”
Shame on you.
Admin said…”Mathematical proof?”
If you’re suggesting that there’s mathematical evidence for ID, then bring it on and let the world’s mathematicians see it.
(Is that too ‘sarcastic’ for you or does that sound like a sane and reasonable thing to do?)
Cedric, this is not a website for you to use to advertise your propaganda. You have your own site for that. I reserve the right to delete your posts and to enforce certain posting standards, just as you do on your website.
Ok, I have no idea how you reached:
Admin said…”Mathematical proof?”
ID is abductive, not mathematically provable.
I will repeat what I wrote…
As you know Cedric, scientific experiments can never give us 100% certainty. So what do you mean by proof? Mathematical proof?
What sort of experiment would you suggest would satisfy your requirements?
So now you do claim that there is a god hypothesis: there is enough truth about God revealed thru nature for people to stand condemned on the day of judgment.”
So here you talk about evidence from reality (nature) giving a picture of god. Evidence from reality is what is used to develop an hypothesis.
You also claim the evidence is so strong that those who don’t draw that conclusion “stand condemned on the day of judgment.”
Yet you can’t give that picture of your god, that hypothesis.
I guess you will stand condemned on that day of judgment.
Silly, isn’t it?
Do any of you remember the old school bible bashers, the ones who always tried to win arguments by shouting people down?
Well I do, that same type of individual with the same personality traits is now in another camp, the atheists and sceptics! I am not saying all atheists and sceptics are like this, but a great many now are. I have seen it so many times, a debate in a pub, and if someone just simply says they believe in God, then the atheist seems to try to win his argument aggressively rather than with reason.
Now some of you atheists hated it when another tried to ram religion down your throats, but now you do the same. If this atheism belief is really so much to shout about, then why aren’t you all happy in your belief, sitting on your porch enjoying a whisky and a cigar, instead of trying to evangelise the rest of the world? Someone on here mentioned that the natural state of a newborn baby is not to believe in God, but I seem to recall that the natural state of a newborn baby is also not to convince everyone else there is no god. Many of you out there are starting to sound like people with real issues when it comes to relating to others rather than really being happy in your belief. Yes I can hear you saying there are religious people like this too, I know I have met them also, and in truth am less than perfect myself.
I say that in the 21st century the atheists and sceptics have become the new generation of obnoxious ‘bible bashers’. I have heard many of them say ‘we don’t need to prove the none existence of God, but the religious need to prove the existence as it is their place to do so.”
Well I disagree, if you are the one trying to ear bash and bludgeon the other person then you provide evidence of the none existence of God. I haven’t got a problem with someone saying they don’t believe in God, or believing, but only with those who feel they have the right to keep harping on aggressively about their beliefs.
I can say that I am grateful to Darwin for smashing the power of the control freaks in the churches who tried to run every detail of our great grand parents lives. Now we have another set of tyrants, the same people as before but now fighting in another camp and calling themselves atheists, sceptics and scientists, and for these bullies perhaps we are in need of another type of Darwin.
On March 14 Admin stated the following “Ignorance is something to be deplored.
Adamantly believing / evangelizing / proselytizing the faith that there is no God when we are so ignorant about something so elemental as the origin of life or the origin of the universe is shameful, especially for someone living in the 21st Century in a Western country with access to free education and Internet access.
Shameful”.
I’m so very glad I stumbled across this little beauty!
I’ve been exposed to much in the way of Christian “reasoning” in recent times (at my own initiative) and it’s always perplexed me because I could never quite grasp how their mind was working. To me this quote encapsulates it beautifully. It’s so concise and to the point and yet seems to sum up completely the Christian view of atheism in one stunning sentence.
I feel totally enlightened by it. I will be saving this wonderful sentence to share with my friends (both christian and atheist ones).
Just a quick comment and question admin.
Is this your honest opinion of the athiestic viewpoint?
If one were to follow the logic to it’s conclusion then one should totally believe in the existence of god and have no opinions otherwise until one could prove or have absolute knowledge of the mechanisms invloved in how life started and how the universe came into being.
Is this a fair comment?
Chris, perhaps you could re-word your comment to make it more intelligible. I cannot make head nor tail of it.
Leave your response!
Nano-Blog News from around the world
NZ CHRISTIAN BLOGS
NZ CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES
PLACES TO VISIT