Christian. resonse to your video presentation of this topic

Martin_Simon
Theist
Martin_Simon's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Christian. resonse to your video presentation of this topic

What the video showed was two guys engaging in speculation without any proof. For instance you claim that some scholars "think" that the account of Jesus from Josephus is a forgery. So, some people "think" that it's a forgery and some don't. No proof either way. Your claims regarding other non-Biblical references to Jesus also offer no proof that they are not true historical accounts but only an argument as to why you personally would discount their historicity.

 

Secondly, you say that the gospel accounts were written after 70ad because "they mention the fall of Jerusalem". Yes, Jesus, the eternal Son of God who came down from Heaven said that because the Jewish people had failed to recognize Him as the promised Messiah that God was going to bring judgment on Jerusalem. Denying that Jesus could know the future is not "proof" that the Son of God was a mythical figure. It is only proof that the two gentlemen in the video don't believe in God and so they discount any being knowing the future.

The Biblical facts are that Jesus said that He would rise from the dead 3 days after He gave his life as a ransom for many and if He had not risen from the dead then Christianity would have fizzled out like a wet firecracker just like the mystical religions that were prevalent during the time He was on earth. A strong argument for the Biblical account can be found at the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School's web site where they have a copy of Simon Greenleaf's "Testimony of the Evangeliists" - http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen. 



The facts are that there is a historical continuity of believers having received first eyewitness testimonies of the life of Jesus, and then written testimonies during a time when people who would have been around to confirm or deny those accounts were still alive.

Luke wrote his gospel and the Acts of the Apostles in a letter to a someone he knew. Luke was a physician and companion of Paul who was writing to verify the accounts of Jesus that were circulating at the time. He was equivalent to a investigative reporter and not in the same category as people like Dan Brown who was trying to make a lot of money by putting out a controversial book like the Da Vinci code.

Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Acts 1:1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. 3 To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

The Apostle Paul whom you claimed only saw Jesus in a "mystical encounter" wrote this to the church in Corinth around 52ad.

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Paul is saying that many of the witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are still around to verify what Paul has been telling them. And while Paul may or may not have actually seen Jesus when He was teaching in Jerusalem, certainly Paul knew all about what was going on in regards to Jesus when He was alive.

Acts 9:1 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" 5 And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do."

It isn't like Paul (Saul) never ever heard of a man named Jesus and one day while sitting in a cave eating magic mushrooms he had a vision of some strange figure. Paul was already the leader of group of Jewish religious leaders who were persecuting the remaining followers of Jesus.

The argument about the proof of the existence of the 1st century Roman emperor because of coins bearing his likeness today could with greater conviction be applied to Jesus. While Jesus did not have any coins minted with His image on them how many more people have been affected by His life on earth? How many more people know details about the life of Jesus than about the 1st century Roman emperor? The following quote that is attributed to Napoleon demonstrates this point. Whether or not Napoleon actually said these words is of little consequence. The comparison given in the following passage is valid no matter who might be making it.

"Napoleon expressed these thoughts while he was exiled on the rock of St. Helena. There, the conqueror of civilized Europe had time to reflect on the measure of his accomplishments. He called Count Montholon to his side and asked him, "Can you tell me who Jesus Christ was?" The count declined to respond. Napoleon countered:

Well then, I will tell you. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and I myself have founded great empires; but upon what did these creations of our genius depend? Upon force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this very day millions will die for Him.... I think I understand something of human nature; and I tell you, all these were men, and I am a man: none else is like Him; Jesus Christ was more than man.... I have inspired multitudes with such an enthusiastic devotion that they would have died for me.... but to do this it was necessary that I should be visibly present with the electric influence of my looks, my words, of my voice. When I saw men and spoke to them, I lighted up the flame of self-devotion in their hearts.... Christ alone has succeeded in so raising the mind of man toward the unseen, that it becomes insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across a chasm of eighteen hundred years, Jesus Christ makes a demand which is beyond all others to satisfy; He asks for that which a philosopher may seek in vain at the hands of his friends, or a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his brother. He asks for the human heart; He will have it entirely to Himself. He demands it unconditionally; and forthwith His demand is granted. Wonderful! In defiance of time and space, the soul of man, with all its powers and faculties, becomes an annexation to the empire of Christ. All who sincerely believe in Him, experience that remarkable, supernatural love toward Him. This phenomenon is accountable; it is altogether beyond the scope of man's creative powers. Time, the great destroyer, is powerless to extinguish this sacred flame; time can neither exhaust its strength nor put a limit to its range. This is it, which strikes me most; I have often thought of it. This is which proves to me quite convincingly the Divinity of Jesus Christ.1

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD... http://web.express56.com/~bromar/


Tyl3r04
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Marth_simon

Quote:

Marth_simon Wrote:

The Biblical facts

An oxymoron?

Quote:

Marth Simon wrote:

Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

I believe this is called a arguement from authority fallacy? Just because this man came to the conclusion that they were reliable, does not make them reliable. Simply because he was the principle "Founder" of harvard means nothing.

Quote:

Marth_Simon

The facts are that there is a historical continuity of believers having received first eyewitness testimonies of the life of Jesus, and then written testimonies during a time when people who would have been around to confirm or deny those accounts were still alive.

The facts are that documents can be fabricated. And the documents you use that you deem reliable could easily be fabricated. You have to realize, that you have to use real evidence if you want to back up your claims.

Quote:

Marth_Simon wrote:

"Napoleon expressed these thoughts while he was exiled on the rock of St. Helena. There, the conqueror of civilized Europe had time to reflect on the measure of his accomplishments. He called Count Montholon to his side and asked him, "Can you tell me who Jesus Christ was?" The count declined to respond. Napoleon countered:... ect ect."

If the history books serve right, Napoleon was not the least bit religious. He was, infact an Atheist, or somewhere near it I believe. He saw religion as a means to get what he needed, so he used it to what suited him best. Considering many people of his time were of a zealot-like religious nature.

My suggestion to you, is when you can come back and argue your points without using the bible, then you will be taken seriously. Many people do not even consider the bible worthy of quoting. And quite personally, I don't think you can use the bible to prove your point to people who do not believe in it.

Quote:

Marth_simon wrote:

 The comparison given in the following passage is valid no matter who might be making it.

What makes it valid? Your opinion? I say it's not valid. Who's right? 

 

 

 

"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.


Martin_Simon
Theist
Martin_Simon's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
  Tyl3r04

 

Tyl3r04 wrote:

 

Quote:

Martin Simon wrote:

Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

I believe this is called a arguement from authority fallacy? Just because this man came to the conclusion that they were reliable, does not make them reliable. Simply because he was the principle "Founder" of harvard means nothing.

 

That might be that type of fallacy if I had not provided a link where this respected legal scholar laid out an examination of the evidence based upon the criteria for evidence used in trial cases. When examining a historical event where there is a lack of modern technological methods like video and audio recordings and there are no living eyewitnesses this is the method that is used to examine whether or not the evidence that is presented can lead an impartial examiner to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt the claims of the historical case maker. The only "authority" implied is that the author is recognized as a competent legal expert. If as a society we  make life or death decisions based upon this method of investigation into past circumstances then I would argue that this is the best method we have available to us to reach decisions regarding the legitimacy of the claims of the Biblical accounts.

Quote:
 Martin_Simon

The facts are that there is a historical continuity of believers having received first eyewitness testimonies of the life of Jesus, and then written testimonies during a time when people who would have been around to confirm or deny those accounts were still alive.

Quote:
The facts are that documents can be fabricated. And the documents you use that you deem reliable could easily be fabricated. You have to realize, that you have to use real evidence if you want to back up your claims.

 

While documents can be fabricated if you examine the link that I provided you will find a competent legal argument for why there is no reason to conclude that the documentary accounts found in the Bible have been fabricated

Quote:
Martin_Simon wrote:

"Napoleon expressed these thoughts while he was exiled on the rock of St. Helena. There, the conqueror of civilized Europe had time to reflect on the measure of his accomplishments. He called Count Montholon to his side and asked him, "Can you tell me who Jesus Christ was?" The count declined to respond. Napoleon countered:... ect ect."

Quote:
If the history books serve right, Napoleon was not the least bit religious. He was, infact an Atheist, or somewhere near it I believe. He saw religion as a means to get what he needed, so he used it to what suited him best. Considering many people of his time were of a zealot-like religious nature.

My suggestion to you, is when you can come back and argue your points without using the bible, then you will be taken seriously. Many people do not even consider the bible worthy of quoting. And quite personally, I don't think you can use the bible to prove your point to people who do not believe in it. 

Apparently you missed the significance of the qualifying statements that I posted regarding that purported quote. Whether or not Napoleon actually said those words the ideas expressed in that quotation are a valid argument for the reality of Jesus' existence. For a mythical figure to have the impact that Jesus has had for almost 2,000 years and continues to have on humanity on a world wide scale breaking all cultural bounds would be a unique occurrence in human history far outweighing the impact that the first century Roman emperor has had or that Napoleon has had.

As to using the Bible to argue my points, I was quoting the Bible in response to the argument presented in the video that the accounts contained therein were not contemporary accounts that could be relied upon. My point is that the internal evidence of the introductions to both of those books shows that the author was writing to an individual whom he apparently knew and was claiming to have gathered his accounts by personal interviews with eyewitnesses to the events described in the letter.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD... http://web.express56.com/~bromar/


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Practically all of your

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Martin_Simon
Theist
Martin_Simon's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: Practically all

 

Quote:

Practically all of your complaints are aswered here: http://rookthehistorian.blogspot.com/2007/05/revised-look-at-resurrection-and-its.html

I don't have the time this morning to respond to the whole essay but I would like to start by asking if you have examined this explanation for supposed contradictions in the resurrection accounts?

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/ResurrectionAccount.htm

The Resurrection
Does the Resurrection account in the Bible measure up?  Is there a harmony of the different accounts that makes sense?

The Resurrection Account: Does it Make Sense?
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD... http://web.express56.com/~bromar/


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I'm extremely well versed in

I'm extremely well versed in Apologetics and I find it a disgusting and dishonest profession.  Try me.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Martin_Simon
Theist
Martin_Simon's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I'm extremely well

Quote:
I'm extremely well versed in Apologetics and I find it a disgusting and dishonest profession. Try me.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You have entitled your site "The Rational Response Squad". One would think that this entails providing well thought out responses to the arguments for the Christian faith. In other words, you are engaging in Apologetics for the Atheist point of view. Is that correct?

Secondly, it would appear that rather than engaging in point by point examination of the issues I have raised and finding either fault or agreement with each of those points you would rather post a link to a long essay and describe your feelings of disgust on the matter of Apologetics.

Last of all it seems that you have attributed the human characteristic of dishonesty to a field of intellectual investigation or what you mean by it being a "dishonest profession" is that you doubt the integrity of people who disagree with your position.

If the second idea is correct then I would ask you two things. First I would ask you if truth is dependent upon the person who is stating it or upon what the actual facts are? Secondly I would ask you if you have done any detailed investigations into the lives and character of the people whom you consider to be dishonest or if this assessment comes primarily from your disbelief in the ideas that are presented from Christian apologists?

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD... http://web.express56.com/~bromar/


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
On your first note: No, I'm

On your first note: No, I'm not an apologetic for atheism, as apologetics is defined as a defender of a faiths shortcomings, or a positions shortcomings. This is not only the origin or etymology of the word but also what it is still defined as today. There is no such way a position of apologetics can be held by atheism since it is not a positive position nor is it a faith - it's a lack of both.

One your second note, it was MY blog essay I posted, and it answers your questions. It's that simple. Perhaps if you read more of peoples works instead if debated in a forum point by point you may know as much as you claim to know, instead of coming up short.

On your third note - since apologetics is basically apologizing for your positions shortcomings, it uses a lot of false history, false claims in order to provide dishonest rationalizations. A perfect example is claims like "The bible proved events that are happening today, like flight and nuclear war." Such is not accurate, but false, and apologetics in all it's dishonest glory.

Finally,based on the above, it's more then obvious that the individual doesn't even matter, nor their personal belie or what God they believe in or whatever it may be - especially in the discussions of theism, however, there is an inherent dishonesty in apologists becauseone starts from the position of being right and works to make the facts fit his conclusion, as opposed to what modern historians do, which is to examine everything from the position of neutrality and weigh it against others to allow the facts to present to us the conclusion, and then we alter out conclusions based on new facts.  The apologist does not do this.   

So, like I said - apologetics is the most disgusting and dishonest form of profession there is.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Martin_Simon
Theist
Martin_Simon's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: as apologetics is

Quote:

as apologetics is defined as a defender of a faiths shortcomings, or a positions shortcomings. This is not only the origin or etymology of the word but also what it is still defined as today. There is no such way a position of apologetics can be held by atheism since it is not a positive position nor is it a faith - it's a lack of both.

 

I would have to disagree with you for these reasons. Atheism is a positive belief that there is no "God". That is that there is no supernatural being responsible for our existence here on earth. Would you agree to that much?

 

If so, then that is a faith based position no matter how many logical arguments based upon scientific facts you posit because you cannot prove that there is no God just like you can't prove that something doesn't exist on a planet in another galaxy unless you can prove that is impossible for God or the hypothetical object in another galaxy to exist at all.

 

I was an agnostic for most of my life because not only had I never been to church and was never raised to believe in God but because I refused to believe in something that could not be proved to exist. At the same time I looked down on Atheists because they had a positive belief that God did not exist.

When I considered the inability of science to account for the existence of matter in this universe since everything has to come from something and to say that the matter here has just "always existed" with no explanation for why that would be I was willing to consider the possibility that there was a supernatural entity that existed outside of the 4 dimensions that we are aware of to account for what we can see and know. To me that seems to be a "rational" possibility and one that should not be dismissed out of hand.

 

Quote:

 MY blog essay I posted, and it answers your questions.

 

While your essay does provide some answers to my questions the answers are jumbled around with debatable premises and I don't find the answers to be satisfactory. For instance you discount the gospel accounts of Jesus resurrection because what you consider to be inconsistencies between the accounts. I posted a link that has a chart that I wouldn't know how to import to this forum that gives a rational explanation of how those supposed inconsistencies can be reconciled. While the author is engaging in speculation his speculation is based upon logic and since we don't have the original authors here to inform us we should at least be able to agree that the seeming  inconsistencies are not outside the realm of being reconciled. That is unless you would care to examine the information on the link and point out some fatal flaw.

 

If you cannot then I would ask you to consider the other argument I provided a link to authored by Simon Greenleaf. I'm not a lawyer and I would guess that you are not one either. Perhaps if you have someone you know who is skilled in courtroom procedures you could have them look over the argument and see if they can find any flaws

 

Quote:
A perfect example is claims like "The bible proved events that are happening today, like flight and nuclear war." Such is not accurate, but false, and apologetics in all it's dishonest glory.

 

I believe that is known as the straw man argument. You take a ridiculous position that is not espoused by your opponent in the debate and then knock it down. Painting all Christian apologists with a broad brush based upon the flaws of some who have engaged in apologetics in the past is akin to racial bigotry where a person takes a bad example of conduct seen in a select sample of people of a different race and applies that behavior to all members of the race.

 

Last of all, your essay does not address the point I made about how a "mythical" figure could have the continuing world wide cross cultural impact that the story of Jesus has. Can you provide a comparable example? If not then what would your explanation be for how a "myth" could have greater impact on humanity than the lives of all of the great and powerful rulers of the time when Jesus is reported to have been on earth?

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD... http://web.express56.com/~bromar/


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Martin_Simon

Martin_Simon wrote:

Quote:

as apologetics is defined as a defender of a faiths shortcomings, or a positions shortcomings. This is not only the origin or etymology of the word but also what it is still defined as today. There is no such way a position of apologetics can be held by atheism since it is not a positive position nor is it a faith - it's a lack of both.

 

I would have to disagree with you for these reasons. Atheism is a positive belief that there is no "God". That is that there is no supernatural being responsible for our existence here on earth. Would you agree to that much?

I'm sorry but you failed to show me the positive belief.  Can you please point me to the positive claim in the statement "There is no God?"  

 

 

Quote:
Quote:

MY blog essay I posted, and it answers your questions.

 

While your essay does provide some answers to my questions the answers are jumbled around with debatable premises and I don't find the answers to be satisfactory.

That is why there are four pages of endnotes.  Please do some independant research. 

 

Quote:
For instance you discount the gospel accounts of Jesus resurrection because what you consider to be inconsistencies between the accounts. I posted a link that has a chart that I wouldn't know how to import to this forum that gives a rational explanation of how those supposed inconsistencies can be reconciled.

No modern historian would disagree that the Bible has contradictions.  That being said, you can't provide me with any peer reviewed essay which suggests and backs up your claim above.  I dare you to try. 

Quote:
While the author is engaging in speculation his speculation is based upon logic and since we don't have the original authors here to inform us we should at least be able to agree that the seeming inconsistencies are not outside the realm of being reconciled.

 I certainly don't have to agree to that.  That point is far from accurate.

Quote:
That is unless you would care to examine the information on the link and point out some fatal flaw.

 I feel my points have been adequately made in my blog.

Quote:
Quote:
A perfect example is claims like "The bible proved events that are happening today, like flight and nuclear war." Such is not accurate, but false, and apologetics in all it's dishonest glory.

 

I believe that is known as the straw man argument. You take a ridiculous position that is not espoused by your opponent in the debate and then knock it down. Painting all Christian apologists with a broad brush based upon the flaws of some who have engaged in apologetics in the past is akin to racial bigotry where a person takes a bad example of conduct seen in a select sample of people of a different race and applies that behavior to all members of the race.

No this is inaccurate.  Theism is a mind disorder with an additional note that all theists are dishonest.  There is an inherent dishonesty in all theism. 

Quote:
Last of all, your essay does not address the point I made about how a "mythical" figure could have the continuing world wide cross cultural impact that the story of Jesus has.

 Actually it does.  You didn't read it.

Quote:
Can you provide a comparable example?

I have.  Read the article. 

Quote:
If not then what would your explanation be for how a "myth" could have greater impact on humanity than the lives of all of the great and powerful rulers of the time when Jesus is reported to have been on earth?

Again, had you bothered to read the article you'd have this kn owledge, but it is apparent you either skimmed it or just looked at the titles of the sections without reviewing the work itself. Hell, maybe you didn't even look at it at all.  This is where the inherent dishonesty in theism is shown.   You are a perfect example of that diagnosis. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 "Theism is a mind

 "Theism is a mind disorder."

My Response: Are you a licensed psychiatrist? I checked the DSMV. It does not list theism as a mind disorder. Most people in human history have been, and are, theists. This shows that atheism is an aberation.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Rook: you cannot convert

Rook: you cannot convert people with insults. People like Phelps and Falwell insult the people they had no interest in, in order to bring the bigots who share those views under their wing.

But why are you doing it? By calling theists (the people that you're trying to clear the eyes of) "disgusting and dishonest" and "suffering from a mind disorder", you are not endearing them, and you are damaging the rest of your message: they see that one part of the message is clearly wrong, so they need not give any weight to the rest of it.

Worse, by combining an ad hom attack with the "poisoning the well" fallacy, you make yourself look bad even to those who agree with your points. It doesn't come across as a "rational response".

The reason I haven't done the challenge is that it's embarrassing to be associated with an organisation founded by people who say this kind of stuff: I want to be able to distance myself from the worst excesses, like the above insults.

The challenge is good and works - it is advertising and draws people in. But once they get to the forums, you are out of the realm where you should be using "shock-tactic advertisting" and into the realm where you should be using "user-friendly customer service".

That is, at least, if the RRS is about rationally convincing people of the truth, rather than just scoring points.

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


thraxas
thraxas's picture
Posts: 89
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Rook: you

Quote:

Rook: you cannot convert people with insults. People like Phelps and Falwell insult the people they had no interest in, in order to bring the bigots who share those views under their wing

 You mistakenly assume that the mission of RRS is to convert people. The purpose is to spread atheistic ideas and provide rational thought to the world. It is not meant to convert dyed in the wool theists, for obvious reasons.

Many of us here at RRS come to a certain point with theistic arguments where we feel disgusted and tired with the dishonesty, poor scholarship, and redundancy. There is nothing wrong with expressing this about an idea.  

Quote:
The reason I haven't done the challenge is that it's embarrassing to be associated with an organisation founded by people who say this kind of stuff: I want to be able to distance myself from the worst excesses, like the above insults.

If this is so, why do you post here? Honestly it would seem to contradict your feelings. By the way, the blasphemy challenge should not be considered embarassing. When you compare it to the atrocities and ludicrous nature of religions, tis nothing. It is making fun of how silly religion is and it should be with the belief in faeries and such.

It is bizarre how in our society that religion gets some special status as to not be criticized or talked about. People might criticize obsessed video gamers as deluded to the world and experiencing a mind disease. No one would flinch except the gamers. But when it comes to religion - everyone acts like you just stepped on a baby. Its silly and religion has no special place. 

 

I also understand Rook's frustration with the fact that he completely pointed out his extensive essay on Jesus. Apparently the poster feels not responding to it? Why should Rook have to re type out the entire thing just for this post, etc. -well he shouldn't' 

 

 

 

 

Biochemist & Law Student

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -Thomas Jefferson


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Damn, I came back to delete

Damn, I came back to delete my post and PM it instead Sad Too late now. I apologise for posting publicly about a personal behaviour issue. Doing so was bad form on my part, and probably means that the man who I hoped to convince will (rightly, perhaps) ignore an opinion expressed in that way. PMs are the right channel for this stuff.

Ah, well.

Quote:
The purpose is to spread atheistic ideas and provide rational thought to the world.

I can't help but feel that there are better ways to spread rationality than through irrational attacks.

Quote:
Many of us here at RRS come to a certain point with theistic arguments where we feel disgusted and tired with the dishonesty, poor scholarship, and redundancy.

That is a rational statement, and reads reasonably, and without insulting the whole population amongst whom you want to spread reason.

Quote:
If this is so, why do you post here? Honestly it would seem to contradict your feelings.

Because it's one of the better communities of its type, despite some of the bigotry. If you keep an eye out for the people listed in my sig, you'll soon see the kind of well-reasoned, polite and thoughtful discussions I come here for. I disagree ith many of them intensely, but it doesn't degrade to mudslinging, and we learn stuff.

If someone questioning their faith comes here and sees people insulting them, they will retreat back into their faith. Aggression makes people defensive like that.

It may be more honest and more fun to write aggressively, but, as one of the mods here wisely said about one of my own aggressive posts: it's less fun to read. (She was right, of course, so I apologised.)

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


Martin_Simon
Theist
Martin_Simon's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It is bizarre how

Quote:

It is bizarre how in our society that religion gets some special status as to not be criticized or talked about. People might criticize obsessed video gamers as deluded to the world and experiencing a mind disease. No one would flinch except the gamers. But when it comes to religion - everyone acts like you just stepped on a baby. Its silly and religion has no special place. 

I also understand Rook's frustration with the fact that he completely pointed out his extensive essay on Jesus. Apparently the poster feels not responding to it? Why should Rook have to re type out the entire thing just for this post, etc. -well he shouldn't' 

What is bizarre is that the Bible has been under assault for centuries and a book that atheists believe was written by primitive men has yet to have one scientific error found in it. What is bizarre is that Christianity and a Biblical world view have been under public assault in this country since the time of the Scopes Monkey trial and that you would not be aware of it.

As to Rooks frustration, his essay...  "The goal of this essay, as with the one previously, is to examine the evidence concerning the issue of the Resurrection, which is, that Christ not only died and was raised on the third day to appear to his followers, but also that his resurrection was in the flesh. Additionally the claim states that the event is unique." ...does not address the subject of this thread.

 The question under consideration is whether or not Jesus was a mythical figure, not all of the other subjects address in that essay.

 Rook says that he did answer my question about how a "mythical" figure could have the continuing world wide cross cultural impact that the story of Jesus has in his essay, but I don't see anything explaining that. I don't see any history of another mythical figure having the impact on lives and history that Jesus' life has had whether you believe it to be myth or not. It would seem that either Rook is being careless or that his own charge of dishonesty might better be applied to his own statements.

 

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD... http://web.express56.com/~bromar/


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: What is bizarre is

Quote:
What is bizarre is that the Bible has been under assault for centuries and a book that atheists believe was written by primitive men has yet to have one scientific error found in it.

So... science and the Bible agree? We should tell the media. They've been getting it wrong all these years, claiming there's a creation debate, and an age of the earth debate and so on.

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 "I can't help but feel

 "I can't help but feel that there are better ways to spread rationality than through irrational attacks."

My Response: That's because they don't have rational thoughts. Their arguments are not based on reason, logic, history, science or philosophy, but are emotionally driven. The ad hominem is much too typical among atheists, for no other reason that they don't have any good arguments.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Martin_Simon
Theist
Martin_Simon's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: So... science and

Quote:
So... science and the Bible agree?

That's correct. No scientific FACT has ever contradicted anything in the Bible. Scientific theories which come and go and get modified and put aside when some new discovery comes along may disagree with the Bible, but no scientific fact does.

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

How old exactly is the earth according to scientists?

Has science been revising the estimated age of the earth for some time now?

Does the Bible say how old the earth is, if so where?

Is macro-evolution a fact or a theory?

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD... http://web.express56.com/~bromar/


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: How old exactly is

Quote:
How old exactly is the earth according to scientists?

"The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

However, that date's a compromise between "more than 4.404 billion" (age of the oldest zircons), meteorites are dated to 4.567 billion years,

Quote:
Has science been revising the estimated age of the earth for some time now?

Depends on your definition of "revising". If you mean "getting more and more accurate estimates", then yes.

A significant list of estimates and their known flaws can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_earth

Quote:
Does the Bible say how old the earth is, if so where?

Not so far as I am aware. I'm sure you know this, but you are right to ask: it's important to establish whether I'm attacking a strawman or not.

In 1650 a chap called James Ussher published a chronology of the earth that put the events of Genesis at 10/23/4004 BC. Lots of people have since written their own chronologies, using biblical genealogies and crosschecking against other dates in the Bible. They tend to show the earth to be about 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

This is open to a certain amount of theological debate, particularly over the translation of the word "day". Some claim it means "age" (these we call "day-age" Creationists) and some claim it means a 24-hour day the same as our current one ("young-earth" Creationists). Others claim it means day, but that we lived much much longer back then, and the days were longer, and so they reach an intermediate date.

Quote:
Is macro-evolution a fact or a theory?

This may surprise you, but no evolutionary scientist claims that either "microevolution" nor "macroevolution" is true, or even uses the terms. The use of the term implies that you may be attacking one of the common misperceptions about how it's proposed to work.

I'd be very interested in whether my thread about evolution helps clear this up for you. http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7223

It is unlikely to convert you and isn't meant to: but it might help you hone your arguments, by showing what we really do believe, and giving you ammunition against that instead.

However, I've as yet had no theistic response to that thread, so I don't know if it'll be as useful to you as I think. Let me know Smiling

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


Martin_Simon
Theist
Martin_Simon's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Depends on your

Quote:

Depends on your definition of "revising". If you mean "getting more and more accurate estimates", then yes.

Well you see, that's where I would have to disagree with you because unless we invent a time machine or something like that we can only apply scientific principles in studying the materials that we have available to us to come up with a guess. That "more accurate" guess could be smiled upon by scientists of the next century  who have made new discoveries just like the scientists of today do at the things their earlier counterparts put forth with great assurance in their times.

Quote:
no evolutionary scientist claims that either "microevolution" nor "macroevolution" is true, or even uses the terms. The use of the term implies that you may be attacking one of the common misperceptions about how it's proposed to work.
 

I'm not familiar with how these two terms are used by different groups of people. When I use the term "macro-evolution" what I am primarily referring to is the theory that over time members of one class of the sub phylum vertebrata have evolved into another class that was not in existence prior to this process.            

You might be interested in one of the more recent scientific theories designed to account for apparent logical gaps in the evolving theory of evolution. Perhaps you are already familiar with the "sudden origins" addition, but if you are not here is the link  http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/uop-ppt012506.php

Pitt professor's theory of evolution gets boost from cell research

Jeffrey H. Schwartz's sudden origins closed Darwin's gaps; cell biology explains how

Click here for full article: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112349521/PDFSTART

m

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD... http://web.express56.com/~bromar/


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
A delusion is a mind

A delusion is a mind disorder listed in the DSM IV. A Delusion is a false belief held without and/or in spite of evidence. Several of the atheists on here (including me) have degrees in Psych.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Martin_Simon
Theist
Martin_Simon's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: A delusion is a mind

Quote:
A delusion is a mind disorder listed in the DSM IV. A Delusion is a false belief held without and/or in spite of evidence.

Oh, you mean like the belief that there is no supernatural explanation for the existence of matter in this universe, that either something came from nothing or that matter has just always existed with no explanation for it's origin even though there is no evidence to support such a belief system?

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD... http://web.express56.com/~bromar/


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: "Theism is a

AL500 wrote:

"Theism is a mind disorder."

My Response: Are you a licensed psychiatrist?

I'm not personally, however we've had both a licensed psychiatrist and licensed psychologist on our show that agree with our assesment that theism is akin to a mind disorder.

Here are some quotes in addition to what has gone down on our show:

"Religion is a monumental chapter in the history of human egotism. " - William James (father of Modern Psychology)

"For that again, is what all manner of religion essentially is: childish dependency." Albert Ellis (considered to be the Father of CBT - psychology)

Religion is an illusion ... it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our intellectual desires.
-- Sigmund Freud, quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations

The true believer is in a high degree protected against the danger of certain neurotic afflictions; by accepting the universal neurosis he is spared the task of forming a personal neurosis.
-- Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion (1927), quoted from Encarta® Book of Quotations (1999)

The content of the teaching, as well as the form of social relations, is set up so as to dig a psychological moat around the believers.
-- Edmund D Cohen, The Mind of the Bible Believer (American Psychologist)

 

 

Quote:
I checked the DSMV. It does not list theism as a mind disorder.

Did you actually check? You thought it would be listed? If so, that's a start, at least subconsciously you're willing to grasp the notion that theism is in fact a mind disorder and might in fact be listed in the DSMV.

 

Quote:
Most people in human history have been, and are, theists. This shows that atheism is an aberation.

No it shows most people are gullible about religion.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Well you see, that's

Quote:
Well you see, that's where I would have to disagree with you because unless we invent a time machine or something like that we can only apply scientific principles in studying the materials that we have available to us to come up with a guess.

Yep - nothing is ever certain. I'm happy with that. I'm also happy that what we know today may be overthrown completely and proven false in the future, in the face of better evidence. That's a strength of science, not a weakness.

Alll we can do is establish probabilities based on the evidence we have to hand, as you say.

So when dozens of different fields of science from cosmology, geology, biology, genetics, kinetic physics, thermal physics, and most tellingly radioactive decay, all independently come up with dates in a similar age range, then it is reasonable to give that age range a high probability.

When the beginning of that age range

When none come up with "ten thousand years" or ten trillion, it is reasonable to give those a very low probability.

Quote:
That "more accurate" guess could be smiled upon by scientists of the next century who have made new discoveries just like the scientists of today do at the things their earlier counterparts put forth with great assurance in their times.

But it is unheard of for a scientific revolution to move backwards, and make our predictions less accurate. In the study of cosmology and gravitation, by studying the movement of the planets, various theories were proposed which made the precision by which we could predict their movements more and more accurately: moving from earth-centred circles to sun-centred, from circles to ellipses, then finetuning with the theory of gravity. With relativity, we are now finally able to predict the orbits as accurately as we can measure them.

Equally, with age-of-the-earthism.

I am afraid I was unable to view the PDF.

I note that you have not commented on the post I linked to: however, if you read it, you will spot a few strawmen that the introduction you linked to seems to believe.

1) New traits do not come about through mutation.
2) Mutation is 100% random.
3) Significantly novel traits do not come about in a single generation

There are others, but... bleh.

From 1 and 2, you can't have a recessive mutation that implies a "cause", but only shows itself considerably later on.

I can't speak for the article, not having read it, but whoever wrote the intro needs to be given a good spanking.

And the quotes by schwarz seem to be completely out of touch with reality, so I do hope they were taken out of context.

I mean, the whole "gaps" assumption for a start: assuming that because there are (claimed to be) gaps in the fossil record, this is not simply because those things never fossilised, not because we just never found fossils, but rather because of a "mechanism of the gaps". If I see a bird fly past outside one window, then another, I can assume that in between the two, it was doing much the same as what I saw it doing in the windows: flying. Not teleporting or anything else.

I would pot this article down as "bad science". That's OK: a lot of proposed science is bad science, and that is why we have peer review, attempts to reproduce experiments, and falsification of hypotheses.

I would be very surprised if this man's hypothesis (as described in the intro) survived the process, but who knows, maybe it is true. Either way, no great blow to evolution I guess.

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Sigmund Freud was an

 Sigmund Freud was an atheist who also believed homosexuality was a mental disorder. Do you agree? As for the other individuals you mentioned, it is possible to find an alleged expert who will argue for anything. I know psychiatrists who also believe in extra-terrestrials. I can give an extensive list of psychiatrists who are theists. If anything is a delusion, it's atheism. Theism, in some form or another, has always been an integral part of the human spirit. Atheism is a fringe position.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Martin_Simon
Theist
Martin_Simon's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Most people in human

Quote:

Most people in human history have been, and are, theists. This shows that atheism is an aberation.

Quote:
No it shows most people are gullible about religion.

How do you derive that conclusion? Do you base it upon a lack of scientific knowledge in previous centuries or do you think that most people are basically gullible yourself being a notable exception? 

How do you account for the existence of matter in this universe?

Do you subscribe to the "something came from nothing"  idea or the "matter has just always existed and there is no explanation needed for it being here in the first place" notion? Or do you just shrug your shoulders and say "I can't explain it, maybe scientists in the future will come up with an explanation, but one thing I can say with certainty is that it wasn't created by some 'God'"?

 If you don't have an alternative explanation and fall into the last category then please explain how you can be certain that there is no supernatural entity responsible for the existence of matter in the 4 dimensions that we can observe? Remember that the "big bang" theory does not explain where the material came from to "go bang". In fact that theory sounds very similar to the first verse in the Bible where it says that God spoke the universe into creation.

Would you say that Dr Francis S Collins is gullible, delusional, both, or something else?

http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm

Dr. Francis S. Collins is Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. He currently leads the Human Genome Project, directed at mapping and sequencing all of human DNA, and determining aspects of its function.  His previous research has identified the genes responsible for cystic fibrosis, neurofibromatosis, Huntington's disease and Hutchison-Gilford progeria syndrome. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences. For the rest of his credentials, click on the link here: http://www.genome.gov/10000980.   Collins spoke with Bob Abernethy of PBS, posted online at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/transcripts/collins.html, in which he summaries the compatability of fact and faith thusly:

"I think there's a common assumption that you cannot both be a rigorous, show-me-the-data scientist and a person who believes in a personal God. I would like to say that from my perspective that assumption is incorrect; that, in fact, these two areas are entirely compatible and not only can exist within the same person, but can exist in a very synthetic way, and not in a compartmentalized way. I have no reason to see a discordance between what I know as a scientist who spends all day studying the genome of humans and what I believe as somebody who pays a lot of attention to what the Bible has taught me about God and about Jesus Christ. Those are entirely compatible views.

"Science is the way -- a powerful way, indeed -- to study the natural world. Science is not particularly effective -- in fact, it's rather ineffective -- in making commentary about the supernatural world. Both worlds, for me, are quite real and quite important. They are investigated in different ways. They coexist. They illuminate each other. And it is a great joy to be in a position of being able to bring both of those points of view to bear in any given day of the week. The notion that you have to sort of choose one or the other is a terrible myth that has been put forward, and which many people have bought into without really having a chance to examine the evidence. I came to my faith not, actually, in a circumstance where it was drummed into me as a child, which people tend to assume of any scientist who still has a personal faith in God; but actually by a series of compelling, logical arguments, many of them put forward by C. S. Lewis, that got me to the precipice of saying, 'Faith is actually plausible.' You still have to make that step. You will still have to decide for yourself whether to believe. But you can get very close to that by intellect alone."

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD... http://web.express56.com/~bromar/


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Sigmund Freud

AL500 wrote:
Sigmund Freud was an atheist who also believed homosexuality was a mental disorder. Do you agree? As for the other individuals you mentioned, it is possible to find an alleged expert who will argue for anything. I know psychiatrists who also believe in extra-terrestrials. I can give an extensive list of psychiatrists who are theists.

 If you're so quick to discount the thoughts of psychologists and psychiatrists then why did you even ask if we're pyschiatrists?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: AL500

Sapient wrote:

AL500 wrote:
Sigmund Freud was an atheist who also believed homosexuality was a mental disorder. Do you agree? As for the other individuals you mentioned, it is possible to find an alleged expert who will argue for anything. I know psychiatrists who also believe in extra-terrestrials. I can give an extensive list of psychiatrists who are theists.

 If you're so quick to discount the thoughts of psychologists and psychiatrists then why did you even ask if we're pyschiatrists?

 

AL500 wrote:
Sigmund Freud was an atheist who also believed homosexuality was a mental disorder. Do you agree? As for the other individuals you mentioned, it is possible to find an alleged expert who will argue for anything. I know psychiatrists who also believe in extra-terrestrials. I can give an extensive list of psychiatrists who are theists.

 If you're so quick to discount the thoughts of psychologists and psychiatrists then why did you even ask if we're pyschiatrists?

 

  I asked if Hawkins was a psychiatrist because he made the bogus claim that theism is a mental condition. He has no psychological credentials superior to the DSMV to make such a claim. I reported to him that the DSMV  (Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel for Mental Disorders) does not list theism as a mental condition. Therefore, his allegation is reduced to the illogic of an ad hominem.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Martin_Simon wrote: What

Martin_Simon wrote:

What is bizarre is that the Bible has been under assault for centuries and a book that atheists believe was written by primitive men has yet to have one scientific error found in it.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! ROFL! This is just too funny!

 

And then I read further down, and you're serious! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! That's even funnier! Hilarious, in fact.  Thanks for the laugh man.

May I ask, under what rock have you been living? I wish to buy it and use as shelter in case of nuclear war. It is obviously inpenetrable.


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:

AL500 wrote:

 

I asked if Hawkins was a psychiatrist because he made the bogus claim that theism is a mental condition. He has no psychological credentials superior to the DSMV to make such a claim. I reported to him that the DSMV  (Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel for Mental Disorders) does not list theism as a mental condition. Therefore, his allegation is reduced to the illogic of an ad hominem.

The DSM in previous versions (up until the III I believe) had homosexuality listed as a diagnosable "mind disorder". So, if you want to use that source to say that theism isn't a mind disorder (today, I might add, since it does tend to change), then obviously you believe that homosexuality is also some form of neurosis. Also of note is that Freud (you know - the father of psychoanalysis despite his flaws) considered theism a neurosis along with the founder of modern cognitive-behavioral therapy Albert Ellis.


Martin_Simon
Theist
Martin_Simon's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
I'm glad that I could

I'm glad that I could brighten your day! But just in case I take a peek out from under the rock would you be so kind as to post one scientific FACT that contradicts something that is clearly taught in the Bible? Thanks for you indulgence.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD... http://web.express56.com/~bromar/


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Martin_Simon wrote: I'm

Martin_Simon wrote:
I'm glad that I could brighten your day! But just in case I take a peek out from under the rock would you be so kind as to post one scientific FACT that contradicts something that is clearly taught in the Bible? Thanks for you indulgence.

I'm glad you're glad Laughing out loudWell, since we're in this wonderful forum, how about someone being dead for 3 days coming back to life? 


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Freud certainly had his

 Freud certainly had his flaws. Homosexuality being one of them. My point is that the DSMV, which is the official text book for mental disorders used by psychiatrists, does not list theism as a mental disorder. And I know of no doctors, psychiatrists or psychologists who make the claim that it is. In fact, most of them are theists themselves. If anything is a mental disorder, its atheism; since probably less then 1% of the human race has been atheist. Yet they have the audacity to accuse us? lol Psychological normality is based on norms. The norm for civilization has been theism. Ergo, atheism is abnormal; hence a disorder. According to the Greek Eastern saints of antiquity, they argued that atheism was a spiritual disease, a passion (pathos) that must be overcome and defeated. It is a sickness of the soul, caused by extreme sin.

"Impure souls give birth to impure knowledge"--Saint Isaac the Syrian

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
AL500, Do you even read the

AL500,

Do you even read the thread topics???

There is already a thread addressing your issue. Here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/miscellanous_forums/trollville/6936

You can take up where ShoottoKill left off.

No more off-topic bullshit. Find the right thread please. For the most part, we are more than happy to respond as rationally as possible to everyone. You are making that difficult to do.

Please, don't post in this thread again until you are willing to address the topic. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


ajay333
Theist
ajay333's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: AL500

Sapient wrote:
AL500 wrote:

"Theism is a mind disorder."

My Response: Are you a licensed psychiatrist?

I'm not personally, however we've had both a licensed psychiatrist and licensed psychologist on our show that agree with our assesment that theism is akin to a mind disorder.


*New! series: Apparent hole(s) in Mr. Sapient's logic revealed*

Logical hole 1: No one (not even a professional psychiatrist!) can read somebody else's thoughts(they can certainly 'guess' and that's what they do) with the exception of that person himself/herself and an omniscient GOD (I humbly challenge any one to 'try' to refute this statement with a valid proof or simple logic)

Logical hole 2: If a professing atheist doesn't 'know' what is going on in his/her own mind to be 'real' his/her claim, to 'know' that 'God doesn't exist' becomes automatically questionable!

In other words a professing atheist cannot claim to know something is true if he/she themselves need a professional psychiatrist's judgement to prove that their own judgement is correct!

They are in big trouble! if they can't be sure if their 'own thoughts' are right/real

Quote:

Here are some quotes in addition to what has gone down on our show:

"Religion is a monumental chapter in the history of human egotism. " - William James (father of Modern Psychology)

"For that again, is what all manner of religion essentially is: childish dependency." Albert Ellis (considered to be the Father of CBT - psychology)

Religion is an illusion ... it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our intellectual desires.
-- Sigmund Freud, quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations

The true believer is in a high degree protected against the danger of certain neurotic afflictions; by accepting the universal neurosis he is spared the task of forming a personal neurosis.
-- Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion (1927), quoted from Encarta® Book of Quotations (1999)

The content of the teaching, as well as the form of social relations, is set up so as to dig a psychological moat around the believers.
-- Edmund D Cohen, The Mind of the Bible Believer (American Psychologist)

 


rm991
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Quote: That's correct. No

Quote:
That's correct. No scientific FACT has ever contradicted anything in the Bible. Scientific theories which come and go and get modified and put aside when some new discovery comes along may disagree with the Bible, but no scientific fact does.

Here are a few I can think of:

1.- The earth is not flat and immovabale. (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Daniel 4:10-11, Job 38:12-13 and many more)

2.- The earth is not supported by pillars. (Psalm 104:, Job 9:6)

3._ The earth does not have a crystalline dome covering it. (Psalm 19:1, Job 37:18)

4.- God is not above this dome looking at humans like grasshoppers. (Isaiah 40:22, Psalm 14:2)

5.- This dome is not a tent for us to live in. (Isaiah 40:22, Hebrews 8:1-2)

6.- The stars are not small objects that can fall on the earth. (Matt 24:29)

7.- There are no waters above the said dome (firmament) from which rain or food or fire can fall on earth. (Gen 1:7-8, Gen 7:11-12)

8.- The sun does not rise and set and the runs back to its initial place the next morning (Ecclesiastes 1:5, Psalm 19:1-6)

 

There's many more but I'm getting tired. Apologists bring all kinds of pathetic arguments to convince us otherwise. They try to convince us that firm does not mean firm, that dome does not mean dome. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is, right?

 

 

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Christians always want you

Christians always want you to point out errors in the bible, then when you point them out they politely remind you that the bible doesn’t actually mean what is says. That’s why it’s so reliable, because it means whatever you need it to mean to feel comfortable with the idea of getting on your knees and talking to yourself. 

Don’t you realize how boring it gets to hear people come in here day after week after month and say “the bible says this but it actually means that” or “that’s just a metaphor” or “you need to learn ancient greek to understand that.” Even an intelligent human can convey their thoughts in a way that most people could understand why should a perfect god fail at this? It’s nice that you have the magical ability to read the bible and separate metaphor from non-metaphor but people without your powers have to look at it critically. 

If we are going to talk about god then can we at least stop calling it god and start calling it the great oogity boogity? Be careful what you believe children or the great oogity boogity will get cha.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft