The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread
Offline This is it. This is the official thread that Kelly and Sapient will try to interact with as many visitors as they can. If you are new here, welcome aboard. If viewing this from the homepage you can click the title of the thread, create an account, and post your comments. Kelly and Sapient will not have time to address all the email and would like to keep all of their exchanges public for the benefit of the readers who are curious. Soon we will have a downloadable document available right from this post that will expose as many arguments as we can expose from the ABC Nightline Face Off with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Here are the highlights of the face off from our eyes...
Did we make mistakes in the full debate? Yes. We stumbled on a few words, made an inaccurate point or two, and made a weak point at a moment or two. Ironically our worst points still seemed to be too much for them. So while we welcome criticism, especially constructive, please keep in mind that we feel we have a good handle on what we did wrong. We'll grow, learn, and get better. What we're really hoping for in this thread is for the actual content and discussion about gods existence to be brought into question. Challenge us to continue, and we will continue to respond to your claims. If you are a theist, please feel free to post your scientific evidence for God, leaving out the miserable arguments that Ray Comfort has already been beaten on of course. If you are having trouble finding the video on ABCs website, you can find most/all of the videos here. DIGG it.
A thread on our message board that has links to the entire unedited debate.
Other threads of interest:
Nightline Editing Bias - The Supporting Data
Gregfl starts a thread about Bashirs big blunder and the Nightline portrayal.
Some of the Christian mail coming in [YOU RESPOND] about the debate.
Pertaining to Jesus Mythicism A thorough examination of the evidence for Jesus by Rook Hawkins
A Silence That Screams - (No contemporary historical accounts for "jesus) by Todangst
Video from Rook outlining the basics of Jesus Mythicism
UPDATE Sapient spoke with ABC and voiced concerns leveled by many atheists in the community that the editing job for the Nightline piece gave Ray and Kirk a free pass. The most commonly voiced criticism of ABC was that it managed to show the debate as somewhat even and that there was no clear victor. This discussion was accepted only under the understanding that Ray and Kirk would prove God exists without invoking faith or the Bible. Anyone that understood the format saw that Ray and Kirk failed at their premise as soon as the proof of God became the Ten Commandments. ABC was made aware that commentary like "It was difficult to know if either side could claim victory" gave the impression that they were pandering to their largely Christian audience. While Sapient understood that this may be a wise business move, it was noted that it wasn't an accurate representation of the discussion. The Rational Response Squad brought it's "B" game and still destroyed every claim Kirk and Ray threw at them. In more positive news, we were made aware that the ABC unedited video of the debate was viewed over 160,000 times in the first 12 hours. Hopefully a few people have found the strength to overcome their god delusion.
AND THE PWNAGE CONTINUES:
THE FULL DEBATE!
EXPOSE OF POST DEBATE CHATTER AND BEHIND THE SCENES INFORMATION
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
If you are driving down a long road, heading to the mountains, and in the middle of a great desert another road spurs off and heads in the direction of a great grassy plain, does this mean that a desert is half grassy plain and half mountain? It is the point at which the road branches to head to both. Can you see how this illustrates the fallaciousness of you requirement for a 'transitional' fossil?
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Well played, RRS. It's just a shame that the editing at ABC was so awful. Feel free to come over to the Raving Atheists forums and link to your videos.
Incidentally, cuntwatch.blogspot.com issued their highest honor to your opponents.
We'll get to it soon. Just catching up on replies.
I think you are asking where the information in our DNA comes from, right? The trivial answer is that my DNA came from my parents, their DNA from their parents, and so on back. If we had a "time TV" you could trace the history of the DNA code. We don't have a "time TV" but because of the overwhelming evidence the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as the explanation for the origin of the information. Through the evolutionary process of change and selection information "grows" out of previous generations, from the simplest bacteria to the variety of life we see today.
I assume you accept the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old? For most of the history of life on Earth the only thing that existed were bacteria. Their DNA maybe came from simpler forms of RNA, from simpler proto-cells. There are various ideas, and I'm no expert. Of course nobody knows the complete story, but science is working on it!
I am guessing you think an intelligent force started the whole process? Maybe yes, but probably no. There is no evidence for such an event. And it just pushes the problem further back since we have to ask where that intelligence came from. Sure there are still gaps in our knowledge for some type of "god", but a literal biblical Yahweh is just silly. Until you give me evidence for something, I'm not going to invest belief in any idea, especially not supernatural ones.
You might also find this link helpful:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
It is not my requirement...Darwin said that the transitionals would be found to support the theory.
Many formerly referred to Archeopteryx, which was refuted by experts like Feduccia, as a transitional between dinosaurs and birds because of its mosaic of characteristics (teeth and etc.). If "science " knows that these types of transitionals will not be found, then why are these types of fossils often labeled transitional forms and evidence for evolution?
Why is science often looking for transitionals? What will they look like, if not some mosaic of two types of species (like dinosaur and bird)?
What about punctuated equilibrium and the hypthesis that there is not enough time to allow for these alleged small tansitions from one species to another.
Why and how do these small transitions occur? What is the biological mechanism that causes the transition to occur?
What fossil evidence exists for the evolution of a lobe-finned fish into a four-legged land animal (which is the evolutionary assumption made)?
I provided the internal and external evidence for Luke in a post to jcgadfly on this thread.
As the experts agree, Josephus mentioned Jesus...but you ignore that historical evidence.
Ramsay, a world reknown archeologist, made the claim that Luke was a first rate historian...not me. Do you disagree with the experts in this matter, as well?
How scientific is it to ignore, or outright dismiss, the evidence provided by experts?
Comfort was not referring to all paintings...just that specific painting.
And...how is it that all paintings do not prove a painter?
What paints a painting, if not a painter?
I just have to make a comment about the theist's main argument. I am surprised no one has noticed the primary flaw in their argument that since a painting demands a painter, a creation demands a creator. Does no one realize that the wording of the statement in itself makes assumptions. If you call the universe "creation" you are already assuming a creator. That's just the way the language works. It would be like someone calling my pencil a weapon. My response shouldn't be that my weapon is used to write. My response should be that my pencil is a pencil, not a weapon.
If we as atheists accept the term "creation" for the universe then we are adding credence to their creator argument. It is not creation. It is matter, or the universe, or whatever you are specifically talking about.
Yes maybe next time they can bring an actual painting.
Obviously the best possible explanation is that somebody painted it. However, while the painting implies a painter because we have knowledge of how paintings are produced, it's not a 100% guarantee there was a painter. You see, I can take you to witness painters in action. You can not take me to witness Universe creation. It is not implied that some sort of diety created all of it until you can show otherwise. The burden of proof is on the theist to show that Universe creation requires a anthropomorphic god simply because paintings require humans. Too much is assumed in their theory to make it anywhere near scientific.
Talk to Rook.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
So are you going to now accept that Josephus mentioned a historical Jesus?
If a transitional fossil of "my definition" (I didn't realize that it was just mine) will never be found, how come talk.origins includes Archaeopteryx as a transitional form(dinosaur/bird, which was refuted by experts like Feduccia)? Wouldn't this fossil fit into "my definition"? (given the lack of fossil evidence, I do understand why you would want to define "transitional forms" as broad as possible, though).
As a painting infers a painter...a creation infers a Creator.
OK - I really don't have time to deal with this in detail. Two words--extrabiblical and contemporaneous. If you can't stick to that simple request then I am not going to make the time to deal with this. All of your objections can be answered in other locations on this board.
FYI, the name "Luke" in the Pauline epistles can be used to support the idea that the name was pinched from Paul and used to lend authority to the later-dated Luke and Acts, as well, so I wouldn't advise using that as evidence. Next?
Atheist Books
We can discuss the problems with Luke as history.
Actually, 'experts' dont' all agree on this. And there is something rather self refuting about the Josephus claim:
Josephus was not a contemporary and could not have been a first hand eyewitness of "Jesus", however, as a Jewish historian who focused on Jewish history and religion, he would have been greatly interested in the appearance of the Jewish Messiah. Josephus wrote The Antiquities of the Jews, See his works here: http://reluctant-messenger.com/josephus.htm This is a work that focused on Jewish history from "Adam" to Josephus' time. Yet, while Josephus devotes a good deal of time and space to John the Baptist and other historical figures mentioned in the Gospels (He gives a detailed account of Pontius Pilate in The Jewish Wars, http://www.inu.net/skeptic/gospels.html) he does not appear to have actually written anything at all concerning the life of Jesus the Christ! This is 'damning' considering that we would expect that the appearance of the Jewish Messiah ought to have dominated a work dedicated to Jewish history.
Furthermore, Josephus was interested both in the concept of ressurection, as well as in the histories of various Jewish sects which a real Jesus would have either 1) been a member of or 2) have had substantial discourse with. How could a man with these experiences, and with these interests, not have dedicated volumes to "Jesus" if there were any reason to believe such a messiah existed?
"When I was sixteen years old, I decided to get experience with the various sects that are among us. These are three: as we have said many times, the first, that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Saduccees, the third, that of the Essenes. For I thought that in this way I would choose best, if I carefully examined them all. Therefore, submitting myself to strict training, I passed through the three groups."
(Life, 1.2, 10-11)
Now we have a man with a keen historical interest in Judaism, combing this interest with a wealth of first hand experience concerning the very groups Jesus would have been numbered amongst, who doesn't mention a word about Jesus!
For this very reason, the claim that Josephus never mentions Jesus was a concern for early Christians. Therefore, it is no surprise that a later interpolation of a reference to Jesus appears in the Antiquities. The infamous "Testimonium Flavium" appears to have been inserted into the Antiquities about the time of the 4th century. A key proof for this comes from the fact that while early Christians cited Josephus, none of them ever cited the Testimonium, even in situations where they were striving to provide historical proof for Jesus:
* Justin Martyr (circa C.E. 100-165) never once quoted the passage -- even in the face of charges that Christians had "invented some sort of Christ for themselves" and that they had accepted "a futile rumor" (Dialogue with Trypho 8; circa C.E. 135).
* Origen (circa C.E. 185-254), who in his own writings relies extensively upon the works of Josephus, does not mention this passage or any other passage in Josephus that mentions Christ. Not even when he is in dialogue against Celsus' accusations!
* Jerome (circa C.E. 347-420) cites Josephus 90 times, but never once cites the Testimonium.
Logic itself tells us that had Josephus written the Testimonium, he would have written more than 3 lines concerning the existence of the Jewish Messiah in a book dedicated to Jewish History! Remsberg writes:
"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly fourty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines."
-- The Christ, by John E. Remsburg, reprinted by Prometheus Books, New York, 1994, pages 171-3.
Logic also provides us with yet another powerful clue as to the falsity of the Testimonium: Josephus lived and died a Jew, never converting to Christianity. Even a Christian apologist, normally at home with warping logic well past its breaking point, ought to find it difficult to reconcile the claim that Josephus had evidence of Jesus as the Messiah with the fact that he never converted to Christianity. How could Josephus have good evidence for the existence of a messiah, and yet, at the same time, die a Jew?
There's really only one way to salvage the Testimonium: to use Jeffery J. Lowder's argument that the Testimonium was radicallyl altered by christians, and that the original Josephus passage was basically hearsay - a claim that Josephus himself didn't accept as an account of a 'messiah' but instead a second hand account of a human being who was considered a wise teacher.
This would explain why christians did not cite it until it was radically altered: because it was an actual refutation of the gospel claim of Jesus, the Christ. (I.e. there are no jesus the christ references in Josephus)
On what grounds did he make this claim? We can discuss this if you like, but we should start another thread.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
How about a graphics artist with a computer on a printer (this is basically what he held up)? How about a robot programmed by a programmer? Or how about the extremely miniscule chance that it could've painted itself? You think that last question was funny? Don't laugh, you're asking us to accept the extremely miniscule chance that the Universe required a creator as the preeminent theory on our existence when there are abundantly higher probable theories that require no god.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Proof of a historical jesus refutes the existence of the Jesus of the gospels. It reveals 'jesus the christ' to be an embellishment of an otherwise completely natural phenomenon: a man who inspired a legend.
Again, citing Josephus is problematic for this very reason: Josephus was providing a history of the Jews, if he had actually had evidence for 'jesus', and devoted 3 lines to "jesus' this is even more damning than had he not mentioned jesus the christ at all.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
So...there are no other rational explanations for the origins of the original painting other than the existence of the painter? <p>
You have called Rook an expert in languages, and so forth. You do not know what his qualifications are?
This is not evidence of intangible things. If something cannot be seen or touched, then it doesn't have any basis for interaction. without a basis for interaction with matter then matter cannot transfer it at all. Simple ontology.
Being seen or touched are material processes. We see things due to a physical medium which allows material patterns to go from one place to another and indirectly interact with other material things. Being touched involved direct material contact. If the non-material information doesn't exist in any way that it is possible to interact with our physicality in any way, then there is no way that said information can influence, interact, or effect matter (or the other way around), thus to say that information is no material yet still interacts with material things is meaningless.
Information is encoded physical patterns, patterns which can transfer from one medium to another through physical means. The encoding of information is variable, and we can create all sorts of ways to encode information. The information in DNA is not some idea or meaning that DNA molecules pass around, but rather it is the physical structure of (for example) the DNA that, when it interacts with the environment of a biological cell, nutrients, and all the other things that allow for replication of DNA and the actions of RNA, makes something happen. The fact that that something is life is easily explained by the idea that if it didn't pass along this encoding process, it wouldn't survive.
At some point there is a complexity in the brain of some beings where a self-reflection is possible. At this point, self-awareness and consciousness develops. This is the arising of liguistic information, which is fundamentally based upon this self-reflection and awareness of internal and external states. At this point the information in DNA is able to be encoded and reflected upon. Before that moment, it was a non-conscious and material process passing down a chain of processes that were purely physical. And when it is self-reflective, it is still purely material, onlynow it takes on new levels of complexity and reflective.
The fallacy in your question is in equivocating material mediums that encode a physical process with conscious and linguistic awareness, which is a form of information but at a higher level of complexity. Yes, we can take that physical process in DNA and make some sense of it, but that sense--that self-reflected awareness of the encoding and what it does--is not information in the same sense that a phone number, word, or story is. the difference is one of degree--of quanity and complexity.
I would say more, but I'll ;eave it at that for now.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
What you are not getting here is that for the last twenty years there has been a growing number of fundamentalists who have claimed that the Bible is scientifically true and that belief in God and Creationism is the only rational belief to hold. This is not a few wackos - they and their friends have immense influence in the US government. You have already accepted that religion is irrational and based on emotion. We need to get that message out to the billions around the world who see it as a rational alternative to science and a legitimate basis for making public policy.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
At least we are now getting somewhere...It is a historical fact that Josephus made reference to Jesus.
Maybe Kelly will make a statement of correction relative to her debate comments associated with this subject.
Jesus came in the flesh and walked among men...The writings of Josephus do nothing but state that Jesus existed historically. It definitely doesn't do what you infer.
Not everyone agrees with Feduccia. You can't put your trust in one expert only. See:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/archie/paulfed.html
Archaeopteryx IS a mosaic.
Punctuated equilibrium is just an alternative theory to the rate of evolutionary change. Is isn't an alternative to evolution itself, nor is it accepted by all the experts.
You should really read a book like What Evolution Is, by Mayr, which would answer most of your questions.
But what are you getting at with all of your points? What is your alternative theory? Are you a young-earth creationist? Something else? How do you explain the fossil record? Do you think Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur on Noah's ark?
Evolution can easily be disproved by finding a fossil rabbit in the Cambrian. You aren't disproving evolution, you are either demonstrating misunderstandings, cherry picking certain expert opinions, or just pointing out areas that need further study. Where is your improved theory?
The source of information is the human brain. It is what happens when the brain tries to create a relationship between the self and the matter and energy that make up the universe. Take away consciousness, and you have no information except in the most technical, irrelevant sense of the sound that a tree makes falling in an empty forest.
If you disagree with me, please point to some information and tell me how much it weighs, or how much work it can do.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
So there was a Luke that was a follower of Paul. This does not make him an apostle (disciple) of Jesus and an eyewitness to the incidents wrote about in the gospel that bears his name. Indeed, it makes him less so.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Found RRS through the debate and have been lurking for some days. Thanks to the RRS for the site and the debate, great stuff.
I've been following the new AiG talking point about "information cannot be created (without an intelligent designer)" and I've read both the original information theory and the ID adaptations of it and the scientific critiques of those adaptations, which basically debunk them in solid technical terms.
But as a rhetorician, it's also plain to me that there's a key assumption in the middle of the ID "no new information" claim that turns it into a circular argument, and it's this one:
This bit of the argument assumes that information automatically must come from an intelligent source, therefore, not surprisingly, the argument concludes that only an intelligent source can supply information.
If you actually wade past the mostly unecessary obfuscation that the ID readings of information theory seem to require (in order to conceal this assumption?) you will always find a spot right in the middle of the argument where "information" is defined as "something that only proceeds from an intelligent source." Bad logic, bad rhetoric.
Alternately, this claim sometimes takes the form that information beyond a certain level of complexity requires an intelligent source. In this form, the argument is our old friend the irriducable complexity argument.
In practice, new information results from random events and natural processes, without the intervention of intelligence, all the time.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
I will do no such thing. The TF is at the very least a tampered with interpolation and at the most a total forgery. It proves nothing. The only historical fact is that there is a mention in the version of Josephus' work that we have now and it is possible that somebody named Jesus existed once. Sorry-no go on the correction.
Kelly
Atheist Books
For the sake of argument, if I gave you that, so what? Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, and Rev. Moon also "came in the flesh" and at least one of them is still "walking among men." Do you believe the claims made about them? If not, why not?
You fail to understand that this is only the case with prior knowledge of how paintings are made.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Bullshit. You are only able to draw those inferences about the painting because you know what it is, what it is supposed to be and how it came into existance. The analogy with scientific discovery is false. When we find things in nature, we are not armed with a full suite of background knowledge about the object. We have to deduce its function and nature from scratch. And the fact of the matter is nothing in nature appears to have been manufactured.
Kelly was flat out right. The part of Josephus that specifically mentions Jesus is an edit from a medieval copier, as any honest historian will tell you. The rest are non-contemporary, handed-down reports that have been heavily edited by Church authorities down through the years.
The RRS and atheism in general are gaining ground in the public debate in America, and you're just pissy because you fear it.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Um...How exactly does a painting paint itself?
This is not a serious alternative explanation for the origins of the original painting, is it?
(and Cameron was a numbnuts?)
How is a graphics artist using a computer different than a painter using a brush?
So you look at graphich art and you know that there was a graphic artist...just like looking at a painting you know that there is a painter.
What other explanations (aside form the Creator) exist for the existence of the universe and life itself?
Do you like Crick's, Noble Prize winner, Directed Panspermia theory in which aliens bring life to Earth on rocket ships?
Liked most of the debate, loved the inadequacies of non-theologians...who i think you guys should REALLY be debating, not "Pop-psuedo scholars". Even Pope Benedict's (who is extremely genius-level academic) theology appeals to many logical fallacies that can be readily refuted. Didn't like that kelly decided to call "God" a tyrant...she really has no proof that anymoreso than saying God is Loving and what not. So she was kinda giving credence to giving attributes to God - which she logically should not be doing in trying to refute the existance of God. But overall, they tried the classic Argument from Design. ANd you guys shot it down Very Well. I give ya'll a B for this one
Anthony Gonzalez
Actually, that's not what I wrote. You're seeing what you want to see. My point to you is that a purely 'human' account of Jesus in the writings of Josephus would be damaging to the claim that Jesus was the christ.
As to whether the testimonium is either wholly fraud or only partially fraud, there is debate.
Actually, it does. Josephus was writing a history of the Jewish people. If he only devotes 3 lines in his entire work to jesus, and basically says nothing more than that he was a teacher, thats a major embarrassment to christanity. The 'jesus' who walked among men would merely be another man, not the christ.
I write about this in detail, and would welcome a discussion in another thread, seeing as this discussion is highly detailed.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_silence_that_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_for_jesus
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
This crap angers me. Why are Christians allowed to throw around any kind of egregious, biased, off-topic BS they want, but atheists are immediately subject to criticism (by other atheists!) if they make the slightest misstep in fact or tone. The FACT is that popes DO have the blood of millions on their hands and the world should be aware of it. The FACT is that Christianity depends on fear of death and hell to drive belief, and people should be aware of how they are being manipulated.
But what really drives me crazy is this "angry atheist" slur. IT IS TOTALLY, 100% OFF TOPIC! Brian and Kelly and all other atheists SHOULD be angry about the way that Christian theology has hijacked the intellectual life of this country, and WHO GIVES A SHIT if the Christians don't like us to be angry? Being angry does not mean you aren't right, and attempts to focus public attention on whether someone is angry or not is a pure dodge of the real point. And, for some reason, Christians are allowed to beat pulpits, turn red in the face and scream about the damnation in store for their enemies, but this is just proof of their commitment and faith and not an anger problem.
Brian and Kelly, you two were poised and reasonable given the idiocy you faced and the huge stage you were on. Pay no attention to people who want you to play the closeted Poindexter atheist and murmur about burden of proof while the Christians scream hellfire.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
At what point do we then assume an Uncaused Cause? Something had to be the First Cause somewhere down the line. If we start with God as that First Cause, then it is easy to explain the intricacies of the universe, as there is One there to create the order.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei
It does not give credence to a concept to accept it hypothetically in the role of showing how ludicrous it is.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
That may be a fallacy of composition - you are applying a rule about events in the universe to the universe itself. In addition, quantum events are uncaused, so we know of at least one exception.
The only problem is that 'god' is an incoherent reference, and no theist can actually provide a "how' as in 'how' this 'god' 'didit"
So it's really not an explanation at all, but an empty label.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
One would not have to know what a painting was, or what the process is, in order to deduce that the painting did not happen by chance and that something produced it.
Nothing in nature appears to be manufactured?
(the human body is a pretty intricate machine)
Kelly was wrong...Josephus definitely wrote about a historical Jesus.
I do not fear it.
It is if you think it over for a few seconds before replying.... Human beings are 'meaning makers'.... give us some random data, and we'll see a face somewhere.
The concept of 'design' itself is a judgement call.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
You are wrong. It's not a definate. In addition, a 'historical' jesus refutes the existence of a jesus of the gospels and thus undermines christianity itself, or do you not believe in Jesus, the Christ?
Josephus wrote a history of the jews... the idea that he'd only devote three lines to the messiah is insanity. Either the testimonium is outright fraud, or it was seriously altered by christians out of embarrassment.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
With modern art, it looks like a tornado hit a canvas and paint store (though in some cases that might actually look better than some modern art).
Why yes, I can believe it's not butter!
It would actually be worse if the TF was merely tampered with, as it would not only mean that the best historian of the era had no evidence of a Jesus the Christ who fits the gospel accounts, but that he also had evidence that Jesus was merely a man.
Christians are better off with the TF as a total fraud, this way they can try to argue that Josephus ignored Jesus for some other reason... but a Josephus who mentions Jesus, briefly, and then devotes a work on Jewish history to entirely different subjects is an outright embarrassment for christians... It would be as if the moon exploded and no astronomers bothered to mention it....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Proof? Oh, that's right...you still haven't provided any.
Kelly
Atheist Books
This was terrific.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
None of which explains how a painting paints itself as alleged.
And most people can discern between a work of art, like the Mona Lisa, and a natural occurence, like the perceived face in the cliff.
And this remains a false analogy because we aren't finding things around that we must deduce were made by intelligence. In fact, we have NEVER found such a thing.
Straight argument from ignorance. You don't know how the human body could have developed, therefore God. Not knowing how something could be does not suggest ANY particular answer, in and of itself.
The fact is, we have an explanation (evolution) that explains how the human body has attained its present form. We do not need to deduce a creator of humans, because the evidence does not point in this direction. It is unscientific to add unneeded elements to the explanation.
Care to point out anything else in nature that must be manufactured? Or would you prefer to keep waving around things that we already KNOW are manufactured and drawing a false analogy between them and natural phenomena?
You are wrong. Historians hold that the Jesus mentions were likely added later. And even if Josephus did write it, he wasn't a contemporary and doesn't claim to have met the man.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
A painting (if painted in the conventional manner) is painted by a painter. If the painting is signed, we know who painted it. If it's not we can make educated guesses about the painter based on such things as the brush strokes and the pigments.
Unless you know of some place where your God signed creation, you have a problem.
I can see evolution's brush strokes all over the place. Where are God's?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
As long as you simply don't read what I wrote, you're right. There's nothing there to refute you.
But if you actually consider what I say, there's something there that counters your claim.
Again, here's the point you simply avoided: Human beings are 'meaning makers'.... give us some random data, and we'll see a face somewhere.
The concept of 'design' itself is a judgement call.
That explains how a 'painting' paints itself... in that what we call a 'painting' in the first place is the end result of a judgement. Yes, there are clear cases where there is very little doubt that something was designed: a coke can, to use Ray's example. But 'design' is always a judgement, and the judgment can and often does go wrong.
It always seems so obvious, right?
But is this true? Are there o cases, anywhere, where a tons of people mistake a natural occuring event for something designed?
Again, what we call 'design' is a judgement call. That's the key point here. Your naive-realism outlook on the matter fails, because human psychology shows us that we don't simply take in objective data in a pure form, we make judgments, we are meaning makers.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Oh I see...and it would like the Mona Lisa or some other spectacular piece of artwork?
I get it...It just doesn't explain paintings, like the Monal Lisa, with such complexity and quality.
double post
One does not have to see the painter's signature on the painting to know that a painter painted it.
Actually it does, its just that the odds against it increase dramatically with increasing complexity and quality. That's the point Brian made to you.
Oh, and let's not forget that "complexity' and "quality" are also judgement calls too.
Once you accept this principle, your argument fails.
You might want to also consider how frequently we fail in properly assessing 'design'.. Ever hear a noise you mistook for a voice? Here you are assuming design, purpose, intent, etc. and yet none apparently exist.
The question we have now is this: is our universe a mona lisa, or a piece of toast with mary 'appearing' on it...... never did I think that I'd write such a sentence....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'