Am I the only Athiest who Thinks the Debate was a Bad Thing?
I obviously have more thoughts on this subject, but this was my initial response that I posted on my myspace blog. (My name is High Pope there as well.) I state at the end that this is an opinion. Maybe Im Looking at this all wrong, or playing (for lack of a better metaphor) Devils Advocate?
This was absolute rhetoric for atheists and a clear victory for Way of the Master. I will explain:
1) Way of the Master sales of their DVDs and Books will triple because of this "debate" and followers of this cult receive a bonus by the unveiling of a face and organization to target.
2) Kirk and Ray looked like imbeciles to us long before the debates took place. So, nothing new in the stupidity department.
3) The message, when boiled down, is age old: you cannot rationalize with the irrational! Trying to prove the existence or non-existence of god is impossible albeit the two hypotheses are not on equal footing.
4) RRS was bated and used by the agents of Kirk and Ray (they are actors/ celebrities with agents) by picking a fight using the baseless claim that "the existence of god is actually easy to prove, and not only that, Kirk and Ray can do it scientifically, and without mention of the Bible." (C'MON GUYS WE KNOW BETTER!) This was all free publicity for their new show!
5) SOLUTION? The only way to truly get these guys is in court. We have to wait until someone on their show sues them for harassment or defamation or what have you. Until then every mention of whom won, or who lost, in my mind, is based on the dollar amount and publicity that is gained by one group or the other. And in this case I think it all goes to Kirk and Ray.*(although Im sure RRS Membership may have boomed a little because of the debates by now.)
The courts are truly our last refuge as freethinkers to attain justice, not nightline abc.
This is just my opinion, I could be wrong.
High Pope
*this part I just added and is not in my initial blog.
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
But the bible is a "religious" document, so we must discount anything and everything is says as true, when it contains historical records. This is way too big to be a conspiracy. The only agenda Christians have is saving other people from the condemnation they were saved from. Any other agenda is non-biblical.
The bible sums up the agenda of Christians with one mandate. This mandate superceeds all others. And if it is followed, all the others will naturally be followed as a result. "Love your neighbor as yourself." That includes your enemies. Neighbors are just the people in your social circles, friends, enemies, casual acquaintences, people you see but don't talk to, etc... Is that really so bad? Granted most Christians don't do this. But don't fault Christ for the disobedience of some of His followers.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
What if there is no theory that applies to most of the universe? I mean the laws are only applied to observable Byronic matter. Science at this time offers no real quarter or comfort for the God question and should not be used to debate the believer in a creator.
"I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself." ~ C. S. Lewis
Using the Bible to prove the existance of Christ is like me using The Lord of the Rings to prove elves and orcs exist. But this topic is covered much better then I could do here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/the_jesus_mythicist_campaign/2889
"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett
No, it's not at all like that.
The Lord of the Rings is not 2000 years old, and it does not claim to be a true story.
I see a bunch of very uninformed people here, trying to justify their unbelief in God.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
Musicdude,
You truly don't see the circular logic in saying that god exists because the bible says so and we know the bible is right because it says god says so?
Edit:
Also, you didn't answer any of my questions from a post previously, why not?
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
I believe the bible is correct for many reasons, personal experience not being the least of which. I have seen God work in my life in tremendous ways, ways that were far to unlikely to be attributed to coincidence. And the more I study the bible and adhere to it, the more I see Him work in my life. That assures me even more that God is real, and His word is real, and I am on the right track according to Him.
I was aware of scientific method before you posted your definition. It is pretty simple really. Your definition makes it sound complicated, but it isn't.
But what I did notice is that scientific conclusions are not accepted as theories because they are proven. They are accepted as theories because they cannot be disproven (or at least not yet.)
Knowledge changes all the time. We know things about the earth, our bodies, animals, etc. that we did not have a clue about 200 years ago. What you are basing your belief on is knowledge that has been around for not that long. What I am basing my belief on is (if I am correct) knowledge that has been around forever, and from the source of all knowledge.
I have a problem with those theories mainly because they are not presented as theories usually, but fact. And they obscure the truth as I know it.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
The only thing I have time to reply to right now is you last statement.
A scientific theory is based on a collection of facts.
You make it sound as if a theory is NOT a fact YET, when really it is a collection of several scientific facts.
So, a scientific theory IS a scientific fact, or at the very least based on them.
Although, from the other questions you've answered you're telling me that the primary reason that you oppose scinetific theories is because you dislike the theistic implications that they present. IS that correct?
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
Okay. The Quar'an is an ancient text that purports to be true. Why not believe that? I'm about half way through it and I'm not finding near the inconsistancies that can be found in the Bible. Not a very lovey book to be sure, but fairly consistant, none the less.
I find the people here to be very informed. I'm a pretty smart guy and there are a few threads on this board that go way past anything I know. Before I even read a post from deludedgod I have to open a tab sent to wikipedia and another to dictionary.com just to get the general idea of what he is talking about. But I do it. Why? Because I learn stuff. Fancinating, world-view-altering stuff.
You look at the world and see it through the glory of God and that is fine. I don't. I find it MORE magical and mysterious and awe-inspiring that we came to be without a Creator and a plan. Look at it this way. I have a caterpillar outside on my dill plant right now. It is in the process of cocooning itself as we speak. Now if God created the caterpiller, I'm impressed, it's kinda cool. But if it came about through mutation and selection...HOLY SHIT!! Partway through its life cycle reconstructs itself from this ugly, squishy wormy thing into a beautiful butterfly!! How fucking AWESOME is that!!
This is your one shot, your one chance, and if you want to spend it worshipping an invisible man in the sky, so be it. I will get on with what makes me happy and whole...just unfortunately for you, needling theists makes me happy.
"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett
The number of copies of one document does not matter from an historical standpoint--it is the existence of other corroborating evidence. The LoTR analogy is valid by your criterium that number of copies equals historical accuracy. Find some extrabiblical evidence to support what that ONE source claims and then we'll talk.
Atheist Books
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
Think of it as a trial. Trials have evidence too. Let's say Bob is accused of murdering his wife. The prosecuting attourney submits several pieces of evidence. Exhibit "A" the murder weapon, which belonged to Bob and was registered in Bob's name. "B" he had just been in a big argument with his wife the day before, as his neighbors in the adjacent apartment heard them shouting through the walls. "C" his car was seen in the driveway the night she was murdered. A, B and C are all true facts, undisputable. He even admits to them being true. The prosecution makes a theory that he killed his wife. That theory is false, because he didn't do it. It was her jealous boyfriend who killed her. But all the evidence points to Bob doing it. And that evidence is all true facts. But the reality is he didn't do it. So would you say the statement "Bob killed his wife" is a fact, or a supposition? Evidence and proof are not the same thing. There can be tons of evidence and many different theories, but the creation of the universe only happened one way. And one of those theories may be right, or none of them may be right. The fact is we do not know for sure. Even when I say I know, my certainty is based on faith. Faith is just as valid a means of human perception as rationalism or impericism.
I oppose anything that is false, be it a scientific theory or a religious doctrine. I don't oppose science in general.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
Hey Musicdude,
Trials in what country follow the scientific method? Very bad analogy.
(Edit I know they obtain and observe evidence with somewhat of a scientific method, but they cant follow the scientific method unless every possible variable is available to and permitted by the judge.
What if there is no theory that applies to most of the universe? I mean the laws are only applied to observable Byronic matter. Science at this time offers no real quarter or comfort for the God question and should not be used to debate the believer in a creator.
"What if there is no theory that applies to most of the universe?"
This question really makes no sense.
But.....
It’s nice to hear you say in a round about way that there is no God. (Scientists are working really hard to unify physical sciences.)
"I mean the laws are only applied to observable Byronic matter."
Laws are applied to theories. Matter obeys the Laws. (and youve been dying to use that word.)
"Science at this time offers no real quarter or comfort for the God question and should not be used to debate the believer in a creator."
It’s because science deals with reality and doesn’t work well with things that dont exist. i.e.; fairies, gnomes, medusa, unicorns, gods etc... But it’s nice to hear you say in a round about way that there is no god.
We will continue to use science to debunk a creator hypothesis. Science proves the existence of many things, including you, but not god.
So what you’re saying is that your omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent god actually NEEDS something as feeble as human science to PROVE its existence?
High Pope