Atheists and Christians

[mandyangel]

Atheists JUDGE more than anybody. The meanest, nastiest people I have ever met were atheists. The thing is that I don't mind be very friendly. Why can't we just get along? I met this great guy that went to the pool with my friends and him.

We we undressed our overclothes to swim and he saw the bikinis we were wearing he WENT OFF and called us horrible, horrible names, said were not christians, nothing but (dirty words), dirty girls, it was just AWFUL and so embarassing. The problem is that he wanted to CHANGE us and thats the problem with most atheists, they are dying to CHANGE people beliefs.

 

[lesliedellow]

.

 

[lesliedellow]

It would be interesting if someone with the intellect of William Lane Craig called the show to debate. Regardless of the debaters though, the fact remains that Christianity is based on faith - believing something to be true despite evidence. This is perhaps why sceptics usually come off better in a debate, especially against creationists because the evidence is in favour of evolution and an old earth.

A few weeks ago I read a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Ken Miller (a well known Christian and evolutionary biologist, in case you don't know). Nobody could accuse Ken Miller of being uneducated, and Christopher Hitchens did not come out of it well.

Atheists only have an easy time of it when they are debating fundamentalists from the American Bible belt.

 

[Curious Atheist]

Here's an interesting irony for you:

"For one thing, the statement 'only what can be known by science or quantified and empirically tested is rational and true' is self-refuting. This statement itself is not a statement of science. It is a philosophical statement about science. How could the statement itself be quantified and empirically tested? And if it cannot, then by the statement's own standards, it cannot itself be true or rationally held."

J.P. Moreland "Scaling the Secular City"

Science itself rests upon a set of philosophical presuppositions:

1. Our physical senses are reliable and give accurate information about a mind-independent physical world and not merely information about my successive sense impressions.

2. Science assumes the mind is rational and that the universe is rational in such a way that the mind can know it. Science must assume some uniformity of nature to justify induction (ie. science must assume that one can legitimately infer from the past to the future and from the examined cases to unexamined ones of the same kind).

3. Science also assumes that the laws of logic are true, that numbers exist, that language has meaning, and that some terms refer to things in the world, that truth exists and involves some sort of correspondence between theories and the world.

4. Science also assumes certain moral, epistemic, and methodological values.

And so on. My point is that when atheists talk of science they carry on as though science is all there is; that it is the be-all-and-end-all of every discussion. But as I've explained above, science doesn't stand alone but is vitally reliant upon other fields of less empirical knowledge.

This is one of the worst arguments to justify the supernatural I have heard! Science doesn't assume. Science uses what we know to solve problems. i.e. we use the forces we know such as aerodynamics to build a plane that can fly. Something that would have been called magic in the time of the bible.
There is no bias that scientists all secretly share to try and actively disprove the supernatural. It is just that the more we learn about the world the less and less likely the supernatural has been, to the point that we know for a fact that none of it was ever real. We know psychics are tricksters, don't you? Nothing in our universe has ever been seen to be supernatural, but without knowledge could easily be seen to be such. Your logic could easily lead to any explanation such as we are all living in the stomach of a space worm, everything we experience is beamed in to our heads by dolphins and we are simultaneously in the matrix. If we don't trust the world around us as reality, that does not mean the only alternative is your God.


While personal experience is not by itself necessarily absolute proof of something, it is nonetheless useful as evidence. If Joe goes about claiming he has had a personal experience of God and he's the only one in the world making such a claim, then one might have good cause to view his claim with high skepticism. But the Christian experience of God is shared by millions of people. Joe is not alone; there are millions of others making the same claim that he is. And these aren't people who are merely superstitious, or intellectually challenged, or poorly educated. Many of them are scientists, philosophers, and doctors in various fields of study - perfectly sane, rational, intelligent people. In a sense, the replication of the experience of God by millions of people is a kind of empirical testing. God says, "Try me and see." Every day people put Him to the test and find the result millions of others have obtained is the same one they obtain: God is real.

This is actually a great argument against religion. If one man said God is real he would be called insane and would need proof. If millions all copy then it is fact? By this reasoning you have no right being Christian as there are far more Hindus in the world. There are millions of people who believe in psychics, why not jump on the band wagon?
Also what if you were born in ancient times? the norm would be to believe the sun is swallowed by a god, the tides caused by poseidon etc etc etc. Yet you KNOW these God's are false don't you? Why is it so hard to use your own logic on your own God?

It may be impossible for an atheist to know if God is talking to him. But what is true for the atheist doesn't necessarily make every one else delusional.

Why is it then that only people born in the right countries at the right time share this experience?

This whole thing rests on the assumption that genetic similarity between species necessarily means common ancestry, which it doesn't. As some have pointed out, similarity genetically among the species could just as reasonably indicate a common Creator.

It isn't just as reasonable. You have to make a giant leap of faith to assume this. All of the available evidence concludes we are all related. You can even see how animals change by looking at the domestic dog. Why is it of equal probability they all just popped in to existence, yet the creator (who wants us to believe in him) planted undeniable evidence we are all linked? Such as DNA, fossils, the obvious fact you can see we share much of the same anatomy. It all points to one thing. You can argue that the original source could be divine as no-one knows but to deny evolution is ridiculous and does Christianity no good

 

[freezerman2000]

Thank you for your response!

It seems to me that many Christians refuse to consider any other point of view whatsoever. Although I definitely believe in the contents of the Bible, the idea behind Christianity is to save lives. You cannot make someone believe in something if you don’t allow them the opportunity to debate these questions that most non-believers have. In other words, “You can get more bees with honey than you can with vinegar”. I know in my own experiences that I’ve had with non-believers, I’ve received comments such as, “Wow! I’ve never talked to a Christian that was so willing to listen to my point of view and actually made a decent argument”. In fact, the more I talk to non-believers, the more my own faith strengthens. On the flip side of that coin however, I think no matter what you believe you should be open to debate in order to question your own personal beliefs. If your personal belief is what you truly feel as being the absolute truth, then what do you have to worry about? Are you afraid you might be wrong? I’m not.

I may call in to that show some time in the near future because of how irritated I am with their callers. I think my initial argument to Atheists would be the fact that basing your beliefs on scientific facts may seem like a valid principle right now however, scientific theories are constantly changing. That’s my personal dispute with relying on scientific theories. Years ago it was argued that the world was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and that the stars could be counted. Obviously we now know that this is not true yet, the Bible has never been proven wrong.

I have never heard of the show, so I don't know how it works...perhaps they choose which callers they "debate" with..those that have not much to offer to make the panel's position look better?


The analogy between science and the Bible in my view is that the more we look,research and study the more knowledge we gain from both.

My faith tells me that God created the heavens and the earth...Science gives me an idea of the processes involved.

 

[lesliedellow]

This is one of the worst arguments to justify the supernatural I have heard! Science doesn't assume. Science uses what we know to solve problems. i.e. we use the forces we know such as aerodynamics to build a plane that can fly. Something that would have been called magic in the time of the bible.

It is not a defence of religion; it is rather a comment upon the naivete of the new atheists, and your remark appears to be a more than ample example of that naivete. Even Richard Dawkins appears to realise that our senses evolved in such a way that they allow us to navigate ourselves around the world long enough to reproduce. So long as they do that, evolution cares nothing about whether or not they give us an objectively true picture of the universe we live in.

By this reasoning you have no right being Christian as there are far more Hindus in the world.

There aren't actually. Of the world's population, 33.2% are Christians and 13.3% are Hindus.

Also what if you were born in ancient times? the norm would be to believe the sun is swallowed by a god, the tides caused by poseidon etc etc etc. Yet you KNOW these God's are false don't you? Why is it so hard to use your own logic on your own God?

Except amongst creationists, Christianity is not meant to give a scientific understanding of the world. In any case, what gives you the idea that the scientific world view is the last word on anything? For one thing, a thousand years from now people might be looking back at twenty first century science, and saying, "How did they ever believe in all that superstitiuos rubbish?" They in their turn will doubtless be on the receiving end of ridicule from people living in 4,000AD.

Secondly, to use an analogy often used by the physicist John Polkinghorne, there are at least two ways of answering a question about why a kettle is boiling:

1.) The kettle is boiling because the gas is reacting with the oxygen in the atmosphere, and the heat released is causing the temperature of the water to rise.

2.) The kettle is boiling because I want to make a cup of tea.

The very great trouble the new atheists seem to have is in getting their heads around the idea that the second answer is every bit as valid as the first "scientific" answer, and that there is no need to choose between them.

 

[freezerman2000]

Atheists JUDGE more than anybody. The meanest, nastiest people I have ever met were atheists. The thing is that I don't mind be very friendly. Why can't we just get along? I met this great guy that went to the pool with my friends and him.

We we undressed our overclothes to swim and he saw the bikinis we were wearing he WENT OFF and called us horrible, horrible names, said were not christians, nothing but (dirty words), dirty girls, it was just AWFUL and so embarassing. The problem is that he wanted to CHANGE us and thats the problem with most atheists, they are dying to CHANGE people beliefs.

I know quite a few atheists and have never encountered any that try to make me loose my faith in God...One, in fact is my closest friend from childhood.

 

[lesliedellow]

I know quite a few atheists and have never encountered any that try to make me loose my faith in God...One, in fact is my closest friend from childhood.

Have you read the "God Delusion"? Dawkins says in words of one syllable that that is precisely what he wants to do, and he is not alone amongst fundamentalist atheists.

 

[freezerman2000]

I was speaking from personal experience.

 

[aiki]

I think you should check that list against a source that is not a Christian apologetics book.

What makes you think I haven't?

I do appreciate the reference, as these points have been brought up in the other forums, and this explains where they came from.

The quotation from J.P. Moreland's book is not a unique philosophical assertion. And his logic is sound.

or it could simply be how the brain works,

Or it could be as I explained it to be.

and being that we are all of the same species, our experiences should be very similar.

Only on the most general level, I think.

You failed to mention that experience of the belief in other deities, and phenomenon ranging from extraterrestrials to crop circles, are also experienced by millions.

Failed to mention? How so? My point was concerning the Christian's experience of God.

As you have yet to define this 'creator' I presume you could point at anything and say that it is evidence for its existence.

Are you unaware of the Christian understanding of the Creator? The Creator of the Bible is omnipotent, infinite, unchanging, and transcendent to time, space, and matter (among other things). Sometimes Christian philosophers refer to Him as the Ultimate Mind.

If you want an argument that might hold water, show me something in biology that is evidence for this 'creator', but at the same time is not explainable by evolution.

Sorry, but I'm not going to let you set the parameters within which I can defend my belief in God. The evidence for Him begins at the beginning. Why is there something rather than nothing? Where did everything come from? The answers to these questions lead inevitably to God. Evolution, however, does not deal with these questions - nor does science for that matter. So restricting my defense of God's existence to the narrow confines of these two arenas would be myopic and fruitless.

And if it is going to be along the lines of 'consciousness' or 'love', please join one of the threads already in progress.

I shall join in on whatever thread I please. If you dislike the content of my posts, don't read them.

Selah.

 

[aiki]

This is one of the worst arguments to justify the supernatural I have heard!

That might be because it isn't an argument justifying the supernatural.

Science doesn't assume.

I'm afraid it does. And I gave several examples of those assumptions. You ought to do some study on the philosophy of science. It might shake your confidence in science somewhat, but it would certainly clarify your thinking about the place of science in informing rational thought.

There is no bias that scientists all secretly share to try and actively disprove the supernatural.

Generally speaking, I disagree. Most secular scientist are materialists and/or naturalists, which necessarily means they deny the supernatural. Such scientists assume a priori that there is no God and interpret the findings of science accordingly. There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but on the whole secular scientists assume before they ever get started in scientific endeavours that there is no supernatural to discover or prove. You can see an example of the animosity and disdain such scientists have toward the supernatural in the attitude and actions of the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in his debates with Christians. Obviously, such antagonism toward the idea of the supernatural is not going to foster its discovery!

It is just that the more we learn about the world the less and less likely the supernatural has been, to the point that we know for a fact that none of it was ever real.

But science isn't equipped to deal with the supernatural. It observes, tests and records the natural world and this is its sole sphere of investigation. As I have pointed out, science cannot speak to higher questions of meaning, and purpose, and the divine because it is not intended or designed to do so.

I'm also not at all convinced that science gives absolutely no indication that there is a supernatural world. The facts of science are open to interpretation in many instances. Unfortunately, it is usually the naturalistic scientist who is offering up what the meaning of various scientific facts is. They do so, as I said, according to their presuppositions, which, being naturalistic in nature, are completely opposed to the concept of the supernatural.

Nothing in our universe has ever been seen to be supernatural

I know you believe this, but I totally disagree. The existence of the universe itself is powerful evidence for the existence of a First Cause, or God. Naturalistic scientists may see the universe as you do, but their perspective is certainly not the only one!

Your logic could easily lead to any explanation such as we are all living in the stomach of a space worm, everything we experience is beamed in to our heads by dolphins and we are simultaneously in the matrix. If we don't trust the world around us as reality, that does not mean the only alternative is your God.

I should like you to show me from what I've written how one might come to think they are in the stomach of a space worm, or under the influence of dolphins, etc, etc. If you think this is how my worldview works, you have seriously misunderstood it.

This is actually a great argument against religion. If one man said God is real he would be called insane and would need proof. If millions all copy then it is fact?

This isn't what I wrote. I didn't say one Christian's experience of God is merely a copy of another Christian's experience. Please read more carefully what I'm writing.

By this reasoning you have no right being Christian as there are far more Hindus in the world. There are millions of people who believe in psychics, why not jump on the band wagon?

There are more Hindus than Christians in the world? Possibly. But if you are going to say it, I think you ought to prove it, too. I should also like you to provide some legitimate statistics about the number of people who believe in psychics since you make a claim about their numbers. All this aside, however, I never said that mere numbers was the sole basis upon which one ought to be convinced of the Christian faith. Again, you aren't reading carefully what I'm writing. What I did say was that the daily experience of God by millions of Christians was more suggestive of His existence than the experience of Him by only one.

Why is it then that only people born in the right countries at the right time share this experience?

I'm not sure what you mean. There are Christians in Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, communist, and deeply secular countries. Christianity itself began among Jews and under terrible persecution by the Roman Empire. Christianity isn't merely a cultural phenomenon. Far from it.

It isn't just as reasonable. You have to make a giant leap of faith to assume this.

You must do the same, but because it is a comfortable leap for you as an athiest, it seems no leap at all.

All of the available evidence concludes we are all related.

No, this is an interpretation given to the fact of genetic similarities among the species. Science merely reveals that there are similarities. Scientists with particular philosophical views interpet what that similarity means. If the scientist doing the interpretation is a naturalist, his interpretation is inevitably going to reflect his naturalism.

Why is it of equal probability they all just popped in to existence, yet the creator (who wants us to believe in him) planted undeniable evidence we are all linked?

Perhaps He intends that you understand that what links us isn't common ancestry but a common Creator.

Selah.

 

[Davian]

I realize that this thread has since been moved into a 'sheltered' forum, so I will limit my response to this:

<snip>
Sorry, but I'm not going to let you set the parameters within which I can defend my belief in God. The evidence for Him begins at the beginning. Why is there something rather than nothing? Where did everything come from? The answers to these questions lead inevitably to God. Evolution, however, does not deal with these questions - nor does science for that matter. So restricting my defense of God's existence to the narrow confines of these two arenas would be myopic and fruitless.

The parameters were set long ago, by others. Your 'defense', as you have outlined it in this thread, has so far not shown 'God' to be more than a character in a book.

I shall join in on whatever thread I please. If you dislike the content of my posts, don't read them.

I said nothing of the sort. It was merely an invitation for discussion.

 

[Curious Atheist]

That might be because it isn't an argument justifying the supernatural.

Can you think of one?

I'm afraid it does. And I gave several examples of those assumptions. You ought to do some study on the philosophy of science. It might shake your confidence in science somewhat, but it would certainly clarify your thinking about the place of science in informing rational thought.

I understand what your point is, I am merely disagreeing with it. My point is that without basing something on what we can prove, you have no reason to believe anything at all. If you are questioning our very reality in order to justify your beliefs then to me that suggests your beliefs aren't based on anything.
I understand science, I understand quantum theory which suggests nothing exists until it has been witnessed. Yes, much of what we think we know might be different when we have answers to some of the big questions. However, we need to establish certain ground rules. For example if you became ill would you go to a hospital? I imagine you would, so you are trusting we understand something about medicine. Would you get in a plan without trusting we understand flight? How does your car work if we don't understanding combustion. I could go on but you get my point I hope, you can't have it both ways you either trust reality or you deny it.

Generally speaking, I disagree. Most secular scientist are materialists and/or naturalists, which necessarily means they deny the supernatural. Such scientists assume a priori that there is no God and interpret the findings of science accordingly. There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but on the whole secular scientists assume before they ever get started in scientific endeavours that there is no supernatural to discover or prove. You can see an example of the animosity and disdain such scientists have toward the supernatural in the attitude and actions of the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in his debates with Christians. Obviously, such antagonism toward the idea of the supernatural is not going to foster its discovery!

You couldn't be more wrong. What motive could there possibly be for this? The supernatural has been and still is being studied. There has been nothing to suggest any of it is real. Psychics fail at the first hurdle every time, as do faith healers and other scam artists. There is nothing to suggest anyone has been abducted by a UFO and for the most part the real answer can be found.


But science isn't equipped to deal with the supernatural. It observes, tests and records the natural world and this is its sole sphere of investigation. As I have pointed out, science cannot speak to higher questions of meaning, and purpose, and the divine because it is not intended or designed to do so.

Science only deals with the natural world because that is all has been discovered to exist. What makes a ghost outside of the world of testing? Why do psychics and faith healers always fail when tested? You I am sure a skeptical of many things and must have reasons to not believe everything you hear.

I'm also not at all convinced that science gives absolutely no indication that there is a supernatural world. The facts of science are open to interpretation in many instances. Unfortunately, it is usually the naturalistic scientist who is offering up what the meaning of various scientific facts is. They do so, as I said, according to their presuppositions, which, being naturalistic in nature, are completely opposed to the concept of the supernatural.

Again, what could the motive for this possibly be? Science is the pursuit of truth and only truth. If new evidence suggests that men can indeed walk on water and wishing for something makes it so then I would be the first to admit I was wrong. Why do you insist on believing science is against religion?


I know you believe this, but I totally disagree. The existence of the universe itself is powerful evidence for the existence of a First Cause, or God. Naturalistic scientists may see the universe as you do, but their perspective is certainly not the only one!

The existence of the universe could have many meanings, or be meaningless. The only answer we have is 'we don't know'. What makes you jump to the conclusion a supreme being was involved when there is nothing to suggest this is the case?

I should like you to show me from what I've written how one might come to think they are in the stomach of a space worm, or under the influence of dolphins, etc, etc. If you think this is how my worldview works, you have seriously misunderstood it.

Can you prove we are not in a space worm controlled by dolphins, whilst in the matrix? I can't. No-one can. So the only way we establish truth from lies or myth is to study the world around us and establish what really is the case. Yes, everything we establish may be a trick and we still in the matrix. But to jump to this conclusion is madness. Wouldn't you agree?

This isn't what I wrote. I didn't say one Christian's experience of God is merely a copy of another Christian's experience. Please read more carefully what I'm writing.

Well, I am saying that...Christian experiences are remarkably similar, which might suggest there is something to it. However other religions claim the same for different reasons. The number of people claiming to be abducted by aliens shot up as soon as films came out. It also had the remarkable 'coincidence' of showing aliens to be small grey men with big eyes and that is exactly what most claim to see. Try and use the same logic you use to dismiss other religions on your own beliefs, you can't help but come to the same conclusion as I have.

There are more Hindus than Christians in the world? Possibly. But if you are going to say it, I think you ought to prove it, too. I should also like you to provide some legitimate statistics about the number of people who believe in psychics since you make a claim about their numbers. All this aside, however, I never said that mere numbers was the sole basis upon which one ought to be convinced of the Christian faith. Again, you aren't reading carefully what I'm writing. What I did say was that the daily experience of God by millions of Christians was more suggestive of His existence than the experience of Him by only one.

Why do Christians have such a double standard when it comes to proof. If I say there are more Hindus I need to prove it? yet if you say a man was born of a virgin and walked on water I am supposed to take that on faith? I don't think it is relevant how many Christians there are compared to others, it is the principal that just because 'x' number of people say something is true it doesn't mean that it is. A billions Hindus will tell you there are a thousand Gods, yet we both know they are wrong don't we?

I'm not sure what you mean. There are Christians in Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, communist, and deeply secular countries. Christianity itself began among Jews and under terrible persecution by the Roman Empire. Christianity isn't merely a cultural phenomenon. Far from it.

What percentage of say, India, Iran, Pakistan etc are Christian? What percentage of America are Christian? Why base your opinion on the minority when you can see the overwhelming majority all follow the same religion. It is a learned behaviour. If you had never heard of the bible how would you have deduced that there is an omnipotent God? Or a Jesus etc?

You must do the same, but because it is a comfortable leap for you as an athiest, it seems no leap at all.

No, this is an interpretation given to the fact of genetic similarities among the species. Science merely reveals that there are similarities. Scientists with particular philosophical views interpet what that similarity means. If the scientist doing the interpretation is a naturalist, his interpretation is inevitably going to reflect his naturalism.

The most likely interpretation is usually the truth. All the evidence suggests what I have stated is fact. I don't think you are aware just how overwhelming the evidence is for evolution, you are just trying to fit God in to the equation when there is no reason to do so.

Perhaps He intends that you understand that what links us isn't common ancestry but a common Creator.

Perhaps the more likely answer is he isn't there at all. Neither is zeus or Allah or the flying spaghetti monster (although the FSM is probably true)


It would be great if we could debate this properly. There so many tired arguments on both sides we could really do with skipping over and get the real matter at hand. Pointing out that 1% of scientists are religious or that God is immoral etc have all been done to death.

 

[razeontherock]

Perhaps He intends that you understand that what links us isn't common ancestry but a common Creator.

I haven't kept up with this whole discussion but can you distinguish between these two? I mean, if we all "descend" from the same Creator, isn't that also common descent? I personally would like both sides of the aisle to recognize ... there is no aisle.

 

[aiki]

That might be because it isn't an argument justifying the supernatural.

Can you think of one?

Yes, quite a few.

I understand what your point is, I am merely disagreeing with it. My point is that without basing something on what we can prove, you have no reason to believe anything at all.

What can be proved? Even in a court of law, someone can be convicted, not on the basis of absolute certainty, but "beyond a reasonable doubt." None of the physical "laws" of our world or the universe are absolutely certain. There is always a chance that those laws won't continue to hold true. As some on this thread have pointed out, science is in a continuum of advancing knowledge that is littered with the debris of discarded "facts" once thought proven. So what, then, do you mean by "proved"?

I showed you that science is anchored to a set of brute givens, philosphical assumptions which cannot be empirically validated or proven. Nonetheless, you have no issue believing that science renders an accurate picture of reality. Why are you willing to turn a blind eye to the the non-empirical, philosophical foundation of science and yet demand that others conform to a strictly empirical standard?

If you are questioning our very reality in order to justify your beliefs then to me that suggests your beliefs aren't based on anything.

You seem here to have quite missed my point in bringing up the philosophical presuppositions that underpin science. I'm not saying reality can't be known; I'm trying to explain to you that investigating reality scientifically relies upon a certain set of unproveable assumptions about our perception of reality and the nature of reality itself. Science actually begins, not in the realm of empirical testing, but in the realm of philosophy, which means that empirically validated knowledge is not the be-all-and-end-all of human knowledge.

I could go on but you get my point I hope, you can't have it both ways you either trust reality or you deny it.

This is exactly my point! To even begin to do science, one must first step out in faith and assume things about reality and our perception of it, or in your words, "you either trust reality or you deny it." You see, then, that even science begins with a step of faith.

You couldn't be more wrong. What motive could there possibly be for this?

Ask Richard Dawkins!

The supernatural has been and still is being studied. There has been nothing to suggest any of it is real.

You really seem to like using these sorts of sweeping generalities. In fact, there are a great many things which occur that defy natural explanation and strongly suggest the existence of the supernatural. Here's a small sample:

Raised from the Dead - Dr. Chauncey Crandall

Science only deals with the natural world because that is all has been discovered to exist.

I'm afraid this is quite untrue. Science deals explicitly and solely with natural phenomena. This is its purpose. By definition, the supernatural is beyond, or transcendent to, the natural and therefore inaccessible to methods designed only to test the natural. The supernatural, by definition cannot be assessed in a test tube, or tested with a Geiger counter. These are tools used to examine the tangible, the material, the natural world. But the supernatural is none of these things; it is beyond or above what is materially existent.

Again, what could the motive for this possibly be? Science is the pursuit of truth and only truth.

Science as an empirical methodology, as a process of investigation, is completely without bias. But those who employ this methodology are not. It is terribly naive of you to think that scientists are concerned first and foremost with the truth. This is no more true in the realm of science than it is in any other realm of human pursuit. Bias is revealed in what is and isn't studied; it is revealed in what is and isn't reported; it is revealed in how the facts uncovered by the scientific method are interpreted, and so on. A classic and recent example is the Climategate affair. Here's another small sampling of such bias:

The Inconvenient Skeptic » Understanding Scientific Fraud (Part 1)

Why do you insist on believing science is against religion?

I don't believe science is against religion; I believe many of those doing science are.

The existence of the universe could have many meanings, or be meaningless. The only answer we have is 'we don't know'. What makes you jump to the conclusion a supreme being was involved when there is nothing to suggest this is the case?

"We don't know" is the only answer an atheist is willing to offer, but it is not truly the only answer. Have you heard of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? It goes like this:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Gottfried Liebniz's Argument from Contingency is also another excellent argument in favor of God.

Can you prove we are not in a space worm controlled by dolphins, whilst in the matrix? I can't. No-one can. So the only way we establish truth from lies or myth is to study the world around us and establish what really is the case.

These two sentences are contradictory. If you can't prove what the truth of your reality is, then there is no way to establish truth about it from falsehood. As I said earlier, we all of us are forced to make certain assumptions as a result of what you have just pointed out here before we can ever begin to investigate "reality." The foundation of science is very unscientific, isn't it?

Why do Christians have such a double standard when it comes to proof. If I say there are more Hindus I need to prove it? yet if you say a man was born of a virgin and walked on water I am supposed to take that on faith?

Just a small but important correction here: Christians don't say a mere man walked upon the water of his own power, but that Jesus the God-man did. I don't see anything remarkable about such a person doing such a thing. One would expect someone who is God to be able to do such things. As for his virgin birth, again, one would expect a man who was also God to have a supernatural birth. This seems perfectly consistent to me...

Are you saying that because you think Christians don't provide evidence for their claims that you are off the hook to do so?

I don't think it is relevant how many Christians there are compared to others,

You seemed to think it was relevant when you brought it up in your last post. You wrote:

"By this reasoning you have no right being Christian as there are far more Hindus in the world."

it is the principal that just because 'x' number of people say something is true it doesn't mean that it is.

Nor does it mean that it isn't.

As I pointed out, a large number of people who claim to have had the same experience, is very suggestive of the reality of that experience. And this is important to understand: I'm talking about a shared experience, not simply a shared belief. It is one thing for a million Christians to say they believe in God; it is quite another for them to say they all have personally experienced Him.

A billions Hindus will tell you there are a thousand Gods, yet we both know they are wrong don't we?

If they all had personal experience of those gods, I'd be far less quick to dismiss their claims about them.

What percentage of say, India, Iran, Pakistan etc are Christian? What percentage of America are Christian? Why base your opinion on the minority when you can see the overwhelming majority all follow the same religion. It is a learned behaviour.

It is not only a learned behavior and the points I made in my last post about this make it clear. If it was just a learned behaviour, Christianity would never have begun among the Jews as it did and would certainly never have exploded in the population under the terrible persecution by the Roman government it initially faced. "It is just a learned behaviour" also doesn't account for people converting to Christianity in the face of persecution and death in countries like Iraq and Iran or the Arab Emirates. And so on.

If you had never heard of the bible how would you have deduced that there is an omnipotent God? Or a Jesus etc?

The same way others have: by the evidence of Him revealed in Creation.

The most likely interpretation is usually the truth. All the evidence suggests what I have stated is fact. I don't think you are aware just how overwhelming the evidence is for evolution, you are just trying to fit God in to the equation when there is no reason to do so.

As an atheist, you are extremely invested in evolution being true - even if there is cause to think that it isn't. You simply insulate yourself from the problems with evolution by riding the inertia it has developed in the culture. I'm not saying evolution doesn't have anything right; it just has some very serious issues that rule it out as a comprehensive explanation for the present state of affairs of the species on our planet.

Perhaps the more likely answer is he isn't there at all. Neither is zeus or Allah or the flying spaghetti monster (although the FSM is probably true)

Apples and oranges, I'm afraid. Apples and oranges.

It would be great if we could debate this properly. There so many tired arguments on both sides we could really do with skipping over and get the real matter at hand. Pointing out that 1% of scientists are religious or that God is immoral etc have all been done to death.

?

Selah.

 

[aiki]

I haven't kept up with this whole discussion but can you distinguish between these two? I mean, if we all "descend" from the same Creator, isn't that also common descent? I personally would like both sides of the aisle to recognize ... there is no aisle.

I think you realize that "descend" is a...sticky word. We are all created by God, but this is different than being His direct descendants. Certainly, with the way that an atheist understands common descent, the biblical view is at distinct odds. Frankly, I don't quite understand your comment about there being no aisle. But maybe that is exactly what you intended...

Selah.

 

[razeontherock]

I think you realize that "descend" is a...sticky word. We are all created by God, but this is different than being His direct descendants. Certainly, with the way that an atheist understands common descent, the biblical view is at distinct odds. Frankly, I don't quite understand your comment about there being no aisle. But maybe that is exactly what you intended...

Selah.

Well if Adam is a "Son of god" via direct creation by God, then ALL organisms present in the original creation are as well. So there you've got common descent, right? I realize this isn't how atheists use the term, but this more than explains the things we see in science that point to common descent, with or without theistic evolution.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

Why debate, if "those who don't believe in God are fools" (from God's word)? Are you not just wasting your time? Paul wanted to go back to Jerusalem, but was warned not to, it was a waste of time and dangerous. The Pharisees hearts could not believe in God, even claiming that they did. Are they not also like the Atheists? Someone, who refuses God and isn't looking for him is lost and probably foolish or a fool. The word can not grow in such unfruitful ground. Paul wanted to help his fellow Pharisees in Jerusalem without regard for himself and going against the advise of God, the Holy Spirit, Jesus and the fellowship. He was to try and convert his own. A former Atheist should not bother with other Atheists, though he may be inclined to try. To do God's Will is to accomplish much. Let us help those who are seeking God or whom are to be helped by the urging of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Jeremy1979]

Has anyone seen &#8220;The Exodus Decoded&#8221;?
The exodus Decoded part 1 - YouTube

I watched this documentary awhile back and it was quite impressive. This is an unbiased documentary that scientifically proves the events described in Exodus (the story of Moses). These events have happened much more recently to prove that the plagues described in the Bible would have happened just as it is written. I won&#8217;t get into end times prophecy quite yet, but do you think both sides could agree on the Exodus experiences?

(Part 2 is where it starts going into the explanation of the specific plagues)

 

[aiki]

Why debate, if "those who don't believe in God are fools" (from God's word)? Are you not just wasting your time?

We are to be ready "to give an answer" to any man who asks of the reason of the hope that is within us. As well, I often find the questions that an atheist will ask about the Christian worldview are far more challenging and interesting than the ones Christians will ask of their own faith. Also, there may be a wandering soul who happens upon one of these threads and sees the Christian faith withstanding the scrutiny and challenges of its enemies and is encouraged to give God a closer look.

After a certain point, I do agree that I'm probably guilty of casting pearls before swine. Generally, I try to sign off if its clear to me that's all I'm doing.

Well if Adam is a "Son of god" via direct creation by God, then ALL organisms present in the original creation are as well.

Just to clarify: You think a monkey or a gopher are "sons of God" in the same sense that Adam or you and I are (assuming such creatures were there in the original creation)? This is what you seem to be saying here.

So there you've got common descent, right?

Um, I don't know...Personally, I wouldn't use the term "descent" when describing our relationship to God as a species because the term is typically associated with biological reproduction after a specific kind. We aren't really of a kind with God except in some very basic ways. He is far more unlike us than like us. He is our Father in a spiritual sense but in terms of His literal Being, we differ from Him profoundly. Consequently, I cringe at saying I am His descendant. It seems to imply a similarity that isn't there between Him and me, nor between Him and any other creature He has made.

As I've already said, speaking of a common Creator in reference to the similarities genetically among the species seems more accurate to me.

I realize this isn't how atheists use the term, but this more than explains the things we see in science that point to common descent, with or without theistic evolution.

If its how you like to frame things in your own mind about this matter, then go ahead!

Selah.