Answering Christianity’s Critics

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Interesting fellow...you might be surprised, but I like some of what he says...I would be interested in his book about Jesus becoming God. I don't know if is released yet...he has failed to answer some of his critics as you will find here..

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=4253

But I do not think he can so easily d ...[text shortened]... F.Bruce, nor does he claim to.
He has a website, but it is a pay membership to see his blog...

That shows us that he is in it for the money and not necessarily for truth, like me.

The Instructor

Originally posted by rwingett
Then you don't know very much outside of your hermetically sealed world.

Here are some poll numbers that show the level of belief for 'god guided' evolution:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

Even among people who attend church weekly, 25% believe that god guided evolution over millions of years.

That seems to be a contradiction. How could it be evilution, if God guided it?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
That seems to be a contradiction. How could it be evilution, if God guided it?

The Instructor

Because god is what allegedly caused them to evolve. Presumably things would not evolve if god didn't push them along.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Interesting fellow...you might be surprised, but I like some of what he says...I would be interested in his book about Jesus becoming God. I don't know if is released yet...he has failed to answer some of his critics as you will find here..

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=4253

But I do not think he can so easily d ...[text shortened]... F.Bruce, nor does he claim to.
He has a website, but it is a pay membership to see his blog...

The fundamentalists have created a whole cottage industry of people trying to refute Ehrman. The interesting thing about Ehrman is that he used to be a fundamentalist himself. That is until his study of the bible and its history undermined his former assumptions.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
The author's response...
"Your blogger friend is being illogical. To truly believe that there is no
God you would have to know for sure everything about the universe and
creation to say that God does not exist. You would have to understand
every dimension, time, space, etc. If you didn't then God might exist in
some possible way that you were not su ...[text shortened]... that you still believe in a theos - a god of somekind. If so then
you are not an atheist."

As an atheist, I do not "believe" that there is no god. I assume that there is no god based on the failure of theists to adequately demonstrate his existence. At no time do I claim to have any "knowledge" of god's alleged non-existence. As such, atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. It is a very important distinction.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
The author's response...
"Your blogger friend is being illogical. To truly believe that there is no
God you would have to know for sure everything about the universe and
creation to say that God does not exist. You would have to understand
every dimension, time, space, etc. If you didn't then God might exist in
some possible way that you were not su ...[text shortened]... that you still believe in a theos - a god of somekind. If so then
you are not an atheist."

If we have to admit the possibility of things hiding in unknown dimensions, then we can't be skeptical of anything. Unicorns, goblins, Flying Spaghetti Monsters cannot be disbelieved.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
The author's response...
"Your blogger friend is being illogical. To truly believe that there is no
God you would have to know for sure everything about the universe and
creation to say that God does not exist. You would have to understand
every dimension, time, space, etc. If you didn't then God might exist in
some possible way that you were not su ...[text shortened]... that you still believe in a theos - a god of somekind. If so then
you are not an atheist."

So as a corollary, one would have to know the exact number of hairs on his nephew's dog's head in order to "truly" believe and say that there are no whangdoodles?

Seriously, that author is an idiot. If you think it is worth your while to try to justify your faith to onlookers, then it's worth doing it well. Get better references and works on which to model your case for justification; throw this one in the garbage.

Originally posted by rwingett
Because god is what allegedly caused them to evolve. Presumably things would not evolve if god didn't push them along.

Obviously, that presumption is wrong. God creates and created means for some of His creations to be fruitful and multiply after their own kind with variations within kinds. That is why you do not see the evilution of one kind to another kind.

The Instructor

Originally posted by rwingett
As an atheist, I do not "believe" that there is no god. I assume that there is no god based on the failure of theists to adequately demonstrate his existence. At no time do I claim to have any "knowledge" of god's alleged non-existence. As such, atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. It is a very important distinction.

Someone once told me the bible needs no defending, because it defends itself.
I just remembered that. I heard that 40 years ago. I think he has a point, since this bible has been under attack for a very long time, and it is still here. In fact, I think it has been the #1 selling book for some time now.
It does say that man will come and go, but the words of Gods remain forever.
Is there any other book like that? There may be, but I have yet to hear of it.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Someone once told me the bible needs no defending, because it defends itself.
I just remembered that. I heard that 40 years ago. I think he has a point, since this bible has been under attack for a very long time, and it is still here. In fact, I think it has been the #1 selling book for some time now.
It does say that man will come and go, but the wor ...[text shortened]... remain forever.
Is there any other book like that? There may be, but I have yet to hear of it.

What has that got to do with the post you're responding to?

Originally posted by rwingett
What has that got to do with the post you're responding to?

The fact that you claim you have no beliefs is proof that you do have a belief and that you are a liar, like your father, Satan the devil. Your words have proven false, whereas the word of God is enduring, because it is the word of truth.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
The fact that you claim you have no beliefs is proof that you do have a belief and that you are a liar, like your father, Satan the devil. Your words have proven false, whereas the word of God is enduring, because it is the word of truth.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!

The Instructor

I have many beliefs. But none of them are a result of my atheism.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Someone once told me the bible needs no defending, because it defends itself.
I just remembered that. I heard that 40 years ago. I think he has a point, since this bible has been under attack for a very long time, and it is still here. In fact, I think it has been the #1 selling book for some time now.
It does say that man will come and go, but the wor ...[text shortened]... remain forever.
Is there any other book like that? There may be, but I have yet to hear of it.

Uh, so what?

Viruses and cancers persist down the generations despite the best attempts of some to put them to rest, too.

By the way, I am sure most of "Christianity's critics" will not be too impressed with this observation of yours, since it is basically some variant of argumentum ad populum.

And lastly, there is a very obvious distinction between a belief's being defended successfully against critical attack and a belief's simply being retained. (And, obviously, the latter can hold even if there is no good reason for it.) You're conflating the two.

Originally posted by rwingett
What has that got to do with the post you're responding to?

Nothing, I was just responding to your claim that no Theist has adequately been able to demonstrate his existence. Probably that is not enough, but something to consider.
Regardless, Atheism defined here...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

But you think there is a possibility?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Nothing, I was just responding to your claim that no Theist has adequately been able to demonstrate his existence. Probably that is not enough, but something to consider.
Regardless, Atheism defined here...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower se ...[text shortened]... y exists.[9][10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

But you think there is a possibility?

A possibility of what? Deities existing? I think it is unlikely, but I do not (and can not) have any knowledge in that regard. I proceed on the assumption that there are no deities.

As for atheism, I use the most inclusive definition: the absence of belief that any deities exist.