We're saying essentially the same thing.

Yes, it is theoretically possible for "miraculous" things to happen but believing in them without an appropriate (read: lots) amount of evidence is not congruous with science.

11/26/2013 4:32:44 PM

[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 4:35 PM. Reason : ^said it better]

11/26/2013 4:34:39 PM

oh i misread what you posted. right.

11/26/2013 4:50:02 PM

ohmy, why do you keep insisting that we should all become nihilists if we followed materialism to its logical end? We don't HAVE to follow it to its logical end. There is no appeal to the supernatural or delusion required to reject a fucking philosophy. How is it so difficult for you to understand that people can naturally be happy with life without believing in a sky daddy? Is it because you haven't read it in a book by some famous philosopher?

Also wouldn't the logical end of a Christian be to kill yourself to get into heaven and live with Jesus for eternity? I mean what's the point of living in this shitty world with that ahead of you?



[Edited on November 26, 2013 at 6:15 PM. Reason : .]

11/26/2013 6:02:40 PM

Besides, theism to its "logical end" is that even if a god is capable of revealing things to you, you have no way of verifying that what you're getting is accurate or even not a delusion.

So no matter how rational you think your basis for belief in a god or a particular god is, you cannot get past the epistemic barrier that everyone else has.

11/26/2013 8:51:11 PM

Every time the Pope tweets, speaks, or writes something, my facebook seems to blow up with lefties who are suddenly finding value in religion. I find it interesting, especially in this case as someone who is not anti-capitalism.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-pope-on-the-financial-system-inequality-money-2013-11#ixzz2llrxXKdT

Quote :

"The Pope Just Published One Of The Most Powerful Critiques Of Modern Capitalism That You Will Ever Read Pope Francis is out with the first big, written text of his papacy. The full text can be found here (via Izabella Kaminska). The section of the text that's getting the most attention is his powerful denouncement of our current financial system, the obsession with consumption, inequality, and the tyranny of capitalism."

Quote :

"On the failure of traditional economic dogmas: "... some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.""

11/26/2013 9:17:48 PM

^
Wut? You can find value in the Pope's words without being religious.

11/26/2013 9:55:43 PM

And that in no way validates his position as a conduit to a god in a silly robe and hat.

11/26/2013 11:52:56 PM

but that in no way invalidates a lot of the positive things this pope has said

11/27/2013 8:37:23 AM

For ohmy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=ALGLx1orRGw4Xp78r8wo73pJN2NExtopiV&v=q9GOyGKC004

(except that one bit about the Lord up above)

12/6/2013 4:30:54 PM

arguing for god is morally equivalent to arguing for the nazis.

wars of religion in europe and taiping rebellion here in china.

a retarded baseless idea that appeals to fear, jealousy, envy, and all the other primitive obsolete emotions while disrespecting elite newer sexually selected skills like reason, love, selflessness, community spirit

12/7/2013 10:33:22 PM

I'm presently reading The Reason for God, since ohmy couldn't be bothered to make his own arguments.

Just having read the introduction, and I'm not excited about the attempt to equivocate properly basic beliefs with the presuppositions of theists. Two problems here: Christians have all the same assumptions about reason and reality that everyone else has and their additional presumptions are even less plausible and require more evidentiary support (which they presently lack).

Other than that, it reads like you'd expect: addressing both skeptics and Christians but with a rather large explicit wink towards the Christians. Maybe I'll post a response to each chapter as I read it.

12/8/2013 10:29:11 AM

Cool. Yeah, you're right, he definitely reasons form different angles, and will come to the conclusion that Christianity is the most plausible alternative. But I think he begins from a more objective grounds. Admittedly, though, because everyone's biased and no one can escape subjectivity, I want to warn you the case for the Christian God certainly comes harder towards the end.

And you're right there are a lot of assumptions we do make. It's definitely not clear that Christianity requires more assumptions or faith leaps rational speaking. In today's empiricist age, it certainly does. But empiricism vs. rationalism is certainly another debate entirely. Only in the sciences did empiricism win. In even the most secular modern university philosophy departments, it usually loses.

12/8/2013 1:56:53 PM

Reason told us that Mercury should orbit following Newton's celestial mechanics and observation told us otherwise.

Which won?

When it comes to reality, evidence will always be preferred to arguments because arguments are hollow.

12/8/2013 9:27:03 PM

Chapter One: There Can't Be Just One Religion

He's labeled the first part of the book "The Leap of Doubt" indicating that he's going to address common criticisms against Christianity by the doubters and to illustrate how their doubt is itself faith-filled. I was tempted to skip this chapter since this isn't a criticism I have ever read or seen any skeptic ever make of Christianity. Of course there *could* be one true religion, why don't you demonstrate how yours is it?

He never even answers his own question, but he does bring up a good point that believing that Christianity is true does preclude any other religion being true as well so "Christians" who believe that other religions (including Judaism and Islam) are also true are being inconsistent.

I almost stopped reading entirely after seeing this on page 5:

Quote :

"One way to deal with the divisiveness of religion has been to control or forbid it with a heavy hand. There have been several massive efforts to do this in the twentieth century. Soviet Russia, Communist China, the Khmer Rouge, and (in a different way) Nazi Germany were all determined to tightly control religious practice in an effort to stop it from dividing society or eroding the power of the state. The result, however, was not more peace and harmony, but more oppression."

Beside it being dishonest to argue that it was the result of suppressing religion that led to oppression rather than religion being suppressed as an effect of the oppressive regime....including Nazi Germany in this list is just complete horseshit. Nazi Germany was a Christian regime all the way to to Hitler. Note I'm not blaming Christianity for the Nazis, even though it does share a massive amount of the blame for the deep-seated antisemitism of Europe leading up to the Holocaust.

I truly expected a little more honesty from a book claiming to be reasonable treatise on Christianity. It appears very early on that this is really for Christians to read to bolster their faith against skepticism.

Later he asks: "How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you just claimed that none of the religions have?"

What a nonsense statement. No one claims absolute knowledge of anything except theists.

He argues that skepticism is itself faith-based and that we "assume" that "any exclusive claims to a superior knowledge of spiritual reality cannot be true" and that we "assume God is unknowable, or that God is loving but not wrathful, or that God is an impersonal force rather than a person who speaks in Scripture."

Which is bullshit. It's the your-preconceptions-are-just-as-unjustifiable-as-mine-so-we-might-as-well-believe-in-Yahweh argument.

Finally he just asserts that Christianity has the capacity to bring peace to the world without addressing any of the conflict it directly brings and completely ignoring other worldviews that could do the same or better.

Coming up: The Problem of Evil (spoiler alert: God works in mysterious ways!)

[Edited on December 9, 2013 at 8:52 AM. Reason : autocorrect]

12/9/2013 8:50:44 AM

You've made huge faith-based assumptions throughout this thread- in trusting your sensory experience especially, in empiricism, in the promise of progress, etc.

And I spent a lot of time studying Nazi Germany and Hitler last year. Any comprehensive study shows that he did not believe in any form of orthodox Christianity and did try to suppress all other faiths besides his own very twisted ideology. Also a lot of evidence to support that he didn't believe any of the Christian Bible at all, but used it here and there exploitatively when it suited his purposes (like so many politicians today)

Quote :

"Later he asks: "How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you just claimed that none of the religions have?" What a nonsense statement. No one claims absolute knowledge of anything except theists."

I've struggled for a while to see how this question isn't exactly on point. You haven't stated in those words that you have absolute knowledge, but in essence, you've done the exact same thing- You're right, you say, and I'm wrong.

There's all sorts of absolute statements the secularists/agnostics/atheists make, when you really examine their beliefs, from "all religions are bs" to "all religions are the same" to "There is no God" to "There probably isn't a god so everyone should live as if there isn't" to "We can only trust our sense/science" to "There is nothing beyond the material". These are all absolutes with implied or explicit mandates. They are absolute truth claims ("there is no absolute" is an absolute truth claim), either about something transcendental or absolute or the lack thereof. Even if they are just working theories and you don't say THIS IS IRREFUTABLE FACT, you're still attaching assumptions and subtle mandates that are the working equivalent of claiming comprehensive knowledge.

Anytime you say you're right and someone else is wrong, you are are claiming comprehensive knowledge (in saying "we don't have absolute knowledge, so you're wrong to claim you have it" is taking a staunch...even absolute... stance on knowledge and epistemology)

12/9/2013 9:53:39 AM

Le sigh. From here on out, just put an asterisk on any knowledge claim I make: *to the degree of certainty possible due to the epistemic barrier we all suffer and given the evidence available supporting this claim."

I think you theists really do understand this, but you want so hard to categorize belief in your pet god as properly basic you think this word game will work.

Quote :

"Any comprehensive study shows that he did not believe in any form of orthodox Christianity and did try to suppress all other faiths besides his own very twisted ideology. Also a lot of evidence to support that he didn't believe any of the Christian Bible at all, but used it here and there exploitatively when it suited his purposes (like so many politicians today)"

Hell, I'll just take your word for it.

[Edited on December 9, 2013 at 11:34 AM. Reason : .]

12/9/2013 11:33:40 AM

And let me state for the record:

Empiricism is trusted more than religion because it works INDUCTIVELY. I freely admit that I assume induction is valid because this is a properly basic belief. We can't even have a conversation if you don't assume induction, deduction, and a few other "beliefs".

The same can't be said about any god, no matter how hard the presuppositionalists try to argue that it is.

12/9/2013 12:15:24 PM

Noooo. I really don't think belief in God is basic. Tim Keller doesn't either. But I think he does make the case in the book, that unlike Dawkins and some of the new atheists' arguments, Christianity is plausible (and for many reasons...we think the most plausible).

I agree with you that we all suffer from these epistemic barriers. I guess one of the bigger points I'm making is the evidence is not so cut and dry, but it's interpreted according really to our own biases. And so the best we can do, if we are really interested in truth, is to try to work towards a more "objective" understanding of these things in the meantime.

So I think you, me, and Tim Keller would all agree there are major epistemic barriers we all suffer from. You put a lot of trust (often with good reason) in empiricism and your own sensory faculties and interpret evidence accordingly. We put a lot of trust (often with good reason) in rationalism and the whole of human experience (meaning, transcendence, possibility of God). And then as evidence comes along we wrestle with it accordingly.

12/9/2013 12:18:04 PM

http://vimeo.com/81215936

really long, but interesting. starts around 7 minutes and continues to gain steam throughout. insights into the scientific community, as well as some specific scientific points.

[Edited on December 10, 2013 at 12:13 AM. Reason : Q&A the past 30 minutes is pretty good]

12/10/2013 12:00:30 AM

As I suspected, "God works in mysterious ways" is Keller's out in Chapter Two of the suffering in the world.

Nevermind the fact that God could supposedly do *ANYTHING* so what happens is precisely what he desires. Don't give me that free will bullshit either, what does free will have to do with microbes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc?

The Universe behaves and appears as though our existence doesn't matter. Not only is it almost entirely uninhabitable to the kind of life we know, it's actively trying to kill us. Arguments from design or fine tuning are a joke in the face of the reality that surrounds us.

I'm slogging through the second half of Chapter Two where he's just citing Bible verses like that has any bearing on reality. Two chapters into a book which is supposedly a rational defense of belief in God and we're talking Scripture? I think I might not even continue. Chapter one was addressing a question that no skeptic ever puts before Christianity and Chapter Two is presuming the historical accuracy of the Gospels.

[Edited on December 10, 2013 at 8:31 AM. Reason : .]

12/10/2013 8:28:06 AM

He has a later chapter on the reliability of Scripture. (I think) So it's not like he's expecting you to just take it all at face value.

Also, the existence of pain and evil is not an argument for the existence of God. But it certainly is not an argument at all against the existence of God. I forget what Keller says about that in that chapter, but see...

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/12/09/do-tummy-aches-disprove-god/

Quote :

"Chapter one was addressing a question that no skeptic ever puts before Christianity"

You don't but most skeptics I run into these days, certainly do. You're an empiricist/materialist more than a postmodern everything goes relativist. (Which I respect because you've thought about these things more than the typical skeptic). But it's surprising how many people believe in all-religions-lead-to-the-same-God. So many people believe that in this pc age, that they find it hard to believe in any one-true-religion. So they just choose not to believe in any. I think there's generally two types of skeptics- the postmodern relativist more common in the arts and humanities (which is the circle I run in), and the materialist more common in the physical/natural sciences.

[Edited on December 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM. Reason : ]

12/10/2013 9:19:56 AM

this is almost funny

12/10/2013 10:03:32 AM

I love when the peanuts form the peanut gallery who have never questioned their own worldview and done any heavy lifting in thinking besides what their friends and teachers have told them, then come in and offer their very constructive insights. Really constructive for the dialog.

12/10/2013 10:09:05 AM

do you want him to give you a book list to read, and let the authors of the books do the heavy lifting?

[Edited on December 10, 2013 at 10:13 AM. Reason : you know, like you do?]

12/10/2013 10:12:37 AM

oh, i see lots of text in my posts, lots of points, lots of arguments. if all it's done is point out that the secular worldview has lots of holes in it (which previously many wouldn't admit), just like the religious worldview, then I'll consider this conversation progress.

but yeah, most of the heavy lifting is done reading books, and not in a TWW thread, so yes I'd prefer him to recommend a book over his "contributions" so far. I'm not surprised though. It's the internets, you can only take it so seriously I guess.

[Edited on December 10, 2013 at 10:26 AM. Reason : ]

12/10/2013 10:23:59 AM

Quote :

"I love when the peanuts form the peanut gallery who have never questioned their own worldview and done any heavy lifting in thinking besides what their friends and teachers have told them, then come in and offer their very constructive insights."

I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're really coming across as an arrogant douche who puts a lot of words together but can't form a reasonable argument.

But your quote above is laughable. It sounds like you're talking about the vast, vast majority of christians who were born to christian households, attended a christian church, and claimed to be christians since they could talk, and go through their life without questioning the absurdity of it all.

However, many atheist like myself and that i know were raised christian, attended church my entire adcolescent years, but started questioning the validity of it as they got older and came to the conclusion that it's nothing more than a myth.

12/10/2013 10:29:19 AM

^^
read this one (actually everyone in TSB should read it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_Rising

Quote :

"I love when the peanuts form the peanut gallery who have never questioned their own worldview and done any heavy lifting in thinking besides what their friends and teachers have told them, then come in and offer their very constructive insights."

This is so laughable because the following question has been posed over and over, and you haven't answered it:

Why is Christianity more correct than other religions?

[Edited on December 10, 2013 at 10:39 AM. Reason : .]

12/10/2013 10:32:54 AM

Quote :

"I love when the peanuts form the peanut gallery who have never questioned their own worldview and done any heavy lifting in thinking besides what their friends and teachers have told them, then come in and offer their very constructive insights. Really constructive for the dialog."

Have you really questioned your worldview? Because all you've posted or mentioned here is Christian apologist literature, or otherwise content that supports your Christian worldview. It seems like you've spent a great deal of time learning how to defend your worldview rather than questioning it. And you still have some learning to do, because you are badly losing the battle here. Or with any luck you will see that it is ultimately indefensible.

12/10/2013 6:35:48 PM

I would like you to address this (along with many other things you keep ignoring by others):

Quote :

"wouldn't the logical end of a Christian be to kill yourself to get into heaven and live with Jesus for eternity? I mean what's the point of living in this shitty world with that ahead of you?"

Why do more Christians not do this? Suicide is not a sin, as far as I know, and even if it were, all sins are forgiven if you have been saved. What is the point in living, as a Christian? And how is it really distinct from a secular humanist?

Incidentally, many thousands of Christians believe the apocalypse is coming, and/or they want it to come. They are basically nihilistic. Are they not "real" Christians?

12/10/2013 10:47:43 PM

To be fair to Christians, there's tons of Scriptural backup for the idea that they must spend every waking moment spreading the Word. They believe that that's what they were put on the earth to do.

Now, to respond to Ohmy....

Over 6 million children suffer and die each year and you link to an opinion piece reducing it to a tummy ache? You, Keller, C.S. Lewis all believe this is the best Yahweh can do? I'm not certain why you'd worship such a being even if he did exist!

[Edited on December 11, 2013 at 12:19 AM. Reason : .]

12/11/2013 12:18:22 AM

new crazy cults was so common that the romans had to have laws against it with punishments like crucifiction.

it shouldn't be a surprise that the one that rose to the top glorifys mediocrity and has a built-in requirement of self perpetuation.

it didn't raise up and it didn't fly

12/11/2013 1:03:17 AM

Quote :

"To be fair to Christians, there's tons of Scriptural backup for the idea that they must spend every waking moment spreading the Word. They believe that that's what they were put on the earth to do."

Right, it's coming back to me. So that's the life mission, the purpose, the meaning of life for a Christian when it boils down to it. To be a messenger spreading the Word. Otherwise, as I understand it, they are to serve God, which in practical terms means to serve their fellow man, aside from going to church and the like. Which would effectively make them humanists... who want to spread the word of a magical being and ancient allegories.

Ohmy, why does this make you and your fellow Christian's lives have more meaning, or fulfillment than a secular humanist's? Or a Buddhist, or whatever? Why does your belief that you're a messenger on behalf of some transcendent being give you a leg up?

It certainly should not lead you to want to understand the universe better. You claim to have the final answer for where we came from and why we exist. What is the point in looking further? What are telescopes and space probes for? To examine how and why God made the universe, and to study its beauty? Why should you care? You're only here to spread the Word. And all humans can appreciate beauty; believing a god created it doesn't inherently make it more beautiful. Is it to improve conditions for human life on Earth? Well, guess who else is working towards that? Non-Christians.

Please tell us why your religion is the right one, why your God is the right one, or why "Christianity is the most plausible" as you put it. Especially considering you are really not so different from humanists when you leave out the magical stuff.

12/11/2013 2:18:33 AM

There is also scripture supporting not evangelizing, and lots of denominations do not evangalize

EDIT:
in keeping with the theme of this thread: just read works by Ernest Renan and William Wrede!!

[Edited on December 11, 2013 at 8:26 AM. Reason : !!]

12/11/2013 8:19:13 AM

Well, yeah, clearly there's "Scripture" supporting many different contradictory views hence many different contradictory denominations. You'd think an omnipotent god would prevent something like that from happening if getting his message across was actually one of his goals.

12/11/2013 8:29:37 AM

Did you read any books yet by the discontinuity scholars regarding evangelism? I'm not going to respond until you read those.

12/11/2013 8:58:29 AM

a ton of stuff to respond to in here, can't get to it all, but for now...

Quote :

"But your quote above is laughable. It sounds like you're talking about the vast, vast majority of christians who were born to christian households, attended a christian church, and claimed to be christians since they could talk, and go through their life without questioning the absurdity of it all."

I know a lot of those. For much of my life I was one of those. It's a terrible thing. I know even more who grow up in Christian households, go to college, hear a professor in Philosophy 101 tell them some baseline argument about the inaccuracies of Scripture, their whole faith falls apart, and they become an agnostic or atheist. Because they never knew any thinking Christians, they just assume they don't exist.

Quote :

"Over 6 million children suffer and die each year and you link to an opinion piece reducing it to a tummy ache? You, Keller, C.S. Lewis all believe this is the best Yahweh can do? I'm not certain why you'd worship such a being even if he did exist!"

The article was about much more than just a tummy ache. He goes onto show how the logic about the suffering of 6 million children proving there isn't a God is flawed. I'd even go on to argue that the christian worldview provides the best support for doing something ABOUT those 6 million suffering children (And historically that's clearly the case- the Christians have spawned more humanitarian efforts than any other group. To an objective observer that's not even arguable)

Quote :

"Please tell us why your religion is the right one, why your God is the right one, or why "Christianity is the most plausible" as you put it. "

Good question. I purposefully didn't answer it earlier because that's another thread, perhaps even longer than this one. But it certainly wasn't an assumption on my part...and you guys are going to explode on this one but... I'd say the reliability of the Gospels (despite all of the hardcore efforts to disprove them for 200 years) and the historical evidence in support of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I've linked to several arguments (albeit basic ones) supporting this earlier in the thread. Commence thread derailment!

12/11/2013 11:11:02 AM

Quote :

"reliability of the Gospels"

Quote :

"the historical evidence in support of the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

elaborate please

12/11/2013 11:19:49 AM

uh.... yeah, please show us this historical evidence

also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inanna
(context: egyptian myth about the goddess of sexuality who hung naked on a stake, then descended into the underworld, then returned 3 days later. mix in a German pagan holiday and you get Easter)

12/11/2013 11:42:15 AM

That tummy ache opinion piece and all other attempts to address the Problem of Evil can be summed up as "We can't know what god is planning so it's not a problem."

Which is bullshit. You say god has properties (allpowerful, loves us, etc), the Universe appears as though he doesn't have those properties or he just doesn't exist.

Explain to me in your own words why God couldn't have a better plan that meant less suffering.

And that opinion piece pulls the "well, we just proved that it's not rational to think this way so atheists must be arguing from emotion" card. Ipso Facto, problem of evil is solved!

Quote :

"I'd say the reliability of the Gospels (despite all of the hardcore efforts to disprove them for 200 years) and the historical evidence in support of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. "

You know this isn't accurate. If it was, every reasonable person on Earth would already be a Christian and you'd be wasting your time.

The reality is that there's barely any evidence that Jesus existed as a person, no good evidence for the details of his life (which is why scholarship on the topic is so completely varied), and no evidence whatsoever for any supernatural claim made by the Gospels including and especially the Resurrection.

I don't trust anyone who says "historical evidence of the Resurrection" with a straight face.

Quote :

"And historically that's clearly the case- the Christians have spawned more humanitarian efforts than any other group. To an objective observer that's not even arguable"

Surely that has nothing to do with the fact that essentially everyone in Western Civilization in the last 2000 years was Christian and they already have the infrastructure for "humanitarian" efforts in place. To an objective observer, the Christians have also spawned more institutionalized child-fucking than any other group.

[Edited on December 11, 2013 at 1:53 PM. Reason : .]

12/11/2013 1:45:46 PM

^good point about the commonalities that span religions and cultures. religions don't start humanitarian efforts- something "good" in the human species does. The Bible calls that being made in the image of God, fingerprints of the divine, natural, moral law. and religions don't propose raping kids- sin does. and religions don't start wars- sin does. there goes some of Dawkins' most ardent arguments.

saw this yesterday, seems fitting: http://carm.org/religion-cause-war

so you're right- it's dumb for me to point to the outcome of christians working for humanitarian causes. I think it's a different argument though to say that the Bible makes the best case of any worldview to work for the poor and the oppressed. (The Bible, not the hypocritical Christians who exploit the Bible to their own means, just like sin causes people to do to all popular belief sets, atheist or religious.) Based on the "Define your own meaning" priorities of the relativists/existentialists and the "pragmatism" of the secular materialists, I'm not sure how there is any materialist case for the care of the weak, since they must deny making value judgments (as I already pointed out in the early pages of this thread, and in the abortion thread)

With regard to your comment on evidence, I'll quote myself from page 2 of this thread...

Quote :

"None of those links are proof of anything. But they are evidence. Evidence that can rationally be considered in favor of God. You can also explain it away rationally, but I think then you will have more problems coming up with another logical worldview (as evidenced by the natural law/absolute truth argument I've been making). Few Christian apologists claim to offer irrefutable proof. But it seems to be the only worldview that provides a paradigm for consistently making sense of the world. More of them agree with C.S. Lewis: Quote : "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.""

and the evidence of Jesus' life comes largely from Scripture, which makes sense, as Jesus lived a specific life in a specific culture at a specific time, and so it was those people in that specific culture that wrote about him (which made its way into Scripture...they were really written by real people you know...for those who were convinced the Da Vinci Code was a true story). But modern secularists try to handicap the debate in their favor by disqualifying that because it has religious implications? (Um....yeah...you can bet if even the most secular historian today could document someone resurrecting from the dead today it would have religious implications) As for the claims about errors and inaccuracies, see the links on page 2.

carzak, as for the mission of the Christian, there is certainly lots of disagreement on the purpose of the Christian life, as there was in Jesus' day, as you would expect in a fallen world tainted by the effects of sin (those effects are felt in even in the most pious, intelligent Christian mind). But for a more accurate understanding besides just "winning souls", I'd point you to page 2 where I laid out the creation, fall, redemption ,restoration narrative of the Bible (and all of history), and add that the Christian's role is to be used by God to glorify God (redeeming the world). That would take a book and half to unpack, but basically, God will make a new a heaven and new earth and talked all the time about bring the kingdom of God/Heaven to earth. This takes many forms and Christians everywhere disagree about the best way to do that- preaching about the next life, teaching about this life, better business practices, alleviating poverty, caring for the orphaned and the sick, Marxist liberation theology, job training and skill training, etc.Many of the Christians who did the best humanitarian efforts in this life, were fueled by being so ardently fixed on the reality of the next. That's the ideal Jesus calls us to.

Of course, many people call themselves Christians because it's cultural, they rarely read the Bible on their own, or conform its message to fit their selfish tendencies, and are largely responsible for the terrible image the church has in America today. Or they are devout Christians that succumb to the pull of sin more often than they should. Oh, and unpacking what I mean by sin could be a book of its own too, but Tim Keller puts it succinctly, by framing it as trusting ourselves, instead of God:

Quote :

"He writes: " I ordinarily begin speaking about sin to a young, urban, non-Christian like this: Sin isn’t only doing bad things, it is more fundamentally making good things into ultimate things. Sin is building your life and meaning on anything, even a very good thing, more than on God. Whatever we build our life on will drive us and enslave us. Sin is primarily idolatry. Why take this approach? Keller suggests two reasons. First, this definition convicts both the "prostitute and the pharisee", the ungodly and the self-righteous. It is the latter group that is more offensive to the postmodern. Second, this personalizes sin for the postmodern and they offer little resistance to it, while "law-breaking" assumes agreement on which laws. "

[Edited on December 11, 2013 at 5:30 PM. Reason : ]

12/11/2013 5:02:41 PM

Quote :

"religions don't start humanitarian efforts- something "good" in the human species does. "

An interesting admission that I think most will agree with. But, understandably, not everyone will agree that it is attributable, with no evidence, to the divine.

Quote :

"and religions don't propose raping kids- sin does. and religions don't start wars- sin does."

You know what the sounds like? A cop-out. The concept of sin and forgiveness is a cop-out to excuse or neglect some level of deviant behavior that is innate or learned in humans. Neglect it by giving Hail Marys and praying for forgiveness, instead of seeking real treatment or help for it, or excusing it to avoid facing real consequences. Can you imagine if every Christian was not forgiven for their sins in life? Every damn one of them would go to hell.

Quote :

"Based on the "Define your own meaning" priorities of the relativists/existentialists and the "pragmatism" of the secular materialists, I'm not sure how there is any materialist case for the care of the weak"

Who are these relativists, materialists, existentialists, nihilists, postmodernists, whatever? Why must you give all these labels to human beings who are non-religious? Humans have innate senses of morals and ethics and they don't necessarily translate to any of these philosophies or worldviews, or they are a complicated mix of them at any given moment in their lives. You can't nail anyone of us down based on holes or flaws in any given philosophy.

Quote :

"teaching about this life, better business practices, alleviating poverty, caring for the orphaned and the sick, Marxist liberation theology, job training and skill training, etc"

So leaving out the supernatural aspects, basically be humanistic while you're alive. As in, strive for a more humane world by caring for your fellow man, striving for human rights, equality, justice, peace, and so on.

Quote :

"Sin is building your life and meaning on anything, even a very good thing, more than on God."

The problem with this is it's completely subjective and arbitrary. How is one to know they are building their life and finding meaning on something more than on God? How much God is enough in one's life? Many Christians today arguably put things in the material world ahead of God. Are they sinners? Who is anyone to judge? What if they think they're being "good-enough" Christians? What if most of them regret to say they are not "good enough?" Why should they care whether they're sinners if they're happy and go to church occasionally, pray, and so on?

[Edited on December 11, 2013 at 11:04 PM. Reason : .]

12/11/2013 10:59:48 PM

Quote :

"First, this definition convicts both the "prostitute and the pharisee", the ungodly and the self-righteous. "

Also, the definition may "convict" a prostitute. But what if she thinks she is redeemed by going to church, and praying for forgiveness after every sexy-time? She feels the love of the Lord in her heart, and her behavior is excused. She continues whoring despite knowing she is a sinner, and despite having God in her life.

And I don't know how it could "convict" the ungodly, because they couldn't give less of a care how much God is in their life, or idolatry, or whatever the rest of the nonsense that guy is saying.

This definition of sin is sounding more and more like bullshit the more I come back to it.

12/11/2013 11:59:22 PM

Quote :

"An interesting admission that I think most will agree with. But, understandably, not everyone will agree that it is attributable, with no evidence, to the divine. "

I think the existence of sociopaths throws a monkey-wrench into the idea if "intrinsic goodness" in humanity even of a naturalistic origin. We aren't all imbued with a sense of altruism.

Further, even non-sociopaths are imbued with other aspects of humanity which aren't good like xenophobia.

It's clear to me that our behavior, good and bad, aren't some reflection of the divine but the product of our biological evolution and cultural development.

Quote :

"sin does"

Except the concept of "sin" is nonsense and completely unsupported by any type of evidence. It's predicated on all your other theistic claims being true which you haven't even begun to support.

If I were to grant you "sin", I might as well grant you the soul and Jesus' Resurrection while I'm at it.

Quote :

"Based on the "Define your own meaning" priorities of the relativists/existentialists and the "pragmatism" of the secular materialists, I'm not sure how there is any materialist case for the care of the weak, since they must deny making value judgments (as I already pointed out in the early pages of this thread, and in the abortion thread)"

Positing a god that doesn't really exist doesn't give you any more power to make value judgments than a relativist. Merely believing in an ontological out doesn't make it so.

Oh, and it's not the religious implications that make the Gospels suspect, it's the supernatural claims about reality that it makes that makes it suspect. Combine this with zero extra-biblical support and we have no good reason to believe that the account of Jesus' life in the Gospels isn't just a story.

Do you believe Sathya Sai Baba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba) committed miracles including raising the dead in the last decade and in the later half of the 20th century? It's well documented. No? Why not?

The answer to that question +2000 years of editorial license and mis-translating is why we shouldn't take the Gospels at their face value.

12/12/2013 8:29:23 AM

I give the labels so that we can talk the same language, address the same lines of thought. You're right, it's not good to pigeonhole people. They're certainly more complex than a philosophical label. At the same time, we are all products of our culture. And our ideas about life, meaning, etc. do not exist in a vacuum. They originate from these philosophies and world views (along with our experiences and other influences) whether we are aware of it or not.

Quote :

"Humans have innate senses of morals and ethics "

[user]disco-stu[/user] would definitely disagree with you. I wouldn't though.

Quote :

"You know what the sounds like? A cop-out."

Sin sometimes is used as a copout unfortunately. Scripture is clear that we are held accountable for our sins though, which make us damnable. And that those who are "saved" and continue to live unrepentant lifestyles are not saved. The book of James addresses this.

Quote :

"So leaving out the supernatural aspects, basically be humanistic while you're alive. As in, strive for a more humane world by caring for your fellow man, striving for human rights, equality, justice, peace, and so on."

In large part, yes. We do believe in the next life, an eternal one, so I do try to "evangelize". But it's more than just getting people from this life to the kingdom of Heaven, but it's about bringing the Kingdom of Heaven to earth (It's even in the Lord's Prayer! A lot of fundamentalists forget that.) But yeah, there is a ton we all agree on.

The problem though comes in figuring out what that looks like, how it plays out. And we believe authority comes from God, as explained in the Bible. So we're not free to make our own definitions of what is true and useful. We're answerable to the truth found in Scripture. So things like abortion then become divisive subjects.

Quote :

"The problem with this is it's completely subjective and arbitrary. How is one to know they are building their life and finding meaning on something more than on God? How much God is enough in one's life? Many Christians today arguably put things in the material world ahead of God. Are they sinners? Who is anyone to judge? What if they think they're being "good-enough" Christians? What if most of them regret to say they are not "good enough?" Why should they care whether they're sinners if they're happy and go to church occasionally, pray, and so on?"

You're exactly right. It is subjective in the sense that sin is different things for different people. There is a lot more room for grace and personal struggles and personal gifts in the Bible than most Christians allow. Jesus dealt with sinners from different backgrounds with different struggles in totally different ways, addressing different needs. I would say Christians generally in the West definitely put materialism/consumerism above God. Who is anyone to judge? God. Christians are called to discern, though, but it's always to be done in grace, to "speak the truth in love." There is a lot Christian nominalism that is not Christian at all, according to the teachings of Scripture- there's a lot more to it than just intellectual assent. To be short, your life is changed from the inside out.

disco_stu The Christian apologist, through extra biblical evidence and reasoning, eventually gets to the point that they believe in the existence of the transcendent, then a god, then the God, then the God of the Bible, and then, the logical next step would be to believe that what the Bible says is true. But when we pull from the Bible, about stuff like sin or inherent good, it's not because we expect you, or even ourselves, to take it at face value.

There is a point through which all worldviews are seen as flawed insofar as human reasoning can take them. Like you said, we all suffer from epistemological barriers. Evidence exists, and just like with any scientific hypothesis, we interpret that evidence to try and prove or disprove, to the bet of our human faculties, that hypothesis. We keep finding holes with these worldview hypotheses so eventually we find that we work from certain presuppositions. We have both admitted as much. We certainly have our reasons for these presuppositions, but they are there, and the evidence is then interpreted accordingly. Mine is from Genesis 1 "In the beginning, God..." I trust the existence of God, and then God as a person, as revealed in the Bible and as he makes himself known to us through life. "Oh, isn't that convenient?" Well, sometimes. but not when I have to reconcile my greed, lust, selfishness with the rest of what the Bible says. On the other hand, you're trusting the human sensory experience (instincts, synapses, and the byproduct of random mutations), and "conveniently" interpret the evidence to suit your worldview.

12/12/2013 10:13:04 AM

You didn't really respond to anything I said....

Quote :

"disco_stu The Christian apologist, through extra biblical evidence and reasoning, eventually gets to the point that they believe in the existence of the transcendent, then a god, then the God, then the God of the Bible, and then, the logical next step would be to believe that what the Bible says is true. But when we pull from the Bible, about stuff like sin or inherent good, it's not because we expect you, or even ourselves, to take it at face value. "

Can you show your steps between <not believing in the "transcendent"> -> believing in the existence of the transcendent -> then a god -> then the God -> then the God of the Bible?

Quote :

"There is a point through which all worldviews are seen as flawed insofar as human reasoning can take them. Like you said, we all suffer from epistemological barriers. Evidence exists, and just like with any scientific hypothesis, we interpret that evidence to try and prove or disprove, to the bet of our human faculties, that hypothesis. We keep finding holes with these worldview hypotheses so eventually we find that we work from certain presuppositions. We have both admitted as much. We certainly have our reasons for these presuppositions, but they are there, and the evidence is then interpreted accordingly. Mine is from Genesis 1 "In the beginning, God..." I trust the existence of God, and then God as a person, as revealed in the Bible and as he makes himself known to us through life. "Oh, isn't that convenient?" Well, sometimes. but not when I have to reconcile my greed, lust, selfishness with the rest of what the Bible says. On the other hand, you're trusting the human sensory experience (instincts, synapses, and the byproduct of random mutations), and "conveniently" interpret the evidence to suit your worldview. "

All of this is essentially accurate. So the question then becomes, did you use God to post this to the Internet or did you use the product of instincts, synapses, and the byproduct of random mutations?

We have to determine which assumptions are a better reflection of reality, right?

12/12/2013 10:40:30 AM

i'm still waiting for some half-way reasonable argument in favor of god and christianity

12/12/2013 10:49:30 AM

I would also like him to answer:

Quote :

"Do you believe Sathya Sai Baba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba) committed miracles including raising the dead in the last decade and in the later half of the 20th century? It's well documented. No? Why not?"

if the historical evidence of the resurrection of christ is scripture, then why should I not believe any other miracles recorded in other places?

12/12/2013 11:07:48 AM

^^Do you have a specific question?

Quote :

" I understand that atheists also have a burden of proof. All of us, in attempting to explain the world around us, move from a plethora of questions to a single responsibility: There Are Many Questions. Atheists and theists both agree that the big questions of life are numerous. How did the universe come into existence? Why does the universe exhibit the ‘appearance’ of ‘fine tuning’? How did life originate? Why does biology exhibit the ‘appearance’ of ‘design’? How did human consciousness come into being? Where does ‘free will’ come from? Why are humans so contradictory in nature? Why do transcendent moral truths exist? Why do we believe human life to be precious? Why do pain, evil and injustice exist in our world? While atheists and theists have their own list of unanswered questions, we all agree that there are many important issues that need to be examined. There Are Only Two Kinds of Answers In the end, the answers to these questions can be divided into two simple categories: Answers from the perspective of philosophical naturalism (a view I held as an atheist), or answers that accept the existence of supernatural forces (a view I now hold as a theist). Atheists maintain that life’s most important questions can be answered from a purely naturalistic perspective (without the intervention of a supernatural, Divine Being). Theists argue that the evidence often leaves naturalism ‘wanting’ for answers while the intervention of an intelligent, transcendent Creator appears to be the best inference. In times like these, the theist finds it evidentially reasonable to infer a supernatural cause. There Is Only One Shared Responsibility Both groups share a singular burden of proof. If theists are going to posit God as the answer to some (or all) of the questions I’ve described, we are going to have to argue for His existence and activity. If atheists are going to argue that adequate answers exist without the need for God, they are at least going to have to provide sufficient naturalistic explanations. In either case, both groups (if they are honest with themselves) will have to shoulder the burden of proving their case. The burden of proof is not limited to the theist; all of us need to be able to make a case for our choice of answers. One side defends supernaturalism, the other defends philosophical naturalism. The nature of the questions (and the limited categories of potential answers) ought to motivate all of us to decide which of the two explanatory possibilities is most reasonable. While atheists are sometimes un-persuaded by the arguments for God’s existence, they are still woefully unable to provide coherent and adequate answers to the most important questions of life related to the cause of the universe, the appearance of design, the origin of life, the reality of human free will and the existence of transcendent moral truth. Theists aren’t the only ones who have to answer these questions. If naturalism is true, naturalists have their own unique burden of proof."

^

Quote :

"Is the Bible reliable? Well, the reliability of our English translations depends largely upon the quality of the manuscripts they were translated from. The quality depends, in part, on how recent the manuscripts are. Scholars like Bart Ehrman have asserted that we don’t have manuscripts that are early enough. However, the manuscript evidence is quite impressive: There are as many as 18 second-century manuscripts. If the Gospels were completed between AD 50–100, then this means that these early copies are within 100 years. Just recently, Dan Wallace announced that a new fragment from the Gospel of Mark was discovered dating back to the first century AD, placing it well within 50 years of the originals, a first of its kind. When these early manuscripts are all put together, more than 43% of the New Testament is accounted for from copies no later than the second century. Manuscripts that date before AD 400 number 99, including one complete New Testament called Codex Sinaiticus. So the gap between the original, inerrant autographs and the earliest manuscripts is pretty slim. This comes into focus when the Bible is compared to other classical works that, in general, are not doubted for their reliability. In this chart of comparison with other ancient literature... http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/02/08/earlier-fragment-of-marks-gospel-rumored-to-be-found/ ... you can see that the New Testament has far more copies than any other work, numbering 5,700 (Greek) in comparison to the over 200 of Suetonius. If we take all manuscripts into account (handwritten prior to printing press), we have 20,000 copies of the New Testament. There are only 200 copies of the earliest Greek work. This means if we are going to be skeptical about the Bible, then we need to be thousands of times more skeptical about the works of Greco-Roman history. Or put another way, we can be a thousand times more confident about the reliability of the Bible. It is far and away the most reliable ancient document."

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 11:32 AM. Reason : ]

12/12/2013 11:27:59 AM

Quote :

"While atheists are sometimes un-persuaded by the arguments for God’s existence, they are still woefully unable to provide coherent and adequate answers to the most important questions of life related to the cause of the universe, the appearance of design, the origin of life, the reality of human free will and the existence of transcendent moral truth. Theists aren’t the only ones who have to answer these questions. If naturalism is true, naturalists have their own unique burden of proof.""

So what? We admit we don't have these answers, but "we don't know yet and we're working on it" is preferable to making shit up.

(or believing the shit that ancient Israelites made up)

Oh, and what Academic Journal did Dan Wallace publish his findings about the 1st century scrap of Mark, or have you finally revealed you don't mind being a dishonest hack and copy-paste unproven assertions?

Quote :

"This means if we are going to be skeptical about the Bible, then we need to be thousands of times more skeptical about the works of Greco-Roman history. Or put another way, we can be a thousand times more confident about the reliability of the Bible. It is far and away the most reliable ancient document.""

I can't LOL enough.

THERE ARE MANY COPIES, ITS RELIABLE HISTORY! NEVERMIND IT HAS TALKING ANIMALS AND PEOPLE RISING FROM THE DEAD, THERE ARE MANY COPIES!

[Edited on December 12, 2013 at 11:44 AM. Reason : .]

12/12/2013 11:38:47 AM