Entry 585, on 2007-08-06 at 22:57:12 (Rating 3, Religion)
For the last few weeks I have been debating with a religious believer I met on GodTube. The original debate involved a movie which tried to invalidate the Big Bang, but it has moved away beyond that with about 50 messages going back and forwards between us.
On several occasions my opponent has been left with no way to counter my points and has had to admit that the evidence against his beliefs is pretty damning (good choice of word there, I think). The cosmic microwave background radiation was one thing he had no answer for, because it clearly supports the Big Bang and can't be explained by religious theories. Another was the fact that the Egyptians lived through the Biblical global flood without even noticing it happening.
Before the debate started I asked him to assure me that he really wanted to know the truth, which he did. But after being given fairly conclusive evidence supporting science and against religion he still tells me he accepts his religious beliefs in large part because of his upbringing.
So he's trapped in this false, dogmatic belief forced on him by his parents and church, and even though he must have a fairly good idea by now that his beliefs are false he still believes them. He has been brainwashed into believing something which is both untrue and harmful in many ways (he even admits the overall effect of the church on the world is negative).
So when I see people trapped into believing religious nosense I feel even better about being a free thinker and atheist (which is the end result for most free thinkers).
The person I am debating has contacted me via this blog and the current topic is how endogenous retroviruses support evolution. Here's a simplified summary of the topic...
Retroviruses have RNA which is inserted into a cell and reverse transcribed into the DNA of the host, where it replicates. Endogenous retroviruses insert into the germ cells so their DNA is passed to next generation. They insert material randomly (mostly) so its usually in non-transcribed areas and it has no effect. Mutations have no effect on them so they stop working (they have no good or bad effect on the host). We can detect ERVs by sequencing because they are still recognisable even after mutations.
Endogenous retroviral insertions are incomplete and random, so two species would never get the same pattern unless they were related. But related species do show the same patterns and the similarity is linked to the degree of connection through ancestry expected by evolution.
Comment 2 by Your Opponent on 2007-08-13 at 10:16:16:
Okay, just one more thing I can't argue against. At any rate, do you know what happened to your GodTube account?
Regarding the bear mauling: Even if God was not defending Elisha's life, consider how seriously blasphemy was taken back then. If you don't accept that, at least it's been established that small children weren't involved.
Comment 3 by OJB on 2007-08-13 at 20:12:38:
Yes, and that's just one strong piece of molecular evidence. In fact, the molecular evidence is even better than the fossil evidence. The fossil evidence would be enough to prove evolution beyond reasonable doubt, but with the molecular evidence its practically 100% proven!
I presume I was kicked out of GodTube because I made some derogatory comments about people's beliefs. I wasn't given any warning or explanation, I just couldn't log in any longer - seems a bit extreme. I didn't say anything too critical about any individuals there.
OK, if you think the death penalty (for people as young as 12) is justified for a "crime" such as that, then that's your opinion. I guess this is another example of an atheist who is more forgiving and moral than a Christian!
Comment 4 by Your Opponent on 2007-08-14 at 02:21:16:
At least you know what the youths were saying to Elisha. Blasphemy is certainly worse than poking fun at baldness, no matter how miniscule the difference is in your eyes.
Comment 5 by Your Opponent on 2007-08-14 at 09:03:42:
Anyway, the whole meaning behind this particular argument is not whether or not morality is subjective, but whether or not this incident contradicts God's morality as described in the Bible. Are you still convinced that it does?
Comment 6 by OJB on 2007-08-14 at 09:36:32:
No, I never thought it necessarily contradicted God's morality, although there is a certain amount of inconsistency there (but let's not get started on that). My point was that I don't agree with God's morality. Which brings up the question: should we still follow God's morality even if we think it is wrong?
Comment 7 by WF99 on 2007-08-14 at 10:22:07:
Yes, I believe we should. It's only logical.
Comment 8 by OJB on 2007-08-14 at 10:38:21:
Its only logical if you have more of that blind faith you keep talking about. Even if there was a god and that god had certain laws, I think we should still look at them critically. How do we know its not a deception or a test of some sort? In the end I think its up to everyone to follow there own personal morality because we can never rely on rules enforced on us by someone else, even if we think that other entity is a god.
Comment 9 by WF99 on 2007-08-15 at 06:53:39:
Okay, look critically at laws such as do not murder, respect authority, don't steal. Do you find problems with them?
So, what I've established so far: There is little to no evidence for Biblical events, and there are piles of evidence against the Bible, but at least it doesn't contradict itself. That's at least something. :-p
Comment 10 by OJB on 2007-08-15 at 08:48:18:
Of course I find problems with laws. Many are inconsistent, open to varying interpretation, and often created for completely the wrong reasons.
We agree that its unlikely that most of the Bible is a true representation of the past then. If that's the case it doesn't really matter whether its internally consistent or not (I still think there are contradictions). After all, The Lord of the Rings is internally consistent, but its not true.
Once we admit the Bible is wrong there's not a lot left. There is no support for any aspect of Christianity outside the Bible. Why not just abandon the whole idea in that case?
Comment 11 by WF99 on 2007-08-15 at 11:48:04:
Could you list the inconsistencies and problems with the laws that you've found?
I really don't know why I'm not abandoning it, to be honest. I don't feel like I'm getting to much out of my beliefs. I'm not experiencing the everlasting joy that I'm supposed to. Still, letting go of Christianity seems unthinkable, for some reason.
Comment 12 by OJB on 2007-08-15 at 22:42:15:
Contradictions? Well let's start with the two different creation myths in Genesis 1.1 and 2.4. I've never managed to figure out how that works.
I'm sure it would be very hard to abandon your beliefs. I guess its been the most important thing in your life for many years. I've heard accounts of Christians who have "escaped" but it has been really hard for them.
My suggestion would be to continue to enjoy the social aspects of your church and accept the positive parts of the Christian message, but drop the superstition and dogma that goes along with it. Just think of god as an abstract concept instead of a real entity.
Comment 13 by WF99 on 2007-08-16 at 08:06:33:
Oh, yes, I remember reading about the creation "contradiction". It's actually a problem with the translation -- other versions of the Bible have the account corrected. Genesis 2:4 should read, "the beasts God *had* formed, meaning that he had formed them previously and was now giving them to Adam.
Okay, there are two other bits of information I've picked up from my science classes; can you point out the problems with them? One of my teachers told me that the Sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 feet per hour and that it would be impossible for the universe to be billions of years old. I also read in a tract in a bathroom (it's not Wikipedia, I know) that said that dinosaur tracks have been discovered fossilized right next to fossilized human foot prints.
Comment 14 by OJB on 2007-08-16 at 08:44:36:
Its another one of those convenient re-interpretations, I guess. I really can't see how even that can help the story though. I have several versions of the Bible here and the stories are contradictory in all of them.
The Sun isn't shrinking. This silly story has been answered for many years. Anyone who is still teaching that is either very ignorant or deliberately deceiving you. The original measurement (from 1980s) showing some shrinkage has been shown to be false. Also, all stars do change size but they tend to expand and contract over time. (details here)
The dinosaur and human tracks have also been shown to be false. They weren't human tracks at all, but various erosion features, unusually shaped dinosaur tracks, etc. Even most creationists have given up on this (so-called) evidence. (details here)
Comment 15 by Your Opponent on 2007-08-16 at 11:15:57:
I hope that you don't have any negative connotations when you tag the description "convenient" on this. Just because something is convenient does not mean it's untrue -- there are several "convenient" pieces of evidence for evolution, but I don't doubt that they're true. And you've more than established that a lot of evidence isn't so convenient for Christianity.
Basically, the "contradiction" says that one account shows God forming the beasts before man, and another showing God forming the beasts after man. The actual text says that God created the beasts before man and *gave* the beasts to man later.
Okay, thanks for clearing up the other two things I've been taught. It's funny how some creationists (myself included in the past) jumped on any findings that could be used to promote Christianity, but said that any evidence supporting evolution is "inconclusive". :-p
Comment 16 by OJB on 2007-08-16 at 12:06:08:
Well yes, I was insinuating that they might have just chosen one of many possible interpretations just to cover up an obvious error, but I also admit that its possibly a genuine translation issue.
Which Bible has the alternative interpretation? This is from the King James...
2 18 And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.
2 19 And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
It really sounds like he's making them.
Comment 17 by WF99 on 2007-08-17 at 08:31:53:
Yes, change it to, "And out of the ground Jehovah God *had* formed every beast of the field..." It should be cleared up after that.
Comment 18 by OJB on 2007-08-17 at 16:30:34:
Sorry. I just can't accept that. It just doesn't seem to fit with the language already used. And, as I said, I don't see that wording in any of my Bibles. If you can show me where a language expert has said that is supported by the translation I will accept it, but at the moment it just seems like a lame excuse. I could be wrong, either way it makes no difference because we know the Genesis story is wrong anyway.
I'd like to bring up an issue that we discussed before. I see where you're coming from in saying how nonliving matter arose, but where did living matter come from? I don't expect anything that a twenty year old woman taught me in a high school biology class to counter you, but I'd like to hear your response.
Comment 20 by OJB on 2007-08-18 at 11:33:43:
OK, they certainly seem to have changed it in that version. I always thought the King James was considered closer to the original, so I still think this is maybe a case of revisionism through expedience.
You're talking about abiogenesis? I think we would have to admit that there is no widely accepted theory there. The problem is that we are talking about an event which happened billions of years ago and the earliest life forms didn't fossilise.
But there are several initial hypotheses which look promising, and many experiments have been performed which indicate that creating the early stages of life might be quite easy. Once a self-replicating molecule appears and natural selection can act on it, complex life is almost inevitable.
Recently there have been some interesting discoveries of organic molecules in space which could also be precursors to life. So really there is no problem with life arising from non-life. Its just a matter of establishing the exact mechanism involved.
Comment 21 by WF99 on 2007-08-19 at 06:08:56:
What experiments?
Organic molecules in space. Are you bringing up the "aliens created us" theory? That pretty much defeats the purpose of evolution.
Comment 22 by OJB on 2007-08-19 at 07:21:22:
There was the original famous Miller-Urey Experiment and many more sophisticated ones since then with varying starting assumptions. I'll try to find some references.
I'm not saying we were made by aliens, but those molecules are significant in two ways. First they show that organic molecules are common and exist outside the Earth. And second its possible some of the original material might have come from space. Not life itself, but some of the early molecules involved with life arising here.
Comment 23 by WF99 on 2007-08-19 at 09:12:46:
The Miller experiment? There's so many flaws in that that I don't know where to start, but that certainly does not prove anything. Chapter 3 in The Case for Faith deals with evolution.
"Miller and Oparin didn't have any real proof that the earth's early atmosphere was composed of ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, which Miller used in his experiment. They based their theory on physical chemistry. They wanted to get a chemical reaction that would be favorable, so they proposed that the atmosphere was rich in those gases. Oparin was smart enough to know that if you start with inert gases like nitrogen and carbon dioxide, they won't react... from 1980 on, NASA scientists have shownthat the primitive earth never had any methane, ammonia, or hydrogen to amount to anything. Instead, it was composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, and you absolutely cannot get the same experimental results with that mixture. It just won't work. More recent experiments have confirmed this to be the case . . . [The significance of Miller's experiment today] is zilch. When textbooks present the Miller experiment, they should be honest enough to say it was interesting historically but not terribly relevant to how life actually developed."
Walter L. Bradley, Ph.D
Comment 24 by OJB on 2007-08-19 at 16:46:00:
If you read what I said instead of just parroting creationist propaganda you would see that I specifically said "many more sophisticated ones since then with varying starting assumptions". You are correct that the composition of the atmosphere assumed for the original experiment now appears to be incorrect. That is why we should take more notice of the more recent experiments which corrected this. And by the way, abiogenesis is not really part of evolution, so using an anti-abiogenesis argument to try to disprove evolution won't work.
There's a brief mention of some of the other experiments here.
Comment 25 by WF99 on 2007-08-20 at 05:38:17:
Okay. It seems that I plunged headlong with a double-edged sword and ended up hitting myself twice. :-p
So, it seems we've reached the conclusion of all of the topics we've brought up...
Comment 26 by OJB on 2007-08-20 at 09:12:21:
OK, in summary, here's the way I see it...
The Big Bang and evolution are two theories which are extremely well supported by evidence. In fact there are no realistic scientific alternatives at all. That doesn't mean they are definitely right and it doesn't mean there are no problems with them. There are problems, but only with the details. We should accept these theories but always be aware that new evidence might be discovered which changes their accuracy.
Some scientists question these theories but they are definitely a minority and often influenced by their own illogical beliefs. Its the balance of evidence that counts and while there are small pieces of evidence which don't support the theories, in the big picture all the evidence shows one thing: that they are correct.
Creationist claims are almost totally without merit. They take quotes out of context, pick out tiny details and pretend they are major issues, and refuse to admit when their theories are shown to be wrong. They are blinded by their beliefs. There might be a few points they make which have some validity, but these are irrelevant in the big picture.
The Bible is wrong and that can be shown beyond reasonable doubt. If the creation myth was right astronomy, biology, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, cosmology, genetics, and practically every other science would have to be wrong. Look at it objectively: what is more likely to be right, an old book, or every modern science?
The evidence for Jesus is more debatable. He might have existed but there is no reason to believe the Bible accounts are accurate. The Bible is a religious book and therefore biased. The gospels were all written after the alleged events and their origin is uncertain. Accounts outside of the Bible are highly doubtful or false.
Claims that religion cannot be studied by science are not strictly true. Even if we accept that god exists in a spiritual realm most religious people say there is an interaction with the physical world. We can study that interaction and the vast majority of evidence indicates the spiritual world doesn't exist.
Religion was invented by primitive tribes to explain what they didn't understand. Religion was fine tuned by churches so they could control their followers. There are still some benefits to religious belief but in general it is irrelevant and negative. Atheism is the fastest growing "belief" in the USA. Religion's time has come and gone. The fight from the religious right and fundamentalist is the last struggle of a dying belief. It will take many years and there will always be some believers but basically religion is dead.
Comment 27 by WF99 on 2007-08-20 at 09:46:21:
Yes, I have to agree with all of that.
Comment 28 by OJB on 2007-08-20 at 11:32:49:
Thank you for your honesty. Its unusual for a believer to make that sort of admission. You have said in the past that you can't abandon your faith and that's fine. Just remember when you see anti-evolution movies on GodTube or hear claims in an apologetics meeting which supposedly disprove the big bang that they are almost guaranteed to be untrue.
One day you might feel confident enough to become an atheist. If you do, welcome to the only truthful, honest belief system. And if you ever have questions about this sort of subject in future just email me.
Comment 29 by WF99 on 2007-08-20 at 12:05:51:
Thank you. I've enjoyed our discussions and will be reading your future blog entries.
Comment 30 by sbfl on 2007-09-19 at 23:03:47:
This post by OJB is typical of his self-gratification we have come to expect. It doesn't get any more obvious than this comment "Before the debate started I asked him to assure me that he really wanted to know the truth, which he did". Oh dear OJB - do you have the truth? I would love to hear your version because as well all know "the truth will set you free".
OJB finds himself a muppet on the internet to debate the religion vs science thing, finds the muppet folds to his argument and then says that as a result "I feel even better about being a free thinker and atheist". Oh dear I suspect that OJB must have a few doubts of his own if this makes him feel better.
As usual OJB groups all religious thought into one pigeon hole to suit his own needs. Try not to over-simplify... "evidence supporting science and against religion". He should realise that most Christians do not have a problem with the Big Bang theory. I for one don't have an issue with it and even the Pope stated something along those lines just recently. What OJB would like to have you believe is that all Christians think like the Fundamentalists, a grouping who take a literal view of the Bible (an easy target for him). I digress, but I would have though the Fundamentalists would have picked up from the New Testament that the Bible is a collection of illustrations which in turn are used to display a message. Jesus did this so well with his parables, and I wonder why they overlook this to assume everything is so bloomin' literal. Ad agencies and marketers use the same method of storytelling today. OJB - why do you waste your time with this fringe element? You seem to be taking the wrong path by justifying your athesism on their nutjob interpretations.
Come on, you are intelligent enough to see past that?
On the issue of science, one shouldn't be so accepting of outcomes from that area either. Mankind really only has a 'drop in the ocean' w.r.t knowledge of the universe. Much of it are just theories based on collections of disparate data that can be logically concluded, but as a whole are by no means conclusive. We have a lot more to learn, and scientists often find themselves needing to be corrected as well. There are many people who don't like logical and rational explanations of our existence conflicting with their personal beliefs; but too often their shortsightness can overlook obvious compatabilities. Galileo is a classic example of this. As we all know the Church was not too accepting of his 'Earth is round' conclusion. But I can't say that the Earth being round and not flat is particularly incompatible with the teachings of Jesus.
Lets get some perspective here, shall we?
Comment 31 by OJB on 2007-09-20 at 11:33:44:
I didn't say I had the truth. I just wanted to know if this person wanted to know the truth. I think I have the best way to establish what the truth is (logic, empiricism, naturalism) but that is all. I think in some ways the truth *will* set you free (even though that sounds trite). People who genuinely seek the truth are not going to get trapped by dogmatic religion, ideological politics, etc.
Yes, of course I have doubts. If I didn't have doubts I would be just as ignorant as the worst believer. One of the reasons I engage in these debates is to see if my beliefs hold up to criticism. Generally I don't see a lot of contrary arguments with any merit.
Most Christians don't have a problem with scientific theory? Have you ever seen the stats on belief in creation vs evolution in the US? The majority reject evolution. This isn't just a "fringe group". And again this gets back to the question of what really is a Christian. I thought Christianity's holy book, the Bible, was supposed to be the word of God. So shouldn't Christians believe it?
I agree that there is a lot still to learn, but that doesn't mean we should treat scientific theories with the same distrust as religious theories. Evolution, for example, has such overwhelming evidence in its favour that its almost impossible to see how it could be wrong.
Comment 32 by WF99 on 2007-10-02 at 10:50:13:
I've been thinking, and this seems to be the best entry to post this comment on. We discussed the end times briefly in our original discussion. If, say, the Bible's predictions were to come true - let's say you wake up one morning and you hear that a whole bunch of people have disappeared in the blink of an eye - would you believe it?
(Not assuming that this ever will happen.)
Comment 33 by OJB on 2007-10-02 at 13:44:22:
Sure. If any theory, book, or any other source makes a prediction and that prediction is shown to be true (without relying on vague interpretations which could be changed to fit the facts) then I would be more likely to accept that source. Getting one prediction right wouldn't necessarily mean that the source is definitely true, but it would make it more credible.
Comment 34 by sbfl on 2007-10-04 at 23:48:57:
Bit of a delay in responding, but no matter.
I take you point, but re your 3rd paragraph: "Most Christians don't have a problem with scientific theory?"
You quote a majority (assume of Christians) in the US. Well, not sure of the specifics of the sample population, but that is possibly predominantly pentecostal/fundamental etc. Compare this to the number of Christians in the world... so the sample not that big really. I don't see that the moderate churches have a problem with science. As I said in my earlier comment, you tend to pick on the easy target that are the fundamentalists. Why no tackle the more tricky group for you that are the moderates? This group combines their faith with common sense... surely you would prefer a greater challenge to your atheist ways?!
You also ask: "I thought Christianity's holy book, the Bible, was supposed to be the word of God. So shouldn't Christians believe it?"
Well I guess it's how you define 'word of God'. It's not a direct word as the Muslims see the Koran, but broadly speaking many term the Bible as the 'word of God'. There have been too many stupid words said on blogs and such over what is supposed to be meant from the Bible. But it just isn't that easy, and the Bible is not one book. It is a collection of books. Some books are about the old laws and society of the Jews back in those early years. The 'being gay is a sin' crowd often like to quote from these books. Other books are psalms, or stories, or letters. Is it the word of God? Not really, since God didn't write it. Man did. The Fundamentalists like to pull it one way, the athiests/secularists the other. I say, try and use your brain and spend some time interpreting the message. If so, you will definitely take something away from it.
Comment 35 by OJB on 2007-10-05 at 08:21:44:
I've always said that there's nothing wrong with religion as long as you don't take it too seriously. Its like people who enjoy Star Trek. Most are fine but the one's who wander around speaking Vulcan and dress up with pointy ears can be a bit tedious - but nowhere near as bad as Christians who take things too seriously of course...
The moderate Christians are OK I guess, but what do they really believe? Are they just too uncommitted to accept the whole story? Is a person still a Christian if they don't think Jesus was the son of God? Are they still a Christian if they accept the positive message of Jesus but don't believe the supernatural components of the story? Even I like some of the messages in the New Testament but I'm hardly a Christian!
Most Christians I talk to claim the Bible is the word of god, written by men but inspired but god, or something like that. You're saying its just a collection of ancient rules, some letters and a few other miscellaneous items. So why should we attach so much importance to it?
Comment 36 by sbfl on 2007-10-06 at 04:33:23:
Well it depends on how ones defines 'too seriously'. *Believing* in their religion is not too seriously, but going loco and killing in the name of it is.
I don't understand how you can interpret moderates to be uncommitted. To be moderate is to not take an extreme view. I can see how this is equated with uncommitted. Broadly speaking, I see most extreme views as unrealistic and frankly wrong. I see moderate views as sensible and right. This applies to politics as well. A bit of a black & white interpretation, but you get the idea.
I wouldn't like to define a Christian based on what they individually interpret from the Bible. People can make that decision up themselves and I will accept their own conclusion.
You have requoted me a bit unfairly with "just a collection of ancient rules, some letters...". The point I was trying to make was that it isn't a single book with a single author. For me I would say the gospels are the 'highlight'. The message from those books are pretty self-evident as to why our society attaches so much importance to it.
Comment 37 by OJB on 2007-10-06 at 11:14:29:
OK, it looks like it gets back to the old problem of definitions again. For example: what actually is a Christian? At what point do we declare someone a moderate, because its all a matter of perspective. And what percentage of Christian doctrine needs to be accepted before someone is called a "believer?"
By some definitions only someone who believes the Bible 100% is a Christian. Obviously you don't use that definition. One problem I have with the majority of believers is that anyone who labels themself a Christian (for example, it would apply to other beliefs too) often refuses to look at the meritorious ideas in other belief systems.
And the other point is that no matter what beliefs someone has, or how moderate they are, there's still no good reason to believe they are true. Even if Christian beliefs were overwhelmingly positive (which is very debatable) I would still argue they are untrue.
Comment 38 by sbfl on 2007-10-08 at 05:24:01:
Well I wouldn't even go near that sort of definition debate. Eye of the beholder type of stuff. I mean there is no "percentage" - that's not how it works. Due to the nature of us humans no two agree on all topics to the same degree - is this what separates us from the animals?
Well I would believe 100% with the Bible, but certainly not 100% literally (see previous posts). You still seem to be taking a B&W approach to Christianity. Some may well be completely ignorant of other belief systems. I am not a Buddhist but having spent some time in Thailand and become more aware of Buddhism, I would say it has plenty of merits. I certainly wouldn't take to it like you do to Christianity even though Buddhism is incompatible with Catholicism (at a fundamental level).
From your post "Get Some Perspective" I don't see you singing the merits of Islam.
Re your last paragraph - well this is where we really differ. I have faith, you don't. It's that simple. One thing though, I don't go all out to trash the belief systems I don't believe in. I respect that people have their own - and are entitled to - beliefs even if I don't agree with them.
Comment 39 by OJB on 2007-10-08 at 16:51:16:
I have mainly concentrated on criticising fundamentalists because they are the major source of concern to me. If I implied that I place all Christians in that category then I probably should have made things clearer. On the other hand, I do feel it is my duty to point out any belief system which seems to be untrue. So if a moderate Christian believes Jesus was the Son of God and performed miracles, or thinks god really exists, then I feel justified in pointing out why I think they are wrong.
You're right that I don't see a lot of merit in Islam, but I'm sure that if I bothered to research it I would find something worthwhile there. I don't actually see a lot of merit in Christianity either, apart from a lot of ideas they "borrowed" from earlier philosophers.
So you have faith and I don't. There's the problem. I don't like faith because it leads people to believe things that aren't true (if they were true why would they need faith?) and it sometimes (not always) leads to irrational, extreme and dangerous behaviour. I also think having faith is just lazy and anti-intellectual.
So now we get down to the real debate: is faith justifiable?
Comment 40 by sbfl on 2007-10-09 at 00:45:29:
Yes but how do you know if it isn't true? I understand that you think that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles but how do you know that a lack of science and logical principles definitely means that a belief is *not* true? As I mentioned before as far as science goes, mankind knows stuff all. You are restricting yourself to what you can see and touch... and yet you say having faith is "just lazy and anti-intellectual"? bah!
You know, if Jesus did exist and is the Son of Man, then he came amongst us in physical form. Science cannot prove, nor disprove this because science has limitations. ie. no-one was taking videos of him with their digital camera in 25 AD! My point being that I don't think it is wise to draw definite conclusions from what can be proved physically without doubt. We have a lot more to learn. Throw off the restrictions!
Comment 41 by OJB on 2007-10-09 at 14:26:55:
There is no way to say for sure that Christian belief is untrue, but the balance of evidence is against it, and that's the best we can ever do. The major Old Testament stories are nonsense and there is almost no evidence supporting the myths about Jesus either.
You can say that science might discover something new in the future which will change what we now think is true, but that argument could be used to support all sorts of stuff: ESP, UFOs, the Loch Ness monster, etc. Surely you can see that is a bad precedent to set?
I'm not restricting myself to what can be seen and touched, I'm restricting myself to what can be supported by evidence: either direct or through more subtle indirect means. If I believe something simply through faith where does it end? There are many contradictory beliefs which are supported by faith. Its better to potentially falsely dismiss something through lack of evidence than support a series of false beliefs just because there's a chance they are true.
There are ways to support the existence of Jesus (although never to prove his existence 100%). I would expect to see non-Christian accounts of his life (I don't). I would expect to see written material produced by eye witnesses at the time the events happened (I don't). I would expect to see consistent portrayals of his actions (I don't). I would expect to see signs that the supernatural exists at all (I don't).
Restrictions serve a purpose: to stop us believing things which are untrue. If faith is so great why not become a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhists instead? They are all compelling if you have faith.
Comment 42 by sbfl on 2007-10-15 at 00:08:38:
1st and 3rd paragraphs - well that's just where we differ.
2nd paragraph - fair point.
4th paragraph: "I would expect to see non-Christian accounts of his life (I don't)"
http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/
"I would expect to see written material produced by eye witnesses at the time the events happened (I don't)" - how much written material from 2000 years ago still exists I wonder? I think word of mouth was more the thing than say blogging on the net. "I would expect to see consistent portrayals of his actions (I don't)." - the Gospels, or are you going to nitpick?
5th paragraph: ... what about atheism?
Comment 43 by OJB on 2007-10-15 at 05:24:42:
I briefly deal with why the evidence for the existence of Jesus is weak here. Apart from that, what evidence is there that Christianity is true?
Do you see my point about faith? It as a way of thinking almost guaranteed to give the wrong answer. If you believe a particular thing because of faith how do you choose what that thing should be? Christians, Hindus, Rastafarians, UFOlogists all use faith. Are they all right?
How can atheism be a faith? We just don't currently accept other people's beliefs (which are based on faith) because there is no objective evidence. Where is the faith element there? I hear this argument a lot and its usually used because the person arguing can't support their belief any other way.
Comment 44 by sbfl on 2007-10-17 at 07:07:06:
At the end of the day, you just don't understand what faith is, do you? As I mentioned in some other post/comment, you really need something you can touch or see, and you are therefore restricting yourself.
I did find a non-Christian account, but of course it is not enough for you. For me, I don't even need to find these, but that is where we differ. As an atheist, you require physical black and white evidence that only you believe. Okay, I respect you have your views. Your definition of acceptable evidence is different to mine - that's what it comes down to.
Comment 45 by OJB on 2007-10-17 at 10:57:49:
The problem, which you haven't really answered, is that if you have faith where does it end? If you have faith you can easily believe all sorts of contradictory things. All religions are equally valid. All spiritual, mythological and "alternative" beliefs are fine. You end up believing a load of crap! Why should I accept faith is a good thing, and even if I did accept faith why would I apply it to Christianity instead of another belief system?
The non-Christian accounts don't stand up to scrutiny. They are all copies, fabrications, or vague references to an event which don't stand any scrutiny. I explained why on the web page I referred you to. Just answer this one question: If Jesus was such a miraculous and wonderful person, why are there no accounts of his life made at the time by eye witnesses. There are detailed references to other figures of the time, but not him. Why is that? OK, I'll await your convoluted rationalisation!
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE