Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth


Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> On 2006-01-11, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Shane wrote:
> >> On 10 Jan 2006 19:25:24 -0800, Jim Spaza wrote:
> >>
> >> > Shane wrote:
> >> >> On 2 Jan 2006 13:37:14 -0800, Jim Spaza wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> shane wrote:
> >> >>>> Jim Spaza wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>On 2005-11-15, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> [...]
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>>>It possible for one person's science to legitimately be more inclusive
> >> >>>>>>>of subjects of strudy than another's?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>We don't call such people scientists anymore.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Not trying to be argumentative or anything, but...why do you guys alone
> >> >>>>> get to determine for the rest of us what is officially science and who
> >> >>>>> is officially a scientist?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> In the same non-argumentative vein, why do christians alone get to
> >> >>>> decide what christianity is, and who is, nominally, a christian. Why not
> >> >>>> get input from the muslims and sihks etc.? If you can answer that
> >> >>>> question honestly, then I think the answer to your question will become
> >> >>>> clear.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Shane
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Christians don't get to decide what Christianity is. The Bible clearly
> >> >>> says what a person needs to do in order to become a Christian, be
> >> >>> saved, go to Heaven, and be made right with God. Christians don't get
> >> >>> to interpret the Bible as they personally see fit, either, treating the
> >> >>> Bible as a buffet line or salad bar.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> So how many muslims, sihks, buddhists etc. have you aske to confirm your
> >> >> particular match with the definitive standards? Or do you just get your
> >> >> feedback from your particular brand of christianity?
> >> >
> >> > I don't ask any muslims, sihks, or buddhists given that they don't
> >> > believe in Christianity and, more importantly, because, if the God of
> >> > the Bible exists,
> >>
> >> That is exactly the same reason why creationist do not get to define
> >> what science is. Your answer is why I asked the question in the first
> >> place, and then asked the above question when you, in my opinion,
> >> dodged.
> >
> > I think that I, as a creationist (not the literal 6-day kind), get to
> > have a say in what constitutes science just as anyone else does. This
> > is because science is a human invention.
>
> Science has a meaning which is established by centuries (if not millenia)
> of philosophical musings, but what really matters is whether it actually
> works and what benefits it bestows on society. The idea that what we
> appear to see might have a supernatural cause has _never_ been the source
> of any measurable use to anyone. We might think that the thunder god creates
> storms, or that magic elves are behind making flowers grow, but that doesn't
> really serve to help us understand the world, or make use of it. Everytime
> we lapse back into supernatural causes, we seem to get further away from
> understanding, rather than closer to it. Ultimately science, with its
> rigorous methodology of materialism, is a much more productive and useful
> way to try to understand the world.
>
> > If the God of the Bible is real, then He alone has established what
> > Christianity is.
>
> You keep saying things like this, but the strange thing is that you never
> actually take the other logical path: the path that says that perhaps
> the God of the Bible isn't real, or perhaps the God of the Bible isn't
> who you think he is.

I took the other path for a while in my life. It always left more
questions than it answered. It ended in illogical scenarios.

>
> > This divine definition is absolute and no human can
> > change it. If God is not real, then Christianity is no different than
> > science in that both are creations of the human intellect, logic, and
> > imagination...and both are modifiable as people see fit.
>
> Well, unless you wish to engage in sophistry, science is the study of the
> world. If the world is real (or more properly, if the evidence of our
> senses is an indication of a shared reality), then science allows us to
> learn about this objective reality. Religion, well, doesn't. Ultimately
> most people will admit that gravity exists, that light exists, and, with
> a modicum of actual learning, that the earth is made of tectonic plates
> that move and that living things are linked by a pattern of common descent.
> Religion, well, it simply isn't very useful, except perhaps in curtailing
> the actions of sociopaths, although it seems to also serve to excite a
> large number of them as well.
>
> >> > then it is He that makes the standard, not any human
> >> > including me. Of course, then the onus falls on me, as it does every
> >> > other person, to discern that standard.
> >> >
> >> > What do you mean by "feedback"? I don't get my ideas of Christianity
> >> > from anyone else, especially from any authoritative figure in the
> >> > church, government, or in this forum.
> >>
> >> You know feedback, as in, "if you see your brother sin ..." Or, if a
> >> muslim came up to you and said, 'I feel for the following reasons that
> >> you are not acting as a christian,' you would apparently automatically
> >> ignore that person because they are Muslim, rather than taking time to
> >> contemplate if their criticism is valid.
> >
> > Oh. No, I wouldn't automatically ignore that muslim. I'd ignore what
> > he said if he dictated a standard of Christianity different from the
> > Bible. Then, he'd be making up Christianity for himself.
>
> I see, only you get to do that.

No, only God gets to do that. I just agreed with His definition.

>
> > But, I wouldn't ignore him if he pointed out a failing of mine using
> > the Bible as the standard of performance.
> >
> > And I'd certainly contemplate anyone's criticism of me as a Christian.
> > Before I go out into the world to tell others what God says about life,
> > I want to be sure than my own life is as clean as possible. Nothing
> > destroys one's witness to others faster than hypocrisy.
> >
> >>
> >> >>> If the Bible is hopeless inaccurate, then there really are no such
> >> >>> things as Christians, God doesn't exist as the Bible says, and then
> >> >>> everyone gets to determine the aspects of Christianity for themselves.
> >> >>
> >> >> As this is pretty much what we see happening, then it seems you think
> >> >> the bible to be inaccurate.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Shnae
> >> >> The truth will set you free.
> >> >
> >> > Not sure how you came to that conclusion.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I just took you at your word. Look at your statement above; you
> >> posited that evidence of an inaccurate bible would be everyone
> >> determining aspects of Christianity for themselves. My response is
> >> that we do see everyone determining aspects of christianity for
> >> themselves, so the results of the test you proposed are there to be
> >> seen. Hence my comment.
> >
> > OK. I should have elaborated better. Sorry.
> >
> > When I say "Christian", I mean someone that, per the Bible, has
> > accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior.
>
> Why is this the standard? It's a minority opinion, even among Christians.

Because that is what the Bible says. It may be a minority opinion
because some churches changed it as they saw fit, trading the Biblical
accounts for their own traditions.

>
> > If the Bible is the Word of God, then this definition is what God has
> > defined. No other definition is accurate.
>
> What a silly conceit, that you could understand the Word of God, and that
> you get to bind God because of what he wrote.

God made the definition long before I was born. He gave that
definition to humanity. All I do is repeat what the Bible says.

>
> > There is a difference between people accurately declaring what
> > Christianity is and declaring their own version or idea of it.
>
> No, actually, there isn't. That's rather the point. Christians do it all
> the time.

Only if there is no God. Otherwise, Christians merely proclaim what
God has already delcared.

>
> > People
> > have declared what Christianity is; but, this doesn't change the
> > standard...unless there is no God of the Bible.
>
> You proceed as if there was some gold standard of Christianity. If there is,
> there is no reason to believe that you understand it any better than anyone
> else does.

OK. Then do your own research. Let me ask you: when the Bible says
that Jesus is the only way to get to God the Father, what do you think
it could possibly mean?

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our
Lord Jesus Christ" - Romans 5:1

What does this mean, if not that it takes faith in what Jesus did on
the cross to get to Heaven?

>
> > If God is real, then
> > what people think is irrelevant to the standards of Christianity
> > because people don't get to make the standards.
>
> Gee, and yet you think that this doesn't apply to you. Have you considered
> that maybe God is real, but the Bible is false?

Yes. It is possible. But, all the theological evidence says that the
Bible is accurate.

>
> > Only God does. Then,
> > the question to be asked is, can people accurately discern standards.
> >
> > Also, the sequence of logic here is different from what you stated. I
> > said that people would determine (legitimately) the standards of
> > Christianity if FIRST the Bible was hopelessly inaccurate. This is so
> > because, if the Bible is inaccurate, then the definitions of
> > Christianity therein are inaccurate. And, if the definitions of
> > Christianity therein are inaccurate, then there is no such thing as
> > Christianity itself, other than that made up by people.
>
> There is no such thing as Christianity, at least in the "gold standard,
> immutable, everyone can plainly see" sense that you seem to imply.
>
> >> > 1) Christians exist if the Bible is accurate about what it takes to be
> >> > a Christian.
> >>
> >> Christians exist if the bible is inaccurate, as is seen by the
> >> plethora of contradictory behaviours that are done in christianity's
> >> name. And how are we to know which one is correct, failing any direct
> >> modern definition by God?
> >
> > Christians cannot exist as such if the Bible is inaccurate about the
> > definitions of Christianity since the Bible is the one source that told
> > everyone about Christianity in the first place.
>
> That's simply false. It's popular to believe that, but the good old
> King James didn't become the idol that modern Protestant fundamentalists
> worship until more than a millenia after Jesus lived.

What does the specific King James version of the Bible have to do with
the standard of being saved and being a Christian?

>
> > Also, if you believe
> > someone is a Christian simply because they call themselves such, then
> > all bets are off and no argument can be made.
>
> If they tell me they are, and you say they are not, why should I take your
> word over theirs?

You shouldn't. Do your own study of the Bible and what it says. See
for yourself, one way or the other.

>
> > Everything is relative, and there are no absolute definitions.
>
> That you pretend to operate absolutely in a world that shows infinite
> variations of gray is almost comical, but typical of Christian
> fundamentalists.

It's only gray because humans have made it that way, substituting God's
standards of absolute good and evil for our own limited ethical code
where we get our way most of the time.

>
> > At this point, if all definitions are relative to people's desires, I
> > like to take it upon myself to define for others to accept what is
> > science and what isn't.
>
> Sorry, you don't get to do that.
>
> > It would be very convenient for God to appear and once and for all
> > declare what His definition of Christianity is. Aside from this, we'd
> > have to study and analyze the Bible to see what it says.
>
> Why the Bible? How gullible are you? Anyone could have written it?
> What this one book, and not the Koran? The Bhagavad-Gita? Chariots of
> the Gods?

The Bible is the only religious text that is consistent across all the
relevant aspects of life: origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.

If you study Biblical history, you'll see that the authorship of the
Bible has been one of the most deliberated and critiqued historical
analyses. Let's not throw mud and hope that it sticks. If you have a
problem with the authorships, then just say so.

The Koran is a mix of jibberish, incohent thoughts, and blatantly
inconsistent statements.

All the others can be critiqued as well. Keep in mind that many of
these religious texts are quite atheistic. Buddhism, as an example,
professes no faith in any god, although some of its followers worship
the original Buddha as a god.

>
> >> > 2) God does exist. Show me one item in this universe that created
> >> > itself and I'll give your position in this regard more credibility.
> >>
> >> Sorry, it's your claim, you support it. Show me one thing that is
> >> incapable of existance by any other means than that of divine
> >> creation, and then also demoinstrate that it was your god who created
> >> it, and not allah, or the great dreamtime snake etc.
> >
> > First, it would take a Supreme Being to create something from
> > nothing...unless you are willing to assert that existence, in general,
> > is not predicated on cause and that matter and energy can come from
> > absolute nothingness.
>
> This is simply jibberish. You don't even know what a Supreme Being is,
> yet you assert that one is necessary. While a painting may imply a painter,
> there is no reason to conclude that rain implies a rainer, or that the
> Big Bang implies a Big Banger.

OK. So, what cause put together the Big Bang singularity? And keep in
mind that it takes far more energy to build up the potential of a
system than the system contains. Oh, you say that the physics and
chemistry of the universe and all the laws therein don't apply to a
singularity? How convenient.

>
> > Then, we'd have to narrow down which Supreme Being of all the religions
> > seems to be the most likely to exist.
>
> This ought to be good.
>
> > Then, we'd have to establish some kind of track record of accuracies of
> > each of the religious texts of the religions still in the running.
>
> Oh dear.
>
> > Take the one that seems to be most accurate and least inconsistent and
> > see what it says about the creation of the universe, if anything.
> >
> > Then, measure up what it says to the best that our science has proven,
> > or at least has evidence for.
> >
> > Take the best choice for Supreme Being and make your decision whether
> > or not to accept that this Supreme Being exists.
> >
> > Look, I can't prove the supernatural. I don't seem to be able to move
> > you from your position. Perhaps, I can be moved somewhat from mine. I
> > was merely hoping that you might be able to help me out from a
> > scientific standpoint.
>
> It seems unlikely.
>
> > After all, science deals with the natural world and can be tested,
> > analyzed, and reviewed objectively by others. Certainly, some
> > scientist somewhere has found an item that came into existence without
> > a cause, given that we are being told that this uncaused process
> > created the entire universe.
>
> Sigh.
>
> >> > 3) While people may take it upon themselves to decide what is and is
> >> > not Christianity, that doesn't make it so.
> >>
> >> And that is what you said was an indicator of an inaccurate bible,
> >> please do not backpedal now. Whoops, too late.
> >
> > If you read what I wrote, then you would know that people taking it
> > upon themselves to decide what Christianity is and isn't would only
> > occur if the Bible is inaccurate.
>
> Which must be why there is such widespread agreement on what the Bible
> means.

It's a logical fallacy to argue the existence of something is tied to
the number of believers or lack of agreement therein. Surely you knew
this given that atheists frequently mention this fallacy when
Christians point to the quantity of believers versus atheists.

>
> [ snippage ]
>
> Mark

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... kinds of other stuff that is inconsistent with the rest of science. ... think Christianity and science are compatible. ... that their God bless with rain and wells breaking forth. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... Christians don't get to decide what Christianity is. ... saved, go to Heaven, and be made right with God. ... Cargo cult science. ... Given that you get to interpret the dream and the outcome, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: AiG goes after Francis Collins
    ... kinds of other stuff that is inconsistent with the rest of science. ... think Christianity and science are compatible. ... that their God bless with rain and wells breaking forth. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 2 questions about Inteligent Design vs Evolution
    ... succeeded in having a worldview free of any conception of God. ... Christianity, and my mother and sister are still regular church-goers, ... proven false by science. ... If you get your morals and ethics from religion in general ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Security Guard - God Guided Me And Protected Me
    ... most certainly would not have created the just God that he did. ... "Do not think that I came to destroy the law of the prophets. ... That's the general consensus of Christianity over 2K years. ... what you really are saying here is if you accept Jesus as your savior then the law no longer applies to you. ...
    (soc.retirement)