Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth

On 2006-02-07, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-01-24, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-01-18, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-01-11, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-01-11, Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> 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, 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.

It's quite a silly conceit to sit here and decide on what standards you
are going to use to judge someone's Christianity, and then turn around
and pretend that it is God, and not you who makes up these standards.

Why? Don't you believe in anything supernatural?

No, I don't. Why would I? What could I possibly learn about anything
supernatural? How could I test my knowledge of the supernatural?

I just figured that you might have witnessed a supernatural event or at
least heard about one from your friends.

I've seen lots I don't understand, but I see no reason to attribute any
it to supernatural causes.

If you read a religious text which shows how and why such a
supernatural event does occur, I would think that this would be some
potential evidence to consider. Maybe it's helpful. Maybe not.

Ah. Cargo cult science.

Religious texts don't "show how and why" such a supernatural event does
occur. They claim how and why they do. There is a difference, and that
difference is why their value as "potential evidence" is completely
unrealized.

In that aspect, then, it isn't any different than a scientist
proclaiming, as fact, that a single case of abiogenesis began all the
life that we know see.

You've phrased that poorly I suspect, in a way that makes it untrue.
Scientists don't proclaim that "a single case of abiogenesis began all
the life that we see". They say that all life appears to be related
to each other by common descent. This is merely a description of what
the facts tell us.

Or that the entire universe was once smaller
than a dime under extreme pressure and heat. Or that this singularity
existed outside the bounds of time and space where the current laws of
the universe didn't apply.

The difference of course is that we can test such ideas empirically.

Now, are you really going to say that the millions of Christians who
swear that something supernatural is taking place in their lives but
cannot prove it are so dillusional

"delusional"

but scientists who say that the
entire universe was once the size of a dime and was absolutely uncaused
are so intellectually rock solid?

It is precisely because the religious are certain that their conclusions
are not to be trusted. Science must remain forever tentative: changing as
our knowledge of the universe around us changes.

But yes, I basically agree. For most people, the Christianity delusion is
harmless. For some, it is helpful. For some, it's a source of great evil.
And which category it falls in has little to do with how sincere the
practitioner...

But,
why dismiss something simply because it is religious in nature?

Because there is no way to know if your perceptions of it are correct?

You can try it out any time you want for yourself. See if the
supernatural doesn't happen. Test out the Bible's promises of real
events which will occur if you do what it says.

I did. Nothing happened. Sorry. No God.

But, if your stance is to automatically assume that everything that
you and others experience MUST have a naturalistic explanation, then
I guess that you never have, in effect, experienced a supernatural
event.

I lost my keys the other day. I was sure I put them by the door, but
now they aren't there. It's a deep deep mystery. I suppose I should
consider the possibility that a poltergeist moved them, or perhaps that
Soviet spies trained in remote viewing dematerialized them, but I suspect
that someone else moved them. Or I did. Or that poltergeist thing. It
really could be anything.

Sure. But look at it like this. If earlier that day, you happened to
be playing around with witchcraft, then there MIGHT be some
correlation.

Oh, I'm sorry, it's WITCHRAFT that causes me to lose my keys! Why didn't
I think of that! I promise I'll never listen to that song by Frank Sinatra
again.

I am not saying that there must be a link. I'm just NOT summarily
dismissing the possibility before the investigation even gets started.

You should. It's a stupid idea. I'm sorry to be blunt, but there really
is no other way to put it.

Anyway, it's not as if Christians, or at least some of us
Christians, just write off events in our lives as supernatural because
we're too tired, too ignorant, or too deceived to investigate them.

Well, actually, it is. I tried to present some ludicrous ideas that were
the natural extension of your idea (that my inability to explain something
meant that it had a supernatural explanation) and you went over the top
and suggested an EVEN MORE LUDICROUS SUGGESTION. I propose that you are
too tired, too ignorant or too deceived to investigate the real causes
for phenomena.

Been there, done that. It really all has been investigated before. I
don't need to spend years in a laboratory trying to test a supernatural
dream fortelling a future event which then came true to know that
something supernatural occurred.

Actually, you do need to do that, at least if you want to make a scientific
claim about the efficacy of dreams to predict the future.

What are the odds that I'd have a dream which then came true in an
objective way over which I had zero control?

Given that you get to interpret the dream and the outcome, pretty likely I
bet.

James Randi has a nice demonstration: he hands out envelopes to a crowd,
saying that each one contains a customized astrological chart done for them.
He has them read them carefully, and then by show of hands asks how many
thought they were inaccurate, somewhat accurate, really accurate... you
get the idea. 80% of the people think they are really accurate. Then, he
as them trade the charts with their neighbors, and lo and behold, everyone
has the same chart.

There is a lesson to be learned there.

Common sense does rule
sometimes.


It's just that some of these events and encounters tend to match the
Biblical accounts.

No. You are simply too lazy to draw any other conclusions.

Stop using your Jedi mind powers to peer into my existence from 3,000
miles away. I hate it when you do that.

Then stop making absurd claims. The nice thing about prophecy is that
they are always 100% accurate in retrospect: but that really doesn't help
us very much.

And some of these events are far too coincidental
to be chalked up to random chance every time.

Yeah, I couldn't be losing my keys because I just put them down in a
different place every time. It must be witchcraft.

Now you're taking a specific possibility and making light of it. It
was just one example.

I'm quite serious, I couldn't find my keys this morning either, and had
to use my backup set. If witchcraft could be responsible, obviously
I should investigate it further.

You could learn that there are events and entities in this time/space
continuum which are not naturally caused,

How could I learn such a thing? Can you provide an example?

Sure. Aside from a Supreme Being, how else could the singularity of
the Big Bang be created?

How does my inability to answer the question imply anything signficant?

It's not your inability. It is nature's inability to do it without a
preexisting cause that is the point to be made.

But I don't know that nature can't do it, and neither do you.

What are the odds that the expansion of the universe seems tweaked just
so as to allow matter to coallesce over 14 billion years yet fast
enough to prevent the universe from collapsing back onto itself?

Suppose you line up with 1000 other people, and somebody tosses dice to
figure out which of you is going to live, and shoots the rest. If you
find yourself alive, you might think that there was some divine purpose
in you, that you had survived because God had something special for you.

Ha! Maybe in this case God really did have a hand in it.

Let's try to test this hypothesis. I'll line up 999 death row inmates,
and you. We can toss dice and see how often God preserves your life in
preference to them.

It's like those pathetic people who manage to survive a flood or
earthquake, who thank God for saving them, as thousands around them are
crushed or drowned. "God must have something special for me" is code for
"God must not have had anything special for them" or "They must have been
bad" or "maybe they were thinking about witchcraft...."

But seriously, what are the odds that there'd be such a thing as
gravity anyway?

I haven't the faintest idea, and neither do you.

Or strong nuclear forces? Or photons of light? Any of those
go away or even change by 10% and this universe would never have
existed. What a coincidence, huh?

No more a coincidence than you standing with 999 dead people around you.
If you weren't the survivor, you wouldn't be standing their wondering.

Me? I think you got lucky. If you hadn't, maybe somebody else would
be thinking that they were chosen.

Maybe.


What are the odds that this matter of this universe formed on its own
along with the gravitational and molecular forces which that matter
would need to form celestial bodies?

We simply don't know what the odds are, because we have no way of knowing
what the probability distribution of those constants are. And even if they
are long, there is no reason to believe that anyone "created" them. Lots
of highly improbable things happen every day.

Like Seattle making it to the Super Bowl?

No, what everyday improbable thing seriously happens that comes close
to the possibility that the strong nuclear force would be where it is
and not 1% different causing cosmic problems?

Since you don't know what the probability of the strong nuclear force being
the value it is, the question is useless. Perhaps there is no other choice
for its value.

How could nature randomly place over 600 volumes of information in
every bodily cell?

Sigh. It didn't "randomly" place them there.

I know, I know. What are the odds that nature saw fit to place all
that "data" in a cell to begin with much less give it the ability to
reproduce successfully?

Sigh. If the data in the cell was insufficient for reproduction, it wouldn't
reproduce. Therefore, if the cell is reproducing, the odds are 100% that
it has all the data necessary to reproduce.

How could the first life form come about naturally and randomly if
science has been incapable of creating, using controlled conditions,
even the simplest life from lifelessness?

Sigh. It didn't "randomly" come into being. And as the gentlemen said,
"we can't even make a toupee that doesn't get big laughs." Our inability
to do things is hardly surprising. It did take nature millions of years
and lots of cubic miles of materials to do so, after all.

Sure. But, nature was not "looking" to do it.

I can't make a rainbow of any appreciable size either.

and the study of such would require you to step outside of the bounds
of science, if only for a moment.

How can I test ideas to see if they are true without using the scientific
method?

Take the promises in the Bible, for instance. I'm not trying to preach
to you here. It's just that the Bible happens to be an excellent
example of something you can personally test without needing a
controlled environment and peer review.

Actually, it's the very example I'd think of using to show the opposite.

How so?


You could test your knowledge of the supernatural by talking with
others that say that they have experience the supernatural.

What would that show? When I was a kid, I talked to a lot of my friends
and they all believed that Santa brought them presents. I don't want to
spoil anything for you, but...

Nah! My wife convinced me otherwise several years ago. :-)

Well, you're not a kid anymore. You can trust the experiences of
adults far more than those of children.

I obviously can't trust your opinions. You are willing to believe that
my inability to find my keys is due to witchcraft. I think I'd rather
believe the eight year old.

Buddy, I didn't say that witchcraft caused your forgetfulness. Geez.

You posed it as a possibility. I'd accept an eight year old potentially
offering it as a possibility, but adults shouldn't be that silly.

You could try to scientifically test these events or entities as you
would anything else.

Can you think of someone who managed to do something like that? Surely
someone must have suceeded if you are going to suggest it?

Well, analyze your life to the nth degree.

I'll take that as a "no".

Do what the Bible says to
do.

Did that, got bored. Left.

Then analyze your life after.

Mostly a miserable, guilt ridden, absurd time, where I watched two of my
loved ones suffer for years with cancer and die. Life is better than that
now.

Sorry to hear it. The loved ones, I mean.

Just part and parcel of the universe created by your loving God. I got a
fresh measure of it this week, where mom ended up back in the hospital with
an antibiotic resistant staph infection. Thanks God.

Try not to change anything else
about your life during this trial. If your life improves, then that
right there is potential evidence that SOMETHING must have occurred.

Or, maybe the universe just went on and made someone else miserable for
a while. Don't worry: it will be back.

Who knows? Maybe some of these supernatural entities show up on
radar, leave a weird magnetic signature, or can be somehow recorded.

Indeed. Maybe calling them "supernatural" is just a mistake. Maybe
they are really natural causes, completely understandable through
scientific study.

Maybe. But the angel that appeared to me one day didn't seem like
he/she/it would appreciate being poked and prodded with instruments.

Yeah, the pink elephants I saw after a dozen mojitos said the same thing.

I'm beginning to think that you wouldn't ever believe even if someone
long dead rose from the grave and said "God is real".

I tell you what, when you see such a thing, you let us all know.

Have you summarily ruled out even the possibility that God exists?

Have you summarily ruled out even the possibility that Allah exists?

Yes.

Well, it would seem strangely hypocritical to ask me not to do what you
do.

I ruled it out after analyzing it and discovering that it was extremely
inconsistent and unreliable.

Indeed. Strange then, that you just change the name and it suddenly
becomes consistent and reliable.

There is a vast difference in the Koran and the Bible. Actually, about
the only things that are similar are some of the characters and
entities in the accounts and the fact that both are monotheistic.

Well, and the fact that both describe beings that don't exist.

But I didn't summarilly dismiss the possibility that God exists. It's
just obvious that the God that Christianity can't exist. I came to
this conclusion by understanding what Christianity says.

If you don't mind my asking, what was the biggest factor in
Christianity that moved you to make your conclusion?

That God is good, but we live in pain.

That always bothered me too until I realized that if it weren't for
pain, I wouldn't appreciate the good things in life.

Yeah, that's the kind of idiocy that finally ended my struggles with
Christianity. It's a Hallmark greeting card, not a rationale for your
God's barbarism.

It's like weathering a thunderstorm. It makes me appreciate the calm,
sunny days that much more. I really don't know God's rationale for
pain other than to say that He knows what you are going through and
must have a good reason for it.

Visit a cancer ward sometime. I spent five years in one. I saw a lot
of people crying. A lot of fatherless children. A lot of motherless
children. A lot of people who realized they could do nothing to
eliminate the suffering of the people they loved the most. It might
comfort them to think that their was some good that came from their
suffering, but I can't help but think of all the good these people could
have done as healthy individuals, without the pain and the sure knowledge
that they are going to die horribly while the people they love are forced
to watch.

Your belief that there must be some good is a platitude. It makes
people feel better because they are spared the burden of actually
thinking about something that scares them: that there really is no
justice in life. People get sick and die and then its over, and it
sucks, and there isn't a damned thing anyone can do about it.

Do we all deserve the pain that we have? Maybe.

Is that the best your religion can tell us? "Maybe" we deserve the
pain of our lives. How 'bout "maybe not". And if "maybe not", then
what does that say about the justice of your omnipotent, omnibenevolent
Lord?

In one way, many people, especially children who have never done
anything wrong, don't deserve it. In other ways, however, we do live
in a fallen world, and we do evil according to God every day. Maybe,
it's not so much that He causes it as it is that God simply allows it
to happen.

A pity that God doesn't have to obey Good Samaritan laws. He could help
out, being omnibenevolent and omnipotent and all. And he's got all the
time in the world.

Anyway, when/if we get into Heaven, all the pain of this world will
be nothing compared to the happiness then (new bodies, new minds, no
problems, etc.).

"The check is in the mail."

I also remember being spanked as a child. Nothing changed my mind and
got me back on track like that. It hurt, and I didn't like it. But,
it worked. Perhaps, it is somewhat the same thing with God.

I suppose if you think that everyone should be treated as a child, it might
make sense. But then I view hitting a child as a great travesty. Good
parents find other ways to teach their children.

That Santa Claus exists? That magic pink elephants the size of field
mice exist?

Yes and Yes.

Have you concluded without any reservation that there is no Supreme
Being?

I have.

How can you say that unless you have been to every corner of the cosmos
and analyzed every aspect of this time/space continuum?

I accept that I could be wrong. But if there is a God, he is a dead beat
dad. His children live in squalor and need his help, and he is nowhere
to be found.

If you accept Jesus as Lord and not just do the obligatory church
attendance thing, then you can find Him too.

Nope, sorry, did that, mail returned unopened.

He may not correct all
your problems; but, He'll bring you through it all.

Well, until you suffer and die, that is.

Plus, you get to go to Heaven when you die.

Yeah, nice try.

I try not to have strong ideas about things for which I have no
evidence. I may not be completely successful, but on the whole I am,
and generally feel pretty silly when I fail.

You shouldn't feel silly when you fail. Everyone fails throughout
life. The true measure of a man is whether or not he gets back up and
tries again.

People who aren't especially talented like to believe that effort counts.
It's a strange notion.

(Oh, and muslims, sihks, and buddhists do believe in Christianity,
just not in the God of the Christians.)

No, they may understand the Christian religion; but, they certainly
do NOT believe (faith) in Christianity. If they did, then they
wouldn't be muslims, sihks, and buddhists.

You are failing to understand the nuance of what you said. I suppose
it's lost on you.

Maybe it's lost on you, pal.

Nope, I'm pretty sure it's you.

That is, there is a difference between
knowledge and worship, between wisdom and submission to that wisdom,
and between prediction and faith. The formers require a intelligence
only. The laters are actions and require a humble, open mind.

Yep, it was you.

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.

As I said: you make them up.

I have been waiting for such an opportunity for so long.
Wait...wait...here it comes. Oh, the excitement is too great...

PROVE IT!!!

Yawn.

Aaaaaaahhhhhh....

Seriously, I don't make it up.

Seriously, you do.

But, I cannot help you to understand unless you are willing to look
at the Bible, Christianity, and the possibility of God's existence
with a truly open mind.

Ah, yes, if I don't agree with you, it must be that my mind isn't
open. The magic understanding-juju only works if you think in the
right way.

Uh huh.

That's just the way it is.

Or, more likely, that's just the excuse that you use to make you feel
superior to others and deflect criticism of your rather silly religious
beliefs. "It all makes sense, if you have faith" is actually code for
"I can't explain in any convincing way why I hold these irrational beliefs,
but if you take the blue pill, you can join me too."

I've never said that nor believed it.

Yes, you have. You just don't like how it sounds when I try to decode it
for you.

Your Crackerjack decoder ring is on the fritz again.


I don't feel superior to anyone
else.

Oh, please. There is no way to maintain the facade that you (apparently
alone) understand God's word, but all these other Christians have it
wrong without some kind of inner superiority.

Do you feel superior for supposedly understanding evolution when
millions think that you're wrong? No.

Of course I do. Don't be silly. I have an education superior to 99% of
the people on the planet. It doesn't make me superior in any moral sense,
but in terms of knowledge, it absolutely does.

You just humbly know that
you're accurate in your assessment. Same thing. Whether we have
stumbled upon the truth by accident or really put time and effort into
studying the problem and finding the answer doesn't make us better than
others. Not better, just better off.


Nor do I try to deflect any criticism, but rather deal with every
legitimate argument to comes my way.

But you don't deal with legitimate arguments. You retreat to "you must
believe what I believe for what I believe to make sense." Well, duh.

Have I not answered every criticism as opposed to dodge or ignore the
question?

I should rephrase, because you do deserve credit for answering my questions
in the best way you know how. In other words, you are sincere in thinking
that your answers are meaningful and useful. But the problem of course is
that they are not. You'd like to view your sincerity and your understanding
of the Bible as indications of the truth of the matter in the Bible, but they
simply are not.

Anyway, if I say that the theory of evolution is only 50% accurate,
would you not correct me where you believe me to be wrong? Yes,
and you and others have using logic. While I may not make the same
logical conclusions that you do, it's not due to your simply telling
me to just believe. Nor do I tell you to just believe or have faith.
When it comes to testing the Bible, just picking up the book and
trying out some of its promises is faith enough.

You keep saying that as if it will be meaningful this time. I spent the
first half of my life doing precisely that. In twenty years of sincere
attempts to understand the role that the Christian God may have had for me,
he failed me utterly: so utterly that it is simply a more logical conclusion
to accept that he simply doesn't exist. I've RUN your experiment, and it
didn't work. Naturally, you can't accept that possibility, so you try to
shift the blame back on me. "If you just did X..." or "If you just picked
up the Bible and Y...", but in each case, I did those things. Here lies the
most annoying hypocrisy of Christianity: that those of you who don't buy into
it must be doing something wrong, that there must be some choice that they
make which keeps them from knowing God. It's a conceit borne out of the
necessity to shift the blame for the world from God (upon whom ultimately
all credit and therefore all blame must rest) to men.

Anyway, you don't seem to understand what the Bible says about faith.
It never calls anyone to blind faith without giving them some logical
reason to believe first.

Pfft.

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.

1) Christians exist if the Bible is accurate about what it takes
to be a Christian.

Catholics believe that their dogma comes not just from the Bible,
but also from tradition. Are they not Christians? Do you get to
decide they are not Christians?

Whether or not they are Christians all depends on whether they have
accepted Jesus as the Son of God.

Sorry, but I just talked to them, and they called you a dork and a
heretic, and they burned your kind for centuries, so there.

I guess the local priest won't be inviting me over for tea and
crumpets anytime soon.

Well, given their recent scandals, perhaps that's all for the best.

Nothing else, including any other theology, matters. Don't believe
me? Look at the thief on the cross next to Jesus. The thief
didn't understand Jesus' mission on earth. All he knew was that
Jesus was sent by God the Father. It was enough. God alone
decides who is saved; but, He has given us the criteria in the
Bible.

Really? Why not believe in Mark 16:16

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned."

Or John 3:5?

"Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, no one can enter the
kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'"

The Catholics think that baptism is pretty essential.

Then again, John 5:24 says something a bit more like what you might
say:

"He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me,
hath everlasting life."

But then Matthew 19:17 says something different again...

"... if thou wilt enter unto life, keep the commandments."

So apparently those commandments still apply to some degree.

We could play this game for quite some time if you like...

Only if you are really interested in why water baptism is just an
outward showing of an inner change of heart. The two go hand-in-hand,
unless you believe that the physical act of sprinkling water without a
conscious desire to repent somehow still makes God forgive you.

Hey, tell it to the Catholics. They think water is in fact essential,
and have a long convoluted explanation of what's essential and not. Since
they've obviously thought about it a lot more than you, they are probably
right.

Stop using your Jedi mind powers to peer into my thoughts. Thanks.

The point is, you have no reason to believe that your justification is
any better than theirs. The fact is that the Bible says many conflicting
things about how we are to be saved. That's not surprising, since it's
mostly a hodge-podge of different books, written at different times, and
any consistency in theme is mostly accidental.

That's just it. It doesn't say anything conflicting once you study it.

Yes, it does. I gave you a few above. That you choose to say they aren't
"really" in conflict is not especially convincing.

If you take verses by themselves out of context and without looking at
the Koine Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew languages that they were written
in, then it is somewhat possible to see a potential conflict. Heck. I
could do the same thing using Darwin's "Origin of Species". And I'd be
just as wrong.

But that's just it: I wasn't taking anything out of context.

Talk about taking verses out of context! And if I did that with a
quote mine concerning Charles Darwin, then I'd be castigated from one
end of the forum to another.

I'm not taking anything out of context. If you'd like to show how I am,
by all means do so.

You did. What is baptism? What did Jesus say about it? What did John
the Baptist say about it? The baptism is an outward showing of an
inner repentace.

Really? Show me that.

Remember the thief on the cross? He didn't have the chance to get
baptized, yet...
"And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be
with me in paradise." - Luke 23:43

You've just asserted what I said before: that the Bible says conflicting
things about how you can get into heaven. You need to address Mark
16:16 or John 3:5, and demonstrate why it doesn't _really_ mean that
baptism is essential. That's how you can eliminate the conflict.

Anyway, this verse (and the whole chapter) talk about how people cannot
work for their salvation, including rituals such as baptism:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves:
[it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." -
Ephesians 2:8-9

And as I said, this is one of the justifications for the beliefs of
Calvinists, that claim that _nothing you do_ earns you the right to heaven,
that the faith granted is "not of yourselves", it is solely a gift, and
(through some perversity of divine justice) not granted to all.

If it weren't for this, then you'd have the various Christians
denominations rightfully competing with each other over how each is
more deserving of God's forgiveness based on their rituals including
baptism.

Uh, I think you do have this. Catholics certainly believe that the unbaptized
do not make it into heaven.

Here is website that says that you have to be baptised:
http://www.bebaptized.org/

Here is one that doesn't take as many liberties, in my opinion, with
the Bible and says that faith in Jesus alone is enough:
http://www.bible-truth.org/baptreg.htm

See for yourself.

I'm sorry, but I think you are agreeing with me.

What about the thief on the cross next to Jesus who repented? He
didn't have a chance to get baptized but Jesus forgave him.

What indeed? Contradictions, contradictions. Your religion is full of
them.

At first glance, sure. At first glance...

I spent half my life studying this stuff. It was largely a waste of time,
true, but I've given it vastly more than just a first glance.

"And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy
kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt
thou be with me in paradise." - Luke 23:42-43


And I, myself, certainly do not get to decide who is a Christian.

You've been doing it all along. You've slandered Mormons, and
Jehovah's Witnesses, and Catholics (albeit, somethat mildly). If it
is as clear as you say, you should just come right out with it.

I don't slander anyone. I use their own teachings and compare them
openly with what the Bible says. Period. Obviously, you can see
the problems with some of their teachings if you believe that my
comparisons of them and the Bible are so devastingly "slanderous".

I'm sorry, but here you are again, imposing your own standard of who
gets to be called a Christian. You stand cowardly behind the Bible,
pretending that you are the sole interpreter who is competent to judge
what it says, but it's really just you.

I just state what the Bible and these other religious texts state.
It's no more my own opinion as the theory of evolution is your own
opinion about how humanity came about on this planet.


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.

3) While people may take it upon themselves to decide what is
and is not Christianity, that doesn't make it so.

Indeed. That's why you don't get to decide either.

You are so right. I can't even decide if I want caramel or mocha
lattes in the morning sometimes. How could I ever be someone's
eternal judge?

Well, you certainly act like you are, telling other people what
God says purely on the basis of your own interpretation of certain
cherry-picked Bible verses. You have, in essence, eliminated the
need for God as judge, since his word is so clear and obvious, you
feel like you can confidently execute his will.

No. I merely teach what the Bible says and hope that the other person
will see these things for themselves.

Doesn't that give you a few moment's pause?

If I thought that I was wrong, then it would give me a few moment's
pause.

Must be nice, to be that sure of one's self.

It is possible for a human being to know the truth and be confident in
it.

Sure it's possible. Even if the truth happens to be wrong.

Didn't you just state that you know without reservation that there
is no Supreme Being?

I could be wrong.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and
the intelligent are full of doubt."
-- B. Russell

Maybe Russell was a moron...

No. That's not it.

Then again, because people are dying in the United States at
a rate of about 5 per minute,

I'd like to help, what are you doing to slow the rate?

Taking care of others' needs as best as I physically and financially
can.

Yes, well, let me know how that works out.

The charity that I do is not for anyone else to know.


If you aren't doing anything, what's occupying your free time?

Well, right now, I'm discussing God and atheism with you. Anyway,
there are more important things than the physical death of a human
being. There is the eternal destination of their soul.

I don't have a lot of free moments to screw around pondering the
universe.

Yeah, I get the feeling you actually don't spend much time pondering.

Your Jedi feelings are in error.

It's funny that you mock the Jedi.

If God (as described in the Bible) exists, then He alone sets
the standards for everything, including what is and isn't
Christianity.

Yes, and the idea that you know what that might be is a hopeless
conceit.

Please. If God is as loving as the Bible says He is,

He isn't. That's pretty much obvious. The most charitable
reconciliation of what we observe in the world is that he doesn't
exist. If he does, he's quite simply a monster, and unworthy of
anyone's worship.

Well, it is doubtful that God will ever reveal Himself to you in any
way with an attitude like that...unless you ask humbly.

Ah, yes, can't get the magic juju unless you agree to be a slave...

You're already a slave. You just don't realize it yet.

Says the man who is behind bars.

Got a speeding ticket once; but, that was about it. Seriously, ain't
no bars in Heaven, buddy. I can leave the Christian faith and desire
to spend an eternity in Hell anytime that I wish.


then He has given us the knowledge that we need to be made right
with Him.

This too, is demonstratably wrong. Billions have died without
knowing what you think is the magic key to the kingdom, through no
fault of their own. They never had a chance, and by your theology
are condemned. There is simply nothing charitable or just in that,
no matter how you'd like to spin it.

God has made sure that everyone had a chance to ask for forgiveness
before they died.

I wonder why you bother to think things which are so absurd.

If you believe that the entire cosmos including the fabric of time
itself was shoved into a singularity smaller than a dime and which
created itself out of nothingness...then perhaps you ought to point
your absurdity meter in another direction.

The most absurd lie that humanity believes is that God loves them.

Did you ever get spanked? Did you ever think that your parents didn't
love you?


The second most absurd lie that humanity believes is that God loves
them more than someobody else.

Now THAT is a lie because God loves everyone equally.

The second lie might be more harmful than the first.

It is.


If the Bible is even somewhat accurate, then the criteria for
getting into Heaven is right there.

You don't like skeptics to the theory of evolution changing,
for themselves, what is and is not science, right? After all,
scientific principles and good practices don't change simply
because people want them to, right?

Well, anyone can speak as definitively about religion as anyone
else. That's why we call it religion, not science. The scientist
must of course refer back to the evidence.

...or, more accurately, his interpretation of the evidence.

It's strange that you think that a scientist must interpret evidence,
but that you are somehow freed from interpreting the Bible, that
it's meaning is entirely apparent and free from any of your
interpretation.

I just thought that I'd throw out that interpretion of the evidence
thing, since atheistic scientists seem to enjoy mentioning how the
Bible can be misinterpreted so easily.

The sheer volume of conflicting opinions among Christians should provide
signficant support for that idea.

Isn't there a logical fallacy concerning the number of adherents to any
belief and the possible accuracy of that belief? I think that there
is.

If you'd like to rethink your argument above that you could evaluate
the truth of religion by asking other adults, I'll reconsider this
argument.

No, not to give more weight to the idea that has more adherents, but to
just take into consideration on its own merits that which those
adherents are saying and not dismiss it outright.

I think you are simply begging your question. You try to be tough
when you are asked to consider questions you don't like the answers to,
and you accept softballs for the questions that you do do like the answers
to.

Do you not think that is properly labelled a hopeless conceit?

No more so than atheistic scientists worshipping their own limited,
fallible intelligence so much that they are now certain what the
universe was like 14 billion years ago and how all life developed
since then.

It's kind of embarrassing, isn't it? That we can know with a much
greater certainty what happened billions of years ago than we can the
existence of your God? Behe after all thinks that the best way to
show the existence of God is too look at the tiniest little squiggly
flagellum of a bacterium.

How embarrassing is that?

Not as embarrassing as having to make up quantum particles which pop in
and out of this time/space continuum in order to explain how the Big
Bang got put together out of a void. And then there is the
publically-declared dismissal of all known science when it comes to
explaining and testing the supposed singularity forces at work at t=0
before the Big Bang...well, went bang.

I'm not embarrassed by that at all. It appears to be our best understanding
of what happened. I'm frankly pretty sure that in my lifetime, that
understanding will changed.

On the other hand, Behe is busy trying to understand why his God, who
died for his sins on the Cross, reveals himself most clearly in the
microscopic machinery of a squiggly little bacteria. To him, the clearest
indication of God's work is not in its effect in the hearts of man but in
these tiny little machines.

If he says that then he is wrong. God cares more about our hearts than
about the function of bacteria. Jesus didn't die on a cross for
bacteria but for us.

Yeah, that's absurd too.

If it is hopeless conceit that I might even have the chance of
knowing what God's will is, then it is certainly intellectual
arrogance and conceit to think that one can accurately obtain,
test, analyze, conclude, and peer review the evidence which
definitely tells us what happened 2 billion years ago in a pool of
premordial sludge.

No, it isn't. I can test my theory about what happened two billion
years ago. You can't test your idea as to whether you are obeying
God's will or not, at least in any way which might be convincing to
anyone but yourself.

Mark

Not true. Christians routinely study and discuss the same events and
entities that they have experienced as individuals and in groups.

And then march off on a Crusade and kill people.

Oh, please. Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung are not the best poster
boys for enlightened atheism either. Let's not get holier-than-thou,
OK?

I'm not saying they are worse, but they are, on the whole, no better.

And we routinely "test" whether the Bible is right by being obedient
to the Bible's teachings and seeing if God doesn't respond the way
that the Bible says He will. That's why a Christian's faith grows
deeper as he gets older. He's just been experiencing more of God for
a longer period of time.

A Christian's faith grows stronger as he gets older simply because he
becomes more scared of dying. It makes them feel better.

Mark

Says you. A Christian's faith grows stronger as he/she gets older
because they have seen more of the Bible's promises come true,
understand the world better, and grow closer to God in a supernatural
way. Trust me on this one, will you?

Have you watched people die? I have. It might be why I made the statement
I did.

Yes. I watched my father die right in front my eyes as his heart
failed him in a hospital bed. One long breath, a flat line on the
cardiac monitor, and he was gone.

Even if Christianity was completely inaccurate, it would still be
better emotionally and psychologically to be a Christian and go through
life with hope, happiness, and sense of purpose than without.

I have a lot more hope, happiness and purpose now than I ever had as
a Christian, if only because I'm not asked to accept the pain that I have
as some kind of penalty for existing. I'm no longer forced to accept
as true that which I know to be false.

Mark

.

Loading