 |
 |
 |
Christians and Atheists to Debate the Existence of God
Why are Kirk Cameron, a preacher, and two self-proclaimed atheists coming together in a church this weekend? Because Cameron and preacher Ray Comfort claim that they "can prove the existence of God."
They'll take on the atheists in the first "Nightline Face Off," a debate to be moderated by "Nightline" anchor Martin Bashir.
Watch the Face Off Wednesday May 9 at 2 p.m. on ABC News Now, and on Nightline at 11:35 p.m.
Following the Way of the Master
As Mike Seaver, the oldest son in the smash hit sitcom "Growing Pains," actor Kirk Cameron could make audiences roll with laughter. But now he wants to bring them to the Lord. And he's deadly serious.
In March 2006, "Nightline" profiled the Way of the Master, a Christian ministry headed by Cameron and itinerant preacher Ray Comfort. Operating as a charitable trust, its intention is to educate and equip the church to preach the message of Christianity to nonbelievers. Cameron says he is motivated by a literal fear of hell.
"I believe the Scriptures teach that there's a literal heaven and a literal hell, just like Jesus said," he explained. "And without forgiveness of sins that, yeah, the place of punishment is called hell."
The Way of the Master has a weekly television show for which Comfort and Cameron literally hit the streets in the name of Jesus, challenging nonbelievers that their sins against God will lead directly to hell.
"On the Day of Judgment," Comfort tells one man on the streets of New York, "God will see you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. You have sinned against God. You need his forgiveness."
On occasions, things go badly wrong and the pair are attacked by members of the public. Comfort recalled one incident, saying, "While I was preaching the Gospel a gentleman came up and he started spitting on me. And he spat quite a few times." Comfort says he simply remained calm and moved on.
Neither Comfort nor Cameron has theological degrees nor any kind of formal training. But Cameron says he's convinced his new career is vitally important.
"I have no authority. I am simply trying to be faithful to the God who saved me, who changed me and who has commissioned me to tell you and those who are watching this interview & about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that it has the power to change people's hearts."
The Rational Response Squad
"There isn't any good reason to believe in God," so says Brian Sapient, a member of the Rational Response Squad, a group of atheists "Nightline" profiled in January.
What's wrong with God? "What's wrong with the tooth fairy?" asks Brian. "There's nothing wrong with something that most likely doesn't exist."
"Atheists are completely vilified. And it's OK," says Kelly, an atheist who works alongside Brian and also asks that her last name not be used.
"It's actually OK to hate atheists," Kelly says. "We are like the last group that people overwhelmingly agree it's OK to hate, because there's an absurd caricature of atheism out there."
While their theological views differ from the Way of the Master, their approaches are similar -- brash and in-your-face. The Rational Response Squad challenges people to take the Blasphemy Challenge in which they make videos of themselves denouncing or blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and then post them on YouTube.
One of the posts is by a young-looking man named Chandler. He says, "I've come to the conclusion that alongside the fact that there is no Santa Claus and there is no Easter bunny, there is also no God. So, without further ado, my name is Chandler and I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit."
Taking risks with your own soul is one thing, but the Rational Response Squad advertises for the Blasphemy Challenge on Web sites for teens, such as Tiger Beat (tigerbeatmag.com).
"They have already been targeted," Brian says. "So hopefully, they are at a point where they are not so indoctrinated and set in their ways that they can overcome this religious superstition that has been put into their brain unfairly."
At the end of the "Nightline" segment, Brian Sapient says, "If they [the Christians] want to come to the table and present their evidence, I will present my evidence. And we will see how much of theirs is based on faith, and how much of mine is based on fact."
The Face-Off
Ray Comfort saw the piece on the Blasphemy Challenge and he immediately e-mailed "Nightline" to say that "We would like to challenge them to a public debate. … Let's hear their best evidence as to why God doesn't exist, and let the audience decide whose evidence is based on faith and whose is based on fact. We cannot only prove that God exists, but we can prove that the atheist doesn't."
The two sides have agreed to debate in the first "Nightline" Face Off. Here's what they have to say about the debate:
Perhaps you think that anyone who says that he can prove the existence of God is a dreamer. Maybe, like most people, you believe that the issue is a matter of "faith." Then we must be dreamers, because we can prove that God exists, scientifically, absolutely, without mentioning faith or even the Bible. Do you find that hard to believe? Then watch the debate.
- Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron
We are dedicated to responding to irrational claims -- such as the ones being put forth by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron that they can prove the existence of God scientifically. We are here to prove that not only can they not do that, but that it cannot be done using the scientific method and the knowledge available to us today.
- The Rational Response Squad
You can watch the debate on ABC News Now on May 9 at 2 p.m., and it will also be available on the "Nightline" page at ABCNews.com.
"Nightline" will air a segment that same night at 11:35 p.m ET.
Click here to send ABC your questions and comments and they might include them in the debate!
To monitor comments posted to this topic, use
.
Then I wonder what that was I saw brushing its teeth in the mirror last night? Oh, that's right, that was no Atheist, that was a "Rebellious" Xian who doesn't know he's a Xian and is just being defiant to his daddy...
There'll be no "debate". The 2 hucksters will spew an aggregate of ID, Young (flat) Earth buzzwords and maybe Kirk will do that schtick with the banana.
John of Indiana
Wow, finally "proof." I look forward to seeing Kirk and Ray call fire down from heaven to consume their water soaked sacrifice.
Cameron and his friend certainly don't qualify as skilled at least not to anyone besides children who are obviously their target. I think they should have just ran and hid after that banana incidnent. I hope the atheists are half way decent with their speal, and if so, there won't even be a challange debating these two yahoos.
xrayman
"Cameron has the floor. It sounds like... yes, he's leading off with the Shrinking Sun argument. We didn't expect that until later in the game, but... Wait, here comes Kelly with the counter, and it's a slam dunk with hard physics. He's got the floor now, but wait he's using big numbers and statistics. Too bad. He's lost the audience. I'm afraid that despite that stunning show of good reason, he's going to net a loss on that one."
I agree. Or at least, challenge them to prove the god they have "proved" (i don't know how, but I'll bet it involves a banana) is the Babble-god and not Allah or Zeus or one of thousands of other deities.
When I was a Christian, I esteemed Kirk Cameron. Then I began to research the truth regarding the whole "rapture" doctrine, and began to lose respect for him, but I figured it was only one area of doctrinal disagreement and still considered him a positive influence and warrior for Christ. Now, I see him as an obnoxious attention seeker, seriously ignorant, and a detriment to the minds of young people who are attracted to the fact that he was once a big star so he must know what he's talking about.
Anyway, if there is no such thing as an Athiest, than I suppose we're in good company, since there's no such thing as unicorns, leprechauns, giants, fairies, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus or a Jewish war god who sends people to HELL!!!
I'll just watch Aqua Teen from the night before on my DVR. I'm not a fan of intellectual gore.
But now, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, the Laurel and Hardy of Christian evangelism, are going to pull it off!
Ray's arrogance is unbelievable!, never mind his arguments, which are as crooked as that banana (the one he was waving, not the wild one).
And his stooge Kirk summed up the Way of the Master message perfectly there - hell, hell, hell.
Prepare to have your intellect by-passed!!!
Why wasn't this "proof" around when I was begging God to help me understand all of the contradictions and confusing scripture? Where was this "proof" as I screamed out to the ceiling for Him to speak to me in some tangible way? And after sixteen years...if only I had stuck around another one, but now I'm doomed to Hell with Ghandi, because I failed to possess that much coveted virtue called "faith"
Why wasn't this "proof" around when I was begging God to help me understand all of the contradictions and confusing scripture? Where was this "proof" as I screamed out to the ceiling for Him to speak to me in some tangible way? And after sixteen years...if only I had stuck around another one, but now I'm doomed to Hell with Ghandi, because I failed to possess that much coveted virtue called "faith"
Why wasn't this "proof" around when I was begging God to help me understand all of the contradictions and confusing scripture? Where was this "proof" as I screamed out to the ceiling for Him to speak to me in some tangible way? And after sixteen years...if only I had stuck around another one, but now I'm doomed to Hell with Ghandi, because I failed to possess that much coveted virtue called "faith"
They can prove the existence of God? WOW!!! Let me guess! Jesus Christ has finally returned to Earth, and he's going to show up LIVE IN PERSON on Nightline with Ray and Kirk.
Then again maybe Ray and Kirk are going to hold out a staff and make the Ocean part like the Red Sea or they are going to turn their staff into a snake and there is going to be a burning bush on Nightline. Damn! That would be the highest rated Nightline of all times.......LOL!
On a more serious note, I have watched both Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron on their show before. All these two idiots know how to do is harass people out on the streets who are minding their own business.
Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort need to mind their own damn business and leave people alone. They need to do as their good book says, "Work out your own salvation". Basically they need to leave other people the hell alone, and worry about themselves.
I can't stand neither one of those two Holier than thou know it all assholes.
Poor pathetic Ray Comfort whines and cries about how he was spat on, and it makes me sick how these poor christians cry about how they are persecuted so much.
Let's talk about the people who christians persecute like the gays, Transgendered people, and other people who don't subscribe to their beliefs, and how these churches treat these people like scum.
I have no pity for Ray Comfort or his "has been actor stooge" buddy Kirk Cameron.
Then they happened to have a god child with a serious mental impairment (by God family standards) so they gave him a sandbox to play in; a sort of occupational therapy. And here we are, ill-fated to inhabit the idiot God's little playground. He has tantrums sometimes and wipes his little minions out, or sets up his favorite little group to beat up the other little groups.
He's rather insecure and gets really pissed when his creatures don't stoke his little ego, so he squishes the bad ones and throws them in the fire when they die. The ones that suck up to him and tell him he's great, despite his obvious character flaws and mental deficiency, get put on a special shelf in his bedroom when they die. From there on the shelf they call heaven, they can say nice things to him 24-7.
"He's rather insecure and gets really pissed when his creatures don't stoke his little ego, so he squishes the bad ones and throws them in the fire when they die. The ones that suck up to him and tell him he's great, despite his obvious character flaws and mental deficiency, get put on a special shelf in his bedroom when they die. From there on the shelf they call heaven, they can say nice things to him 24-7."
What an awsome definition of that guy in the sky who many say loves us "unconditionally." Who the fuck started that unconditionally rumor in the first place? I don't consider making his flock worship and kiss his ass for all eternity unconditional love. He requires many conditions.
"To me, going back to believing in any god would be no different from going back to truly believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny."
If I could get one and only one message across to Christians, the above mentioned quote would be it.
So many Christian freinds and aquaintences will say they are praying for me, and have high hopes that I will eventually come back to God.
They just don't understand that it would be impossible to rebelieve in a myth that has been totally debunked, ever.
Now if I see a news report that there is a guy walking on water who claims to be Jesus and he performs a few miracles, then and only then could I ever believe.
xrayman
"...How come no more talking asses or bushes or seas parting?..."
I don't know about the bushes or the parting seas, but I suspect we'll be getting the talking asses on Wed. May 09/`07.
What is with the banana argument that everyone else seems to know but me? (Ah, the banana, that delicately tinted, lengthiest, gracefully curved, most eel-like of the fruits...) Is it on the net somewhere, as background for the big debate?
Computerguycj, I'm sure that, after the fact, skeptical arson investigators would uncover the Hollywood tricks that caused your soaked flesh to burn up, but there's not much solace in that. A general policy of using inanimate objects in tests of divine power is the way to go.
What!, you've never heard of Ray Comfort's amazing banana argument - the 'Atheist's Nightmare'?!
You're like Kermit the Frog on one particular episode of 'The Muppet Show', who unlike everybody else, had never heard of the famous 'Banana Sketch'
But don't despair, unlike Kermit and the Muppet Show viewers, who never found out what the 'Banana Sketch' actually was, here's a couple of links that will reveal all!
First, here's the original piece, with only slight doctoring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of90cKxSeuw
But before you fall to your knees begging God for forgiveness, here's a good debunking of the argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yArPNtiQDcM
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14055
Bummer, no miracles. I guess we'll just have to wait until someone claims they can see jesus's face in the background (when they take their glasses off and squint). Please, lord jesus, reveal your marvelous wonders to us! Don't let these atheist devils win!
Thanks. I'll join Eel Shepherd in saying I hadn't seen the Banana Argument either. Funny stuff though. I have enjoyed similar arguments.
I'd like to raise the theory that the Intelligent Designer has clearly designed men for masturbation. I mean look at how conveniently he placed it. Right there at a comfortable arms length. And how like a banana it is?
ROFLMAO!!!!
Could you also say that it fits well inside a mouth?
I would have to point out though that if you don't point it in the right direction, it will squirt in your face.
1. It seems that Comfort/Cameron failed to convince you there is a God. (Of course). Your turn then! Can anyone POSSIBLY prove that there is NOT a God? (Please give more than the tiny little 'I don't see him...I can't touch him...blah blah' excuse. I believe you can do better!)
2. If your atheistic worldview is so correct then what is your motivation to even wake up in the morning? (To get laid? To make money? To look out for self?) If it is 'self-gratis', then can such a worldview stand the test of time in a society?
Point to ponder. It seems that "Blasphemy Challenge and/or Rational Response Squad has actually done more harm than good to your cause of 'unevangelizing the world.' Let me explain.
Reason #1 - Christians are now aware of this movement and are waking up from their slumber. Before RRS Christians were kind of going to sleep on the culture and not really engaging it. Now that has changed. Blasphemy Challenge done a lot of good in making Christians wake up.
Reason #2 - They as so 'gung ho' about saying 'There is no God!' that it makes me wonder "do they really believe in God after all?" Why do they even feel the need to 'anti-confess' and circle the wagons? Does it somehow purge them from the 'demons within?' If they don't believe in the Bible, why are even using the Bible to 'damn them'. I thought the Bible was a farce? It must have some power over them after all. Why even use it if it isn't true? It seems like a sort of 'reverse' statment of faith. I simply wonder, are they too weak to stand alone in their convictions?
Your questions are silly, but I'll bite anyway.
1) Lots of historical evidence about the way the Bible was written and compiled. The book burning churchmen of the late Roman Empire did a nice job of burning "heretical" critiques, along with the heretics. The remaining texts were altered in many cases to tighten up the arguments in favor of the prevailing orthodoxy. What remains is that, while proving the negative that there is no god, it's not really that tough to prove that the "God of the Bible" is a character that was created with social and political agendas. The "Holy Spirit guiding the hands of the writers and canon compilers" argument is just to perpetuate what the Ecumenical Councils and various Church Fathers would have us believe. They were the victors in political wrangling. They got to write their magical insights into the history. Not very compelling.
2) I avoid pain and seek pleasure. I like reading, good food, working out problems at work, sexual pleasure, spending times watching my kids discover the world and gain insights into it. The range is wide. I don't like being hungry, getting sick, being beaten or robbed, being cold or lonely. I do things every day that set conditions find a balanced, sustainable way to maximize the former while minimizing the latter. Historically, those who have the temperament and wisdom to find a reasonably good balance between avoidance of pain and attainment of pleasure are able to proliferate, while those that fail are less likely. Simple Darwinian process.
Christians waking up to the movement? Please. In the 80's xians were all worked up about imaginary satanic movements. They've got their anti-abortion campaign to get excited about. Before that it's always been something: heretics, anti-christs, witchcraft. It changes overtime. Alternate thesis: the church needs to have enemies to aim the congregations at. It's all part of keeping people in the realm of emotion, where religion is strong, rather than letting people slip off into rationality, where the church is a mess.
Why should atheists who don't believe the Bible talk about it? Are you serious? Sorry if it offends your faith, but xian supported and sponsored movements are out there trying to use the Bible to advance legal and public policy agendas. They've put it on the table. If they want a society that includes secularists and members of other religions to adopt the rule set from the Bible, theirs is the burden of proof for it's legitimacy. Rather than make that case, they claim a priori that the book is true, and make up fantastical justifications to paper over the nonsensical parts. It's not convincing. A large quantity of poor arguments can't add up to a good argument. Pile crap as high as you want, it will never become anything but crap.
And, religious believers are no different than anyone else in this regard.
I mean, isn't the point of becoming a Christian so one can avoid eternal torment in hell and gain everlasting joy in heaven?
If a Christian "knew" he or she would go straight to hell for serving Christ, would he or she still service Christ anyway, simply because he or she LOVES CHRIST SO MUCH?!
Christians like to accuse non-theists of having purely selfish motives for every action. Well, personally I think that's a fairly reasonable assessment of human nature. We all are pretty damned selfish. However, Christians are equally as selfish. Christianity is all about saving the self, no matter what happens to the rest of humanity. Christianity is all about serving/relating to/loving/bowing before the great and mighty loving/wrathful LAWD to gain acceptance and avoid his bad temper. If there were no promised eternal payoff, few if any would be Christians.
True enough. Anyone working in sales, whether legitimate or fraudulent, realizes the imperative of creating or heightening the potential buyer's awareness of the need for the product/service, and then showing them how the product efficiently and satisfactorily satisfies that need.
Got fear? Got guilt? Feeling powerless? Unloved? No more. The god-o-matic has got you covered.
Here's a question for Mike. Mike, do you think it is possible for an intelligent, educated, and honest adult to earnestly study Christianity and reach a different conclusion that you did? Is it possible that such a person might reach the honest conclusion that Christianity is NOT the one true religion?
Mike, I would also like to know if you have studied the history of your religion, or read anything that examines Christianity critically? In my opinion, there is a wealth of scholarly information available that quite effectively exposes Christianity as yet another man-made religion with yet another imaginary savior god-man at its helm. The motifs of Christianity are not novel, and the patterns of its development, along with its holy book, have been seen before. There is almost nothing to corroborate the existence of Jesus, let alone his divinity; in this regard he is on a par with Krishna, Osiris, Mithra, and dozens of other savior god-men. While there are differences in the stories, to be sure, the overarching hero figure is much the same. Do you subscribe to the theory espoused by the early church fathers (e.g. Justin Martyr) that all other religions are simply Satan's attempt to confuse Christians? Do you see Christianity as the "one true myth", as C. S. Lewis put it?
Joe, I asked the question, "Can anyone prove that God does not exist?" You seemed to go with the old, "I'm going to prove that the Bible is a farce." argument. That is NOT what I asked. Would you like to try again?? As you probably know, there are many people who do not believe in the Bible, yet believe in God. Just simply disprove that God exist for me. (In 25 words or less...just kidding...)
The root debate of atheism and theism should not be 'which is right'. The root debate should be about faith. You MUST say that it takes faith to believe in your atheistic worldview! (Let's watch our sematics here...I'm not talking about Bible faith...I'm talking about general faith.)
Christians put their faith in the Bible. Yet, you put your faith (or beleif system)in the writings of Friedrich Neitzhce, Aldous Huxley, even Richard Dawkins and/or Sam Harris....or even your own thinking. So, you are putting your 'faith' in something whether you realize it or not. Personally, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. So, may I ask....
Question #1 - Would you agree that you put 'blind faith' in your 'unbiased history books' the same way I put my 'blind faith' in the Bible? If not, why not?
Second, Joe, I asked the question, "What is your motivation for getting up in the morning." You basically said, "I wake up to look out for me." Am I over-simplifying your response? It is this point that interests me.
I've always thought that a society based upon 'self-gratis' would never do well in the long run. I think America is getting more and more like this. (And please don't tell me America is a Christian nation!) Imagine if everyone is looking out for their own interest. What would you do about the poor? What is your motivation to help those in need? What is your motivation to help the AIDS patients in Africa? In America? I think I understand why you wrote this. If this life is all there is, then I'd better enjoy it. This brings me to my next question....
Question #2 - Do you think it is important to make the world a better place and to look out for those less fortunate? If so, then
Question #3- Are there any famous atheist who have been truly 'philanthropic'? (i.e. Has there been an atheist who has really changed the world and made it a better place?)
---------------------------------
Webmaster...you brought up a great point, but off one degree. Taking us at our worst, you will find self-centered people who only want the joys of heaven, or, as you say, the big pay-off. John Piper, picks up on your theme. He writes, "Would you want to be in heaven if Jesus weren't there?"
Most Christians would like to think that someday we'd be able to say, "I'll serve God even if it doesn't offer me anything." Taking us at our best, this is what we want...but this, unfortunately is not what we always live out.
However, there is something though you said that wasn't fair. You said, "Christianity is all about saving the self, no matter what happens to the rest of humanity." Where do you get this? I think this might be true for some Christians...but this is not the case for 'Christianity' as a system of belief. Christianity in it purest form is all about saving humanity (through evangelism AND deeds of mercy), and leaving self behind. (c.f. Matthew 28:18-20). I think you got it backwards.
---------------------
Jim,
You asked if I thought that an intelligent and educated adult could study Christianity and reach a different conclusion that I. The answer is 'Absolutely'. My New Testament professor in college was a Jew who didn't even believe the New Testament. (I did not go to a Christian college.)
Jim...may I ask you the same question. Can an educated intelliegent person study both sides of the atheism/Christianity arugment and say, "Wow, Christianity is is true."?
You also asked me if I've studied my own religion...and you used the word 'critically'. What do you mean by that word 'critically'? I think you mean this: If a work debunks Christianity then it is labeled 'Critical or Scholarly'. If a work supports Chrsitianity it is labeled "Stupid/Ignorant"? Don't you think that we all gravitate towards books that support our pre-supposition?
If is funny....I read a quote about Abraham Lincoln on his views of the Bible. It reads:
"In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man. All the good the Savior gave to the world was communicated through this book."
Now....I looked at an atheistic site and Lincoln says this:
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
Don't you think we make history/books/statistics to say whatever we want it to? We get two views of Abraham Lincoln...one as a Bible believeing man, the other an atheist. WHICH IS TRUE?!?!
I'm not trying to prove the ignorance of Deconstructionism. What I am saying to you Jim is this....."Birds of a feather flock together."
Those who share your views might say something like this:
"I've done "CRITICAL, SCHOLARLY" research and there is not one shred of evidence that supports God, the Bible or Jesus."
No you haven't. You've just read other people who share your same pissed off view of God. If someone else brings up point contrary to yours you quickly say, "That view is stupid." The reason I know you do this is that I DO THIS! It is very difficult, if not almost impossible to find a totally unbiased history book. And it is also difficult to be totally unbiased. An Atheist is not the champion role model for unbiased reasoning!
That is why I love the Bible. (Maybe that topic can be my next blog)
To answer your last questions.... ---yes, I agree with the statment that all other religions are Satan's attempt to confuse....
---And yes, Christianity is the one true 'myth' as CS Lewis put it. I beleive that.
"...Here's a question for Mike. Mike, do you think it is possible for an intelligent, educated, and honest adult to earnestly study Christianity and reach a different conclusion tha[n] you did?..."
This is the question they never answer. And the reason they never answer it is that they think they can get away with not answering it and no-one will notice, except maybe the person posing the question. But I'll notice. Mike, I'm watching this space, and I'll notice if you don't answer. You can say that you'd have answered anyway (after all, who can disprove it?), but it's got to be accompanied by the answer.
I've got a comment or two of my own on Mike's post:
The motivation to get up in the morning comes from being consistent with the environment. This is an organic world and we are organic beings. It is the normal state of affairs for us to interoperate with the biosphere. The people who find it hard to get up in the morning are the ones who've become tied up in knots in their mind, trying to honour incompatible adopted dictates.
As far as Xtians waking up from their slumber, I have my doubts about that. It's been my experience that heavy believers have that unnatural vigour often found in the obsessed. But if you say they've been somnambulent, I'm gonna take your word for it. If it causes a large number of them to actually crack the bible to see what's in it, it's a near guarantee that some of them will deconvert, so we can agree that this is a show of enterprise much to be welcomed, even if we don't agree on why.
As to why ex-Xtians group together and "circle the wagons", what would you have them do? Cope individually with the swarms of believers all animated by the same reigning meme? This is a self help group for people recovering from membership in a cult. Is it so hard to conceive that the sane would seek out the company of the sane?
Do you only believe in one god?
If so, then which of the following people do you align with in order to reject or deny the rest?
1-Friedrich Nietzsche
2-Aldous Huxley
3-Richard Dawkins and/or Sam Harris
4-Your own thinking
Mike, "Christians put their faith in the Bible."
Christians are people, putting faith in people who wrote/edited a bible, over a period of a few thousand years.
Perhaps the biggest distinction between your faith and what you pose as another persons' faith, is that your faith is suspended because of willed desire based on need(s), or because you have attempted to research an unfalsifiable claim, never to find closure.
That is much different than initial trust or faith one has in a claim that can be falsified or validated. There is at a minimum the 'potential' for closure, even if having to sift through the entire historical library of congress. In you faith, there is 'zero' potential for closure, you are held in a perpetually suspended mental state.
You appear to be a theist, either religious, or non-religious. In any case, your mental state is not particular to either being religious or non-religious. So, no point in trying to make a distinction, you get no less scrutiny than any other theist.
So, let’s hear what you have to say.
Here is a very plain and direct answer to that ridiculous question: NO, I cannot prove that "god" does not exist (whatever you intend by the word "god").
Now, my question to you is this: Of what consequence is that? It is also true that I cannot disprove the existence of leprechauns. Can you? I cannot disprove the existence of chocolate bunnies on Neptune. Can you? I cannot disprove the existence of Zeus. Can you?
Mike: "The root debate of atheism and theism should not be 'which is right'. The root debate should be about faith...."
According to whom? You can try to make faith the central issue, but you cannot escape the question as to which faith to have. You can place your faith in any number of deities and/or holy books. Why do you choose Yahweh? Why the Bible? You cannot defend your choice without appealing to something other than "faith", which is why, I presume, you place faith at the center. Nobody here is going to fall for that.
Mike: "You MUST say that it takes faith to believe in your atheistic worldview!"
That's an absurd position that religionists often resort to. In effect, you are trying to pull all of us into the same leaky boat you are in. That ploy will not work. My atheism is a rejection of your "faith" on the grounds that it lacks support. I have zero faith in atheism; I would cast it off if there were credible and compelling evidence for some god or goddess, just as I would cast off any scientific theory that was shown to be erroneous. Faith is, in effect, an opaque wrapper one applies to ideas that cannot stand on their own--it's a way of exempting irrational beliefs from scrutiny.
Mike: "Christians put their faith in the Bible. Yet, you put your faith (or beleif system)in the writings of Friedrich Neitzhce, Aldous Huxley, even Richard Dawkins and/or Sam Harris...."
This is laughable. I find it quite revealing when a religionist tells me what I have "faith" in; it seems they thereby give us a glimpse into their own thinking (by projecting it onto others). No, Mike, I have zero faith in the ideas of others, or even my own. Absolutely everybody makes errors, which means that beliefs are always in a state of flux--or at least they should be. I have varying degrees of confidence in different assertions, but none deserve an iota of "faith". If one is not prepared to re-think any given idea, and to cast it off if new information reveals it to be in error, then one is stuck shoring up outmoded ideas (which seems to be the chief activity of religion). The closest I come to having "faith" in someone's ideas is to grant them a serious hearing based on their track record, credentials, recommendations, etc. If what they say does not hold up, then there is no point in adhering to those ideas. If what they say is plausible in the light of what I currently "know," then I provisionally accept it.
Mike: "Question #1 - Would you agree that you put 'blind faith' in your 'unbiased history books' the same way I put my 'blind faith' in the Bible? If not, why not?"
Absolutely not! There is no completely unbiased view of history so far as I know. I have a higher degree of confidence in some historians than others, but absolutely nobody is exempt from scrutiny; nobody is exempt from errors or bias. I cannot fathom why you would want to put "faith" in a history book or a historian. That makes absolutely no sense to me.
Mike: "Imagine if everyone is looking out for their own interest. What would you do about the poor?..."
Empathy and altruism are also part of human nature. Without them, I doubt we would seek to help others, and I also doubt that our species would have been successful as it has.
Mike: "Question #2 - Do you think it is important to make the world a better place and to look out for those less fortunate?"
Yes, I do. I feel a sense of obligation toward those who are less fortunate than I, and my politics and actions reflect that.
Mike: "Question #3- Are there any famous atheist who have been truly 'philanthropic'? (i.e. Has there been an atheist who has really changed the world and made it a better place?)"
Off the top of my head... Luther Burbank, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Andrew Carnagie, George Soros, and Ted Turner. You might also want to check out the grants from the Humanist Society. There are millions of non-believers who contribute to society, making it a better place. How can you possibly think otherwise?
Mike: "Jim...may I ask you the same question. Can an educated intelliegent person study both sides of the atheism/Christianity arugment and say, 'Wow, Christianity is is true.'?"
Of course! I can name (and even know) quite a few brilliant people who believe that Christianity is true. Do you think I would ask such a question if I were not prepared to answer it myself? My point, Mike, is that we must each find our own way, for bowing to authority simply begs the question: To which authority shall we bow? In my view, we should give audience to all, but bow to none. In my opinion, our task should be to critically examine all sides, and determine which, if any, stands up to scrutiny. I will add that in my experience the proportion of atheists who have seriously considered all (or at least many) sides is far greater than the proportion of Christians who have done so. I have spend a good portion of my life studying religious points of view, yet I've encountered scarcely a dozen Christians who can give an honest statement of what atheism entails.
Mike: "You also asked me if I've studied my own religion...and you used the word 'critically'. What do you mean by that word 'critically'?"
To examine religion critically means to examine all its claims, no matter how "sacred"--i.e. to take nothing as being beyond question. One must also consider alternative explanations, and attempt to assess the credibility of all evidence that is offered. Given that definition, can you please answer the question now?
Mike: "I think you mean this: If a work debunks Christianity then it is labeled 'Critical or Scholarly'..."
That is complete nonsense. Please don't attribute such an asinine position to me. Thanks.
Mike: "Don't you think we make history/books/statistics to say whatever we want it to? We get two views of Abraham Lincoln...one as a Bible believeing man, the other an atheist. WHICH IS TRUE?!?!"
Frankly, I don't know that either is true, or that both are not true. My guess (based on quotes that I have researched from other historical figures) is that Lincoln probably said both, or something close to them. It was not uncommon for political figures to laude religions publicly while expressing disdain privately.
Mike: "Those who share your views might say something like this: 'I've done "CRITICAL, SCHOLARLY" research and there is not one shred of evidence that supports God, the Bible or Jesus.' No you haven't. You've just read other people who share your same pissed off view of God."
You, Mike, know absolutely nothing about what I or anybody else has read or how we have gone about researching anything. Your comment reflects complete ignorance. Perhaps it gives you some solace to think that I have seen only one side of the issue, but that is merely wishful thinking on your part. I've studied more Christian apologetics than any professing Christian I know (and I know quite a few). I categorically DO NOT attack any position until I have done my homework in studying what the advocates themselves have to offer. I have absolutely no interest in attacking straw men, nor in adopting opinions that simply stoke my ego.
Mike: "If someone else brings up point contrary to yours you quickly say, 'That view is stupid.' The reason I know you do this is that I DO THIS!"
Let me get this straight... You "know" I engage in such idiotic behavior because you do? I hope for your sake that you're joking. If not, that's quite an admission.
Mike: "To answer your last questions.... ---yes, I agree with the statment that all other religions are Satan's attempt to confuse...."
I find that very interesting. And what do you base that belief on? Faith? Can you articulate a different hypothesis--even if you don't agree with it? Can you offer some credible evidence for the existence of Satan?
From the Bible! Love, honor and obey the god of the Bible or burn forever in horrific agony -- that's the gospel in a nutshell. It is quite obvious that most of humanity will be slow-roasted in Bible-god's hellish oven, screaming out from the most ghoulish torment for ever and ever and ever, while the men and women who "feared the Lord" while wearing flesh will put on supernatural white robes and frolic and play on metaphorical streets of gold in gleeful happiness.
Or, put another way: As long as I adopt some blond hair with blue eyes and raise my arm with a good "ziech heil, ziech heil!" at the right times, I can keep myself from being roasted in the oven. Whatever happens to the rest of humanity will be unfortunate, but me-me-me will be so happy to be safely accepted in that beer garden on high.
As far as Christianity promoting only good influences on society, learn some history. Christianity did nothing to curb the ignorance backward march of history during the Dark Ages. In fact, Christianity was largely responsible for over 1,000 years of frightful ignorance.
Your comments about faith are interesting. You ask, in essence, whether a non-believer has "faith" in his own mind. Well, what did you use to decide Christianity was true? Didn't you use your own mind? I am always amused by this line from Christians, that somehow relying on your own mind is unwise. Yet, how do any of us come to any conclusions about anything except by relying or trusting our own minds? And if I cannot trust my own mind, why would I trust another human being's mind? Men wrote your Bible. They had human brains like the rest of us. Since you distrust human minds so much, why do you trust theirs?
The Truth is never outmoded. A true religion doesn't spend it's time trying to change because it knows it's anchored in the Truth. The pope will never change his stance on abortion, contraception, etc... regardless of a losing popularity "contest" in a world that is becoming more and more Godless. I think G.K. Chesterton says it best "Catholicism is the only thing that talks as if it were the truth; as if it were a real messenger refusing to tamper with a real message."
Jim said: "I categorically DO NOT attack any position until I have done my homework in studying what the advocates themselves have to offer."
You do, your posts at this site are a testament to your attacks. If you do any homework at all, it's with the sole purpose and objective of disproving the Truth, not seeking it. Try seeking the Truth for once, God could make good use of your analytical mind. Until then, if you're not with Him, then you're against Him and because of this, we all know who your master is...
The pope will never change his stance on abortion, contraception, etc...
He just changed the Vatican's stance on limbo, after about 800 years of believing it exists, now it doesn't. So there's one Truth that became "outmoded." Here's some additional food for thought, from a recent article in Slate:
"But the church has indeed changed its opinion on several matters. From the 13th century to the 16th century, the church went from opposing usury—the custom of charging interest on a loan—to accepting it. Theologians also debated the legitimacy of slavery for years before Pope Leo XIII condemned the practice in 1888. That same pope also declared that Protestants were in error and could not be granted religious freedom, a doctrine that wouldn't be reversed until the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican in the 1960s."
Let's see how Marc exposes his insular thinking today.
In response to my remark that one should always being willing to re-examine one's own beliefs (which Marc categorically NEVER does), Marc said "The Truth is never outmoded. A true religion doesn't spend it's time trying to change because it knows it's anchored in the Truth." Bingo. I can't dream up stuff like this. Thanks for the textbook example of narrow-mindedness and circular reasoning, Marc. Let me spell it out. My point was that we all make errors, and that the only way to eventually discover them and correct them is to be receptive to self-examination (something that is alien to you) and change. Your reply was, in effect, that this does not apply to the church because it has made no errors--i.e. because it already has the "Truth"". That is the entire point, Marc. Here is the question you will never answer: How do you know that?. Answer: You do not, you simply assert it. That is the black box you will never permit yourself to peer inside of.
Marc: "The pope will never change his stance on abortion, contraception, etc... regardless of a losing popularity 'contest' in a world that is becoming more and more Godless."
If that is so, then it will hasten the demise of the church, albeit at the expense of increased suffering in third-world nations. To my mind, there are few things as repugnant as the Catholic church's stance on contraception; it exacerbates the very problems that are ravaging the poorest countries on this planet. And toward what end? To pay homage to an ancient book of wild stories. It absolutely disgusts me.
Marc: "You do [attack positions without first doing your homework], your posts at this site are a testament to your attacks. If you do any homework at all, it's with the sole purpose and objective of disproving the Truth, not seeking it."
Mark, you've got the bite of a twenty-year-old toothless Basset hound. Learn to back up your assertions with something credible, then maybe someone will listen to what you have to say. (Right... like that's going to happen.) Your prattle hardly deserves more of a response than that.
Marc: "Try seeking the Truth for once,..."
I am apparently a threat to you, Marc. I've exposed your unwillingness to examine your own beliefs since one of your early posts here. It's very easy to spot. You draw a line in the sand at fuzzy comforting ideas such as "trust", and steadfastly refuse to look at what that actually means, and how you got stuck in your current insular thinking. I think it irks you no end that I and others here are not so trapped; it must keep you up at night, and it must keep you coming back to this site with a strange fascination. How odd that the people here can study everything without fear, because they are not wedded to a specific conclusion! How very odd that must seem to you. Well, Marc, the freedom to think and explore may well be off limits to you--who knows. Anyway, if you ever get to the point of being more concerned about what is true than what is comforting, you know where you can find some like-minded people. (But you're going to keep coming back anyway, aren't you? Yes, you are. You are just too darned fascinated.)
In the scientific community, "truth"(small case "t") is in constant flux. "Knowledge" changes/increases as time goes by, so what does that mean?.....right!..it means "truth" must also change. It is only common sense.
Now, where "sense" is not so f%cking common, is when religious/doctrinal "Truth"(upper case "T") is touted by religionists as "absolute" and "UNchanging", which is why perpetually obstinate Christian(Marc) and his flock like to arrogantly capitalize the "T" in "Truth".
Nonetheless, there are simple questions one can ask to illustrate how the Holy bible..i.e.. the "inspired inerrant Word of God", is NOT an objective absolute truth/"Truth", by any stretch of the imagination.
Here is a direct challenge for any Christian who does not suffer from "invincible ignorance":
* Note, if "Marc" doesn't respond with direct concise answers, he is admitting that his ignorance is invincible.
1) in Genesis "God" created the "firmament". Please give a concise working definition of what a "firmament" is, what it's function is, and provide a scientific peer reviewed source.
2) please provide the name, approximate age, location, etc., of the last non-Christian that you stoned to death(murdered)for working on the Sabbath(Sunday).
* Now, if it's NOT "okay" to murder people who work on the Sabbath, then the bible is clearly in error in it's "commandments", thus, you are implicitly admitting that the "Word of God" HAS "changed".
3) If one day you witnessed your neighbor pelting their rebellious teenaged son with rocks, you should:
a) Call the cops
b) Draw a target on his forehead
c) Open the window and yell, "Praise the Lord!"
d) Ignore it as if it never happened.
e) other
* If "a", then you are admitting that pelting another human being with "stones" is unethical...i.e. "immoral". Yet, the "Word of God" clearly says that this punishment is acceptable in the case that a teenager become defiant/rebellious. Thus, you have some explaining to do.
Perpetually obstinate Christian: I think G.K. Chesterton says it best "Catholicism is the only thing that talks as if it were the truth; as if it were a real messenger refusing to tamper with a real message."
You are a very funny little man. The "real message" of Catholicism is no different than any other religion. It "claims" to be the one and only "Truth". Furthermore, it should be extoled because it's figure-head prances around in a $ 25,000 bath robe? WOW!! Then, then..it MUST be true!
I move for an IP block. It's time.
Many of you had great questions. I'm sorry that I can't get to them all. But I would like to dialogue today with Jim.
May I humbly ask that you consider what I feel to be some contradictions in your logic and seek your response.
#1 - Back to FAITH:
You reject my notion that an athiest has faith. To quote you;
"My atheism is a rejection of your "faith" on the grounds that it lacks support. I have zero faith in atheism; I would cast it off if there were credible and compelling evidence for some god or goddess, just as I would cast off any scientific theory that was shown to be erroneous. Faith is, in effect, an opaque wrapper one applies to ideas that cannot stand on their own--it's a way of exempting irrational beliefs from scrutiny.
Earlier you answered my question in reference to disproving God. You said, "NO, I cannot prove that "god" does not exist" Thank you for your honesty.
So, you seem to say that atheism cannot be proven, and you also say that faith is something people use to make difficult beliefs belivable. Am I over-simplifying your view? So, can the tenets of atheism to quote you, 'stand on their own?' I must conclude after reading you that they cannot.
According to what you just said, atheism cannot be proven. So, if faith is an 'opaque wrapper one applies to ideas that cannot stand on their own', then can we not say that it takes 'faith' to be an atheist? Welcome to the leaky boat!
#2 - A quiet admission:
You say, "Absolutely everybody makes errors, which means that beliefs are always in a state of flux--or at least they should be."
So....could it be possible that YOU are making an error? Would your belief system ever evolve to the point where you'd say, "I believe in Jesus."? Why so dogmatic about Atheism? Lighten up man!
--------------------------------
To answer, quickly some of your questions....
1. I cannot disprove the existence of leprechauns. I can say that they PROBABLY do not exist. Debating the existence of God and the existence of leprechauns aren't exactly in the same ball park.
2. The reason I chose YHWH of the Bible is to me the message of the Bible makes the most sense when compared to other worldviews.
3. The reason I asked the question about the benevolent nature of atheism is that I feel that atheism is a selfish system that has no concern for those outside it's hallowed walls.
4. In regards to Satan's attempt.... and you asked, "What do you base that belief on." Answer - The Bible.
5. Different Hypothesis... sure. Short and sweet...
- Pluralism - All religions say the same thing.
- Deconstuctionism - You cannot believe any written text.
- Feminism - Religions exist to subordinate women, not free them.
- Inclusion - All religions who have not rejected Jesus as Messiah will be saved.
- I'll stop there. Grey's Anatomy is on.
From,
Mike
Why should we care whether other alleged truths are put to the test? Let's look at our current administration. It came to power in part on its campaign against the "flipfloppers" on the other side. In that view, good and capable people never change their minds. They claim that they should be trusted because they have their hands on immutable truths. Likeminded people (at least enough to come within a hanging chad of victory) took that logic to the polls and elected them.
What did we get? People who "stay the course" even when the objective evidence calls for change. Dogmatic adherence to a set of beliefs in the face of evidence is a bad thing. Science, as one of the leading principles of atheism, is all about flipflopping. Form a hypothesis, imagine that it were true and run careful experiments to see if the tests produce the results that one would expect if it were so. If they seem to bear that out, publish the hypothesis, honest test conditions and findings in a public journal. Let others repeat the experiments, apply alternate hypotheses and introduce other variables to see if the findings hold. If the hypothesis is disproven or an alternative hypothesis proves itself to explain the findings more satisfactorily, the community flips (or flops) and the hypothesis is shelved.
Dogmatically religious people are not like that. They tell us that when the experiment fails (prayer doesn't get answered, "saved" people commit horrible crimes, etc.) it doesn't disprove the god hypothesis; doesn't even call it seriously into question in their eyes.
I love flipfloppers. The capacity to change opinions, beliefs and attitudes as new information is added is one of the qualities in a person that I admire most.
The Soviet dissident poet Alexander Galich said it best:
Don’t fear the ashes, don’t fear blasphemy,
Don’t fear the furnace and hell,
But fear only him,
Who says, “I know how it’s got to be!”
Who says, “Everyone who follows me
Will have heaven on earth as their prize.”
Another great Russian saying:
The less you know the better you sleep.
Glad to hear you're resting easy, Marc.
To be completely honest Jim, there really is nothing that feels "trapped" about loving God. I also have no feelings that come close to, "irk", when it comes to this site, it's more along the lines of pity.
As far as this site keeping me up at night, I wish I had that kind of love and empathy for the present state of many people here. The most concern I can muster up is the occasional hope that God can speak through me with one of my posts. Through the gifts of His peace & joy, I pretty much sleep like my 4 month old, snuggled between my wife & I.
If you would like a slight indication of how much it pains our Lord to have so many turn away from His gift of salvation, please have a look at this stigmata.
http://www.tlig.org/downloads/en/news/2007-05-13.pdf
As revealed by this post, may He bless me and many other believers with a love and empathy that is closer to His love for all of you. Even without such graces to motivate us, all of us living in Faith should praise Him now, today, and kneel before Him in supplication for His mercy on this Godless world!
May He have mercy on all of us!
Peace,
Marc
http://www.tlig.org/downloads/en/news/2007-05-13.pdf
Speaking of "pain", my side is killing me from how hard I laughed at the, uh, "stigmata". ROFLMAO!!!!!!! You CANNOT be serious!?!?! It's a joke, right? Hell, the neighbor kid's Halloween makeup is more convincing. 'Got beet juice?
This truly shows what a vapid naive imbecile we're dealing with.
Speaking of...
The most concern I can muster up is the occasional hope that God can speak through me with one of my posts.
Even if there WAS an omniscient, omnipotent supernatural holy ghost, I think it's pretty apparent why it would NOT choose to "speak through" you. D'oh! lol
Sadly, I'd have to agree. Marc, you are off the deep end. Do you have a life subscription to National Enquirer? If not, I think you might enjoy it. Of course, maybe you're just having giggle fits posting this nonsense. Either way, ta ta.
Mike, I'll get back to you later today--I'm going to be tied up for a while. As for why we're so harsh with Marc, he's basically a spammer who's been posting nonsense in many different threads here for a while. We've tried to have discussions with him, but no dice. He just wants to proselytize. He's about due for an IP block, in my opinion.
Seriously dude, get some help! The web link you posted indicates how desperate you are to find any evidence to prove your fantasy is real. That link is worthy of supermarket tabloids.
Here's a link showing crazy Islamic fundamentalists performing similar acts of self mutilation.
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/gallery2/v/ffi_gallery/self_beating/
May your Jealous God bless you, but more importantly may logic and reason be your guiding light someday.
Cheers
Thanks for your replies. It seems like you are trying to respond directly to questions that we ask, and I appreciate that. I'll admit that I'm a bit surprised by your response, however. In my 40 years of discussing this type of thing with Christians I have yet to understand why so many trivial concepts get so garbled when they go through the filter of "faith". I don't mean to attack you personally; I simply can't think of a better word than "garbled". Let me give an example.
You said "So, you seem to say that atheism cannot be proven,... So, can the tenets of atheism to quote you, 'stand on their own?' I must conclude after reading you that they cannot."
Mike, this is really very simple; so much so that I'm wringing my hands trying to think how I can make it any simpler. You are making it artificially complex by talking about the "tenets of atheism", as if it's a well-defined belief system with a central dogma. None of the above apply. It is a position of REJECTING a claim (that is, NOT BELIEVING IT) on the basis that it is NOT SUPPORTED BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. That's it in it's entirety. Here, let me try this...
M: "I believe Sasquatch exists."
J: "What makes you say that?"
M: "My Ouija board! It spelled out 's-a-h-x-s-z' which are letters in 'Sasquatch exists'. Well, all except for the "z". That proves it."
J: "First, why do you think that a Ouija board is capable of telling you things about