Amazingly, here in Brazil, there are people who do not know that there is the term "new atheism" to refer to atheists with different behavior of atheists.
Unfortunately for Mr. Lane here...his moderate view of his "religion" gives support to the fundamentalists of his religion. Islamic moderates do the same for their fundamentalists.
The only answer is to get rid of religion, have basic moral laws (which we can come up with less any religious book) and then go forward as species. Until then we will always be held back by ancient dogma.
@ChristianApologics The ONLY reason you believe is because of your parents...if not your parents then your community...if not your community then your church. Any way that you look at it you were indoctirnated into religion. So, without your magically mystery man in the sky...you would have to rely on yourself not to kill, steal or make golden statues..in basic form..i wont kill you if you dont kill me. Point is the book you all believe in is cruch for your weaknesses...written by weak men.
@djkoch65 The only reason you believe the earth is round is because you were born in 1900s and not the 1100s. Does that make you wrong because you were born in a different era?
As for morals being invented by man...I ask you, if a society accepted rape and murder, would that be ok because the society is culturally different? No reasonable person would think so. So your premise makes no sense whatsoever.
As for the men of the Bible, their legacy speaks for itself, and I don't need to defend it.
@ChristianApologics There is no "legacy" of the bible, it is a delusion that has just been "set" in society by powerful people who knew how to control the weak minded. One thing I notice about the "religious" is they always need to stick up for their book even though it filled with inacuracies, total BS and a mix of some truth to give it validity just like a piece of chain-mail. The odds are against your book. Eventually, belief in it will erode. Not completed but enough.
@djkoch65 Ok, feel free to give me some examples in inaccuracies (nice spelling, btw). Also, way to answer my questions, you're a champ. Now, the Bible pretty specifically says that the earth is a sphere, that the wind has set patterns, that the ocean has currents, that blood is necessary for life, and that running water is necessary for cleanliness. These things weren't discovered until the last 100-150 years ago. So tell me, were the writers just really, really lucky?
@ChristianApologics You must be an Answers In Genesis person who believes somehow that the bible is some sort of science book. It is folklore plain and simple that has been bastardized over and over, again, by people who wish to control others. It worked well because you can no longer think for yourself as you let the book do it for you. And thank you for the spelling lesson...I forgot I was on the dictionary forum.
The entire time I was a Christian I wanted to believe so much that I allowed myself to be deceived by the arguments made by people such as the guests of one minute apologist. It's amazing what happens when you finally say to yourself "it isn't true." It is such a freeing experience. You don't have to lie to yourself anymore! I urge you to question your faith. View it from an outsiders prospective. Don't just nod your head 'yes' to the arguments that these people are making. Think for yourself!
His first point is disgusting. Islam is not the religion of peace, but it has a far better claim to the title than Christianity, which stems from worshippers of a tribal god who in the past ordered acts of total war vicious even for their day - Mohammad, at least, claimed these accounts were corrupted. Both, however, spread by the sword, one from Rome, the other from Damascus, Baghdad, and Córdoba, and both from Istanbul. Islam is just slightly uglier right now.
You get lumped together with Islamic fundamentalists because you have EXACTLY the same twisted mindset that opens the door for violent acts being played out 'in the name of god'
RADICAL ideologies such as saying that religion isn't a source of objective truth??
Quick, shut down the universities - they are too radical! LOL
Religion is not an objective truth but does that mean that there isn't a God or an afterlife? Doe that mean that it doesn't serve a purpose and reveal valuable things about human nature and society?
WLC doesn't quite get the problem that Fundies are Fundies. Islamic, Christian, or otherwise.
It's funny to hear that the excuse for the loss of christianity's appeal is a generations-long conspiracy theory as opposed to actual issues with the religion itself.
@Mathenaut Its loss of appeal has been going on much longer than the fundies would have you believe. Take in point the fact that most of Europe is overwhelmingly non-religious or outright athiest. They have had centuries more time to get sick and tired of the nonsense of the church. Bear in mind, they are also the countries who have had a direct hand in actual Holy Wars in Christianity's name.
@Mathenaut I believe the main reason the US is lagging is because right from our very start we were viewed as a haven for the nutbars of society (often the uber religious). Sure, in our founding years there were people also here for the sake of economic gain, the finding of freedom from political oppression, and a host of other good reasons.
It still remains true regardless that we floundered in a sea of half baked messiahs, crackpots and those believing in Divine Mandate.
US is lagging due to regular old corruption and greed. Religion is being used as a tool toward an ignoble end in that arena. In that sense, the crime of the religious is their ignorance, and how they are willing to cripple themselves and sacrifice freedoms if they are led to believe it is upholding their religious imperative - As dictated to them.
@Mathenaut All religions by their very nature are corrupt because they denigrate the intrinsic quality of humankind. I am an athiest and I personally do not believe that we necessarily have immortal souls (to which as a man of science I also cannot say it's not possible). Once any religion expects us to be groveling and cowing to a supernatural figure that must fear AND love whether it be Yahweh, Vishnu, The Great Turtle or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (yes last one is a joke).
That's the thing. Look at the religions outside of Christianity and it's clones in Judiasm/Islam. The Asatru do not fear their gods, neither do the Wiccans or many of the pre-christian religions. Hindu's Shiva is feared, but not in the same sense as the christian god (though, Hindu's issues fall within political corruption entrenched with it's caste system).
Buddhism is an example of a religion that has evolved well beyond it's violent roots.
@Mathenaut Buddhism HAS no violent roots, nor is it a religion. It has no concept of a God. You ask a buddhist who God is and he wont say Buddha (or if he does he aint no Buddhist), because Buddha is revered as the first human soul to reach Nirvana but it existed before him and it is not He who gives grace, salvation or even aid in such. They intrinsically believe that every human is "on his own" for his or her own "salvation" towards Nirvana.
Firstly, you should probably read up on the history of Buddhism.
Secondly, while it has no gods, it does have rigid beliefs and dogmas. Despite that, there is a reason that it doesn't hold the same negative connotation that Christianity does.
@Mathenaut Yes, I am aware there are some sects of Buddhism which would be considered "Theist" in that they still retain reference to ancient Gods of their cultures, but their core discipline and dogma do NOT establish Buddha as a God.
Uhh.. Christianity doesn't have the clean slate as Mr. Craig likes to suggest. The only difference between it and Islam is simply because one has been changed and modernized throughout the ages.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
The muslims of today are the same as the christians of the dark ages. The crusade is no longer about a temple but proving your belief more right than someone else's.
It's VERY VERY VERY sad, that a person like Mr. Craig, could point fingers to Islam, while he doesn't seem to realize that today's Islam(or Islam in general), is almost identical with the middle age Christianity.
So while Christianity was FORCED into submission by reason and logic TO SOME EXTENT,not entirely(sadly), Islam kept it's pace.
The evidence for the claims of both religions are near to 0,yet he sadly takes Christianity's side because it not as kuku(...well not anymore,that is) as Islam.
Craig's a weasel, and intelligent, rational people see through his convoluted arguments. Others, not so much. Let's face it - he's not trying to appeal to intelligent people. He's after a different demographic.
@ndrthrdr1 Craig's a weasel?? Dr. Craig is world renown philosopher and well respected by his peers both secular and Christian. Even Christopher Hitchens said that Craig was great scholar. You're just a hater with nothing of substance to say.
The rise of this "New Atheist Movement" is very heartwarming. Is it not fair to lump christianity in with Islam? The radicals are only people who take the words of "Holy Books" literally. Islams foundation is exactly the same as that of christianity, there is as much evidence as there is to support any other religion, (none).
If I released a drug that makes the majority of users very happy but turns some into psychopaths, would that drug not be dangerous? vile?
@Halfturretslicer Which point? Get used to it man, the number of unbelievers will continue to rise as long as religion continues making no sense and over stepping its boundaries.
@mehico33 The point that Christianity nowadays is being "tarred with the same broad brush" as Islam. Believe me, I'm used to the growing number of non-believers in recent years, but again, it's sad to see it happening.... :(
@Halfturretslicer Are you able to defend the notion that it is not right to compare the two? I just dont see it, clearly they teach different things, I just find it a bit more efficient to wipe away all religions in one swing. Of course they could be broken down individually but why?
How so? There's no evidence for the existence of Jesus. But even if you'd grant his existence, along with all the miracles, it would still not give any special meaning to anything Jesus said or be evidence for the existence of a god.
@crazyliclay Thats hilarious dude, the historicity of jesus in very much in question, based solely on eye witness accounts (the very weakest form of evidence) which are widely acknowledged to have been written some 100 years after the event supposedly took place.
Evidence for atheism? Now thats a bizarre concept, atheism is the rejection of one particular assertion. Atheism does not require evidence. Similarly you do not need to present evidence to justify your unbeleif in Fairies.
@crazyliclay Ok ill bite, I do have my own level of faith. I have faith in the efforts of man to one day overcome bronze age superstition, to one day be mature enough to solve their/our problems with words and thoughts, to solve the big problems (hunger, pollution etc), to discover the secrets of reality and reap the benefits that will flow from it. I can only base these hopes on what we've already acheived, no guarantee a meteor wont take us out lol. I dont mean to sound like a jerk BTW.
@ptbwf Youd have to show the numbers to back that up, I think a government that applies logic would be a nice start. Dont waste time on silly bullshit that hurts nobody (gay marriage, weed etc). Weigh it up mathematically, joy vs sorrow, pleasure vs pain (only to the best of our abilities of course but its a start).
No, its the result of a selfish species consuming more energy than it returns to the ecosystem, a species who is too successful, who overpopulates. God isnt part of the equation.
Every decision that a govt makes will hurt someone in someway, most likely many people in many ways, the only way to take the seemingly "necessary" pain away is getting rid of govt.
@ptbwf Another statement you will need to back up as all evidence is to the contrary.
You speak of "getting rid of govt" yet it is all that protects you from more muscular, more intelligent opposition. The only thing that ensures you get equal opportunities in life as other members of your nation. Goverment is structure, without it there would be no infrastructure and no protection for the weak.
Other nations will recognise that there is power in numbers and will dominate you for your resources.
If a person is smarter and stronger than me, then my living will hurt their mental and physical strength if they live equally with me, that is just a fact. If I am strong enough and smart enough to survive, then I will.
If you destroy the strongest among us(which, make no mistake about it, the strongest among us are getting weakened), we will be weak and unable to survive as a species, permanently.
@ptbwf Anarchy will never work, what will stop the cunning from simply taking from the weak minded? You seem to be proposing survival of the fittest, or perhaps you imagine that society will police itself, punish its own rapists and theives, that is still govt. Simply a weaker form of it.
What harm has government caused? War? that is simply a magnification, us vs them as opposed to me vs you, a working out of kinks. Anomalies will always occur, structure keeps us together despite this
anarchy has already worked for as long as it had to for people to develop civilization, it can work again to diminish the damage that civilization ultimately caused.
EVERY time government taxes, regulates, casts a ruling etc, it is causing irreparable harm to someone somewhere, therefore no govt can preside over an equal and just country or world.
Even in protecting the weak and attempting to be fair to the stronger of society, govts will hurt both.
@ptbwf The reason we banded together and formed communities is that anarchy was not working, we quickly learned that survival was a lot easier as a group, then how do you unite groups? Stop one from harming the other? You impose rules. The suffering you focus on seems terrible as it stands out, its not normal anymore, but evolution only demands so much adaptation as life is a battle by its very nature, suffering has always been here.
Without structured society it would still be lion vs gazelle
no, the only reason why we were able to band together was because we aren't monsters(somehow) and we can survive easily without govt.
Science actually created society(and ultimately supply and demand), not really the need to get out of a lawless world, also the success of people in anarchy created civilization.
@ptbwf "because we arent monsters(somehow)", life has many forms, we happen to be animals (as opposed to bacteria, similar patterns but different), animals by nature are self serving, this is driven by a will to survive. We all have our tendencies and always have, those tendencies lead us to do things that cause each other harm, law prevents us doing those things (to a large extent).
"success of people in anarchy created civilization" does this not undermine your stance?
But...but...this is longer than a minute! Seriously, there are a lot of us non-believers out here who are skeptical of theism in general, but we recognize the clear differences between general Christianity and radical Islam. We think, we read, we listen, we ponder, we reason, we ask questions. We remain unconvinced by the "evidence" given for theism. We object to wishful thinking and telling people how they should behave in their private lives. We consider life precious and fleeting.
Lol--Craig cannot defend his religion so instead he puts the blame on the rise in atheism on the shoulders of the Muslims. In Craig's mind the rise in atheism could not be because his religion makes no sense when analyzed critically--so he has to find some other excuse. So just like Christian men blame women for sin, they now blame Muslims for atheism...lol. Maybe they should look in the mirror and take some responsibly themselves. Pathetic
@atheistprophet5760 You are an idiot who is obsessed with his own unbelief as your idiotic screenname shows clearly. Craig is the foremost Christian apologist alive today and when he debated Christopher Hitchens the atheist website "commonsenseatheism" said that Craig spanked Hitchens like a small child. You are a pathetic troglodyte who is so obsessed with his own unbelief that he insists on trolling theist videos. I feel sorry for you.
@AegeanKing I have already refuted every single one of Craig's arguments. In fact, they were refuted by others long ago as well. Craig is a poor scholar, but talented at debate. I would eat him for breakfast.
@atheistprophet5760 If you genuinely believe you would be able to take on Craig, the foremost defender of the christian faith, in a debate and win then you are certainly deluded...
@IsaacP150 No I am not actually. Go read my blog. I am a professor of philosophy and religion, and I actually invite my students to bring their minister/pastor/preacher/priest to class to participate in the discussions. Every time this happens, they have to admit the truth, or look like idiots because they know that I know what they know. I get many "converts" this way. I love those days.....:)
@atheistprophet5760 Do you mean can I counter your counter arguments? The only positive argument I find you using is the absence of evidence. From what I saw, your blog is mostly full of responses to Dr Craig's arguments for the existence of God and others.
@IsaacP150 You obviously do not understand the meaning of arguments. If you can offer BETTER explanations than mine, please feel free to do so. I'll be waiting....:)
@atheistprophet5760 No from what I read you were responding to Craig's Moral argument for the existence of God. I wasn't reading actual arguments against the existence of God on your blog. But the fact that you recommend Richard Dawkin's "The God delusion" gives me the impression that you are not really a serious philosopher.
@IsaacP150 And still--you offer no counter to my arguments against what Craig said. Dawkins makes some good points, and I also recommend various other texts, which I use in class.
WLC you hypocrit. yes we cast you in the same box with islam. i heard it from your own words, you said that if god commanded you to commit murder it wouldnt be murder because god commanded it. so what guarantees me that tomorrow christians are not going to commit all sorts of atrocities in the name of god? that you preach love? well, hypocrisy exists.
@sirdelrio If you're familiar with Craig's work you will also be aware that he is highly skeptical of people of any Christian who claims that God commanded them to commit atrocities. He believes that IF God commanded it it would not be murder but that this so unusual for God that it has only happened once before in history. Don't accuse WLC of hypocrisy while you're willing to quote him out of context.
@remise2 The 'No true Scotsman' fallacy does not fix the fact that divine command theory makes room for atrocities. The question is why is Craig skeptical. The bible has more evidence for an angry god than for a loving one. and the atrocities were not unusual, the whole bible is filled with god-commanded-genocide. all one has to do to see the true colors of yaweh is read the bible. and he is a hypocrit, not for this video, but for his double standards and special pleading.
@1dionysius You're right, in the last debate I watched, Craig seemed to admit that all the evidence points to a much older world. Although, he never actually denounced creationism.
As far as football fans acting "religiously" I can agree that some would appear to love their team or sport above themselves and/or even practice what may appear to be rituals. But no fan that I know, would actually place their team above their own wellbeing, or the wellbeing of their children. Most religious would.
It's honestly embarrassing that some listen to William Lane Craig's lies and never check them. (objectively)
New atheism? He's just trying to find a way to make a "religion" of non-belief.
Why don't you tell us all about how you're a young earth creationist Craig? Because not even most Christians can buy into that ridiculous rhetoric. If you lie about something that large, even just one thing (Believe me I have heard much more than just one, from Craig) than you've lost all credibility.
MR. Craig is not an academic. You cannot call yourself an academic if you selectively choose where in your thoughts to apply logic, reason, and critical thinking. Being an atheist is not a choice i made. My brain/ conscience wont allow me to believe in Jesus, God, Allah, Vishnu anymore than Mother Goose, Rumplestiltskin, or Simba from the Lion King. I see how Galileo must have felt with 95% of the world believing the earth was flat.
@MrKGatl your brain wont allow you to choose in what you believe? your saying that your brain is a seperate entity inside of you controlling you then? write carefully. You have a choice,everyone does.
@everio17 Actually yes, my brain is inside of me controlling me. And I just mean that there are truths, theories, fact, etc that I cannot merely choose to ignore or replace with falsehoods or meaningless superstitions.
No they don't lump christians with islam or jihadists, I think they would agree that islam is a far less tolarant religion than christianity,Dawkins was debating long before 9/11 though Hitch/Harris more so after,and as for the rest of the public at large, are you saying they didn't think about god,life and the meaning of exsistance before 9/11? NO the reason its growing is because are understanding is growing and less and less people are ignorrant to the truth of reality, God did it wont wash.
Hahaa! HAHAHAA. He is only "renowned" with people who swallow his inane ideas hook, line and sinker. Nobody outside of apologetics takes his inane, empty, vapid excuse for a philosophy seriously. He gets curb-stomped EVERY time he engages in a debate with people who use reason as a base for their arguments.
@Strata1R Simply put, the “testimony of an event cannot be refuted by experiences and observations.” In short, we can not refute testimony because that testimony is outside our present experiences and perceptions. As George Campbell asserted, “Miracles are different events (contraria) from experience in general, but not contradictory events (contradictoria) to experience in general.” ....cont above
@Strata1R ...BUT at most these observations only show that a resurrection, a Red Sea parting, or miraculous healing is “NATURALLY impossible.” This is a matter of Science. However, this DOES NOT prove that such a “naturally impossible” event has NEVER occurred. That is a matter of history. And history is the realm of the collection of eyewitness testimony, archeology and evidence....cont above
"The issue is the moral worth concern...If the human is EQUAL to an ape in intellect, love, compassion, mercy, hate, frustration, and conceptualization – as you claim (which I wholly disagree) – then WHAT is it then that makes them SPECIAL as YOU do say!?!"
My moral concern with regarding the human species as being separate from the animal kingdom is the establishment of the idea that humans are far superior to nature and therefore human wellbeing should far outweigh that of every other...
ON HUMANS & ANIMALS: We agree that humans and animals are the same in terms of the parts that make them. Yet you believe that animals aren't capable of love and compassion, able to make their own decisions, or learn. I assure you they can do all these things. I recommend you research Jane Goodall's work yourself for I don't have time to list all the findings of her research here.
...The Bible and therefore Christianity as a whole lie on no true foundation. They are both false, just like the conception of the Earth as flat, or as the idea of a talking snake.
@Strata1R First, the bible was not written by God this is clear, however the bible was written by men who followed God, By men who had a great understanding of him. God worked through these men to get his word out, the bible is not a science book. The bible is simply a book that gives insight to God, human history, the human condition, and parts of science.
@Strata1R The bible does not claim the earth is flat, the books that you get this from are the poetic books, and the prophetic books of the bible, books that often use symbolism. To say the earth has foundations is referring to the axis of the earth, the earth is immovable from its axis. Also in the book of matthew the devil takes Jesus to look at all of the kingdoms on a high mountain, it is understood by bible scholars that of course they could not see all of the kingdoms of the earth...
@Strata1R ...Though the people of ancient palestine weren't the smartest of people they knew well enough that you could not see all of the kingdoms of the earth from a mountain, this was clear, and to say that this is some sort of flat earth reference is false, the verse has nothing to do with the geology of planet earth, but rather the symbolism of christ's soul to the devil.
Respond to this video... And What? to say that the new testament was written by a "ruler in Rome" This has no historical basis whatsoever. I assume the ruler you were referring to is constantine, however this statement is false constantine ruled at least 200 years after the new testament was written.
@Strata1R There are copy's of the new testament that predate Constantine, who was the first christian ruler of rome so to say that he wrote them for some propagandistic reason is simply based on false historical assumption.
@Strata1R So to conclude on the immovable earth statement all of the biblical verses that refer either to an immovable earth or a flat earth either have to relate with the axis of the earth or the earths horizon. look at the biblical evidence that support scientific theory such as: The universe expanding, the beginning of time, the description of creation, and so on and so forth.
@Strata1R briefly, you may not believe in the parting of the red seas, however this theory is supported by archaeological evidence in the gulf of acaba. It is believed that the parting of the red sea was caused by strong southeasterly winds which would have revealed a high water ridge which would have allowed the hebrew's to cross, and the waters would have crashed in on their egyptian pursuers.
@Strata1R Also, the flood of noah was considered to be regional rather than global, this was caused by a mistranslation from hebrew into english. there is evidence of a regional flood in ancient Mesopotamia.
@Strata1R Who created God? Well God exists outside of time therefor is not bound by the laws of physics, just as an automobile manufacturer is not bound by gasoline. So technically God has always existed in comparison to our time, considering their are no laws to restrict his behavior or his existence, God technically is infinite.
@Strata1R Also, considering that there are no laws to bound God, his existence is not defined or purposeful, considering God lives outside of the laws of physics and time and space, That would mean that God exists simply to exist. This is not some sort of cop out answer, If one is not bound by physical law such as time, then one's existence is not defined or purposeful. One would exist simply to exist.
@Strata1R This however does not mean that God does not have a purpose for his creation. The laws of physics are oriented in a way that life, if life was to come into being, has an obligation to search for knowledge ( This would explain evolution, natural (Godly) selection at its finest) The laws of physics are created so any forms of life would try and find the meaning, and purpose of its existence.
"This would explain evolution, natural (Godly) selection at its finest" Isn't it great that The Bible is written in such vague terms and surrounded with so many translation problems that someone like you can later incorporate Darwin's discoveries (17th centuries after the fact) and also defend it against it's own claims that the world is flat by mentioning "oh yea, that part is meant to be read in a symbolic matter, or haha it was a joke, disregard that sentence"...
@Strata1R ...and for both contexts to be matched up and be conveying the same message, which from a scientific stand point they do. It's not as if we have to disregard any part of the bible, it's just a matter of if you're conveying it in its proper context. No part of the bible should be disregarded, but rather regarded in its proper context.
@Strata1R Now, the key? To quote from something, and regard it as divine Scripture means the Scriptures had to already be in existence and circulating around the ancient world!! Which in turn drives the dating of the disciples writings back even earlier!! In the lifetime of contemporaries of Jesus Himself (30-70 A.D.)!!...(cont above)
@Strata1R You have, at best, vaguely answered my questions. You simply shrug off every response I give and affirm your position by demanding MORE from others. Once more, you resort to attacking the person-hood of people or diminishing Christians with insults by calling them "without reason" and so forth. I feel your stance is not one of the intellect but that of a PRE-determined will. May I ask: What would it take for you to believe? What would you need?
@thechristianknights ...How can any Christian be sure of anything that their holy book says, when there is always gonna be someone that can twist the words to mean something completely different? Again don't tie in science to The Bible. When science comes up with a half-assed theory that has to be later steered around its incongruencies, it is quickly challenged and soon dropped. But because The Bible cannot be modified with new information, more excuses have to be developed instead.
@Strata1R You don't have to bend the bible to match up with science, you simply read the bible in a scientific context, it matches up. plain and simple. No bending involved, simply read it in a scientific context and compare it to the way the author was conveying the message and see if it is possible for it to be true. IF the scripture was God breathed, and the author wrote it down in his own context (the context of that point and time) one could expect to compare the two...
You are right in that science cannot explain what caused the Big Bang, why it happened, or what was there before, but that doesn't mean that the religious explanation of "God created it" brings the situation any closer to clarity, because the questions then can be asked: Who created God?, Why does God exist? etc, and I refuse to accept the suggestion that God has always existed and closing the book on this argument, because I feel that such a conclusion is a cop out.
@Strata1R ...so if that is the case then we can not say religion is the worst evil. My point with that is not to drag down atheists and say you are "evil" but to say that all groups have done wrong things throughout history. What makes you think that if religion was eradicated that somehow utopia would arise? This would never happen. All that would happen would be the rise of another reason to fight, or another ideal (worship of state or something) would spring up to take its place...(cont)
@MrErskine01 Second, science supports the notion that the Universe DID have a beginning and that something OUTSIDE of itself (something ABOVE physics (metaphysical) above nature - super-natural) brought it into being. So the explanation for the universe can not be a physical or material explanation (this would be presupposing that material entities existed before they were created)....(cont above)
I am well informed about The Bible. I am also a realist. This book was written by 40 authors over many years, around 1800 years ago. People were very daft back then. The world was thought to be flat and, the seas were thought to be filled with leviathans that would swallow approaching ships, and people were convinced that the sun revolved around the Earth. I consider such stories as Noah's Arc, and the parting of the waters by Moses equally dim ideas by today's standards.
@Strata1R "People were very daft back then." Many are daft today as well. Since you are so informed about the Bible, then you must know about these very direct scientific observations made by some of the biblical authors: Trenches and mountains exist in the sea (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6); Springs and fountains exist in the sea (Genesis 7:11, 8:2; Proverbs 8:28); Health and sanitation (Book of Leviticus; Deuteronomy 23:12); Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)...(cont above)
@Strata1R ...Gravitational field of the Earth (Job 26:7); Law of increasing entropy (the universe is breaking down) (Psalm 102:25-27).....These are just a few. The point to all these scriptures is this: HOW could these people even MENTION these things (generally or specifically) back then (2000-3000 years ago) before scientific advancements were made to go deep into the ocean, know the earth suspends in space, or that springs exist in the waters? HOW would they know these things!?! (cont)
@Strata1R "This book was written by 40 authors over many years, around 1800 years ago." Think of this for a minute please: The Bible, a Collection of 66 books (39 in OT, 27 in NT); written by 40 authors; with different ethnic, political and social backgrounds; living in different locations: dozens of cities and towns; 3 continents (Africa, Europe, Asia); written in 3 different languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic); over a period of 1,500 years...(cont above)
@Strata1R ...The result of such differences? = Common drama, theme and message! (1) Drama (redemption from Genesis to Revelation; “Paradise Lost to Paradise Gained”); (2) Theme (Jesus Christ – OT is anticipation of Christ, NT is fulfillment of Christ); (3) Message (humankinds continual problem with sin and the solution being salvation through Christ). How could such diversity bring about such unity!?! Some of the men who wrote NEVER KNEW each other...(cont above)
@Strata1R "I consider such stories as Noah's Arc, and the parting of the waters by Moses equally dim ideas by today's standards." This is not based upon evidence but simply an already premeditated decision to deny miracles. Personal preferences do not affirm the non-existence of miracles. If God exists, miracles are possible. I believe in those miracles upon Faith - you likewise are denying those miracles upon Faith.
As far as miracles are concerned and also to conclude upon this argument, there is a staggering amount of scientific research that has been conducted on the topic of observable miracles specifically in the miraculous healing department. (Pope blessing the sick, people praying at or touching sacred monuments, drinking sacred water, etc.) No statistical evidence was ever found to support miracles...
...Furthermore, science has discredited the holy book all together a long time ago. This is why Evolution is taught in schools and Creationism isn't. It is time to move on, and accept science based reasoning, instead of focusing on religion's backward forms of non-reasoning. This is what I believe anyway.
@Strata1R First, Their are many creationist scientist who support the theory of a six thousand year universe, not just the stereotypical redneck from mobile, Alabama. There are physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, Mathematician's, Geologists, you name it there are christian fundamentalists rooted well within modern science. So, to say that science has disproved the theory of a six thousand year universe is probably correct, however there are scientists who say otherwise.
@Strata1R Second, the hebrew word for "day" in genesis, actually means "period", it is a common mistranslation in English bibles. Many post-modern christians support the theory that the biblical account of creation in the bible supports the scientific theory of how the universe came into being. It is likely that the universe is 14 billion years old, many christians, and jews are scared of this fact because it doesn't make G-d look as magical.
@Strata1R But the fact is G-d isn't magical. G-d doesn't work against the laws of physics, but with them. Why would G-d Create a set of laws (the laws of physics) and constantly break them? It simply doesn't add up. Miracles do not break physical law, but rather coincide with them. Christians and jews today do not need to be scared of this fact, they simply need to accept that the laws of physics WERE set in place by G-d, so for G-d to break them to create the universe simply doesn't make sense.
@Strata1R Many atheists would argue that this is a God 2.0 theory(The theory that theists change aspects of God to keep up with modern science, and keep the case for God alive) This simply is not true. The fact is the more we know about science The more we no longer have to put hollow theories about creation in place of them, We don't have to strain to try to keep the bible alive. We don't have to find scientific evidence that supports the bible,but rather biblical evidence that supports science
@Strata1R Many theists would say trying to find biblical evidence that supports science is wrong, however, IF we are to believe G-d has set in place all that exists we must then believe that G-d set science, and the laws of physics in place as well. So to say that it's wrong to use biblical evidence to support science, simply isn't true. The Bible and the laws of physics are both creations of G-d, so to say it's wrong to use biblical evidence to support science Is simply not true.
@Strata1R I am in no way saying that science is "the new bible" I'm simply saying that If the bible is true, which we as the faithful believe it is, then there would be no reason to bend science to our favor. The bible should simply coincide with science, and scientific theories. Not to say that the bible is a scientific book, because it is not, but to say if our ancestors actually wrote god breathed scripture then we would expect their theories to line up with modern ones.
All the arguments you make are with the ASSUMPTION that God exists, you have not made any valid claims, nor have provided any evidence to coincide with your OPINION. You have said that "We don't have to find scientific evidence that supports the bible, but rather biblical evidence that supports science." However, I have provided you with many examples where The Bible DIRECTLY says that our planet is flat, thereby going AGAINST science. The fact of the matter is...
there are many, many such examples where The Bible is purely wrong. We are currently at a point in history where you have to make a choice between believing in science or believing in The Bible. There is no in-between. The two disciplines completely oppose each other. You also argue that " The Bible and the laws of physics are both creations of God." If this was true we would see some logic parallels between the two things, but such parallels don't exist...
@Strata1R Firstly, understanding any of the passages you even listed requires using correct exegesis – not a “cookie-cutter-approach” of picking and choosing what you want. In Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicle 16:30 passages, the word “fixed” is “kuwn” meaning “established” – which means that the world is established AS IS not that it does not move…(immovable from its established course!!)....(cont above)
@Strata1R How can this be? Because, secondly, the Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (mowt) is in the niphal stem, in these verses, which often “refers to the passive voice.” In short, “to be moved or not to be moved suggests the action of an external or causative agent to bring about change in position,” BUT does not mean the impossibility of motion. Exegesis is vital before you take passages out of context… (cont above)
@Strata1R As for the flat earth myth – or incorrect exegesis of the passages: First, the Daniel 4:10-11 passage is a statement BY A PAGAN king which doesn’t mean that the Bible endorses that point of view, it simply records it. Second, the passage describes a VISION, and is therefore not intended to be a picture of reality any more than Pharaoh’s dream to Joseph of “cannibalistic cows and cannibalistic ears of wheat” is a picture of reality (Genesis 41)…(cont above)
@Strata1R As for the Isaiah 40:22 passage. How does this confirm a flat earth? The Hebrew word for circle also means “sphere.” No problem here. “the circle of the earth” (the Hebrew word for “circle” can also mean a “sphere”)...(cont above)
@Strata1R Matthew 4:8 – Seriously? This passage confirms a flat earth??? That is completely taking this passage incorrectly. First, it is not to give a geological survey of the earth. Second, you can not show that it is showing the belief in a flat earth...(cont above)
@Strata1R Third, this is a discussion between Satan and Jesus – if you read Luke 4:5, which says, “The devil led him up to a high place, and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world,” you see that this was a supernatural event (instant perhaps). Of course having a presupposition against miracles right from the start will lead to denial of such an event…(cont above)
@Strata1R “Furthermore, science has discredited the holy book all together a long time ago.” Give prove not vagueness. First, AGAIN, the Bible is NOT – I REPEAT NOT – a Science book. It has scientific claims within it, but that is not its central focus. It is revelation. It is a story of redemption from paradise lost to paradise gained - it is theological firstly then philisophical and scientific secondly....(cont)
@Strata1R “Religion's backward forms of non-reasoning.” You have again deliberately overlooked all the famous intellectuals I listed – AND MANY MORE like them – that HELD religious convictions that motivated them to REASON, postulate, theorize and create! It is simply false what you are saying. Further, name one way I have been “non-reasoning” in our discussion? How am I “stupider” than you? With that, I have to ask, who really is the bigot here?...(cont above)
@Strata1R “There is a staggering amount of scientific research that has been conducted on the topic of observable miracles specifically in the miraculous healing department.” Name them. Tell me, have you observed every possible person in human history who has affirmed a miracle happened to them? I think not. Then, how would you know that NO MIRACLES have ever occurred?...(cont above)
@Strata1R “there are many, many such examples where The Bible is purely wrong.” Please name them. Further, the “dead on accuracy of mathematics” dealing with gravity is false. Firstly, we do not know with 100% certainty if such calculations would apply in other parts of the universe…(cont above)
@Strata1R Your logic is flawed in your argument. It doesn’t not necessarily follow that (1) God created the laws of physics and mathematics with high precision and complexity, (2) God has not revealed Himself with high precision and complexity in the Bible, (3) therefore the Bible is not the Word of God. This is flawed. 1 and 2 do not necessarily follow to (3)…Why? (cont above)
@Strata1R First, you would need to prove that 1 and 2 are NECESSARILY true – which doesn’t seem possible. You would have to show that God would HAVE TO show Himself at such a high complexity in His Word. How would you do that unless you were literally the Mind of God? God may have sufficient reasons for revealing Himself sufficiently but not totally....(cont above)
@Strata1R Further, your point that “God MUST have created EVERYTHING based on at least an equal level of precision and complexity” is brash. Why assume that He MUST do this? Perhaps He has sufficient reasons not to?...(cont above)
@Strata1R “The Bible is written, it's style in no way resembles how reality is structured.” What ever do you mean? How does it not resemble reality? Because it is not precise and complex? Well then I guess humans do not represent REALITY because many of us are not precise or complex in thinking....(cont above)
@Strata1R “It is written in a very vague and simple matter. This is because it wasn't written by God but by man…” Again, how can something be flawed simply because it is vague? Second, you seem to be ASSUMING a requirement from God – that HE MUST BE PRECISE! How do you know He does not have sufficient reasons for allowing us LIMITED but SUFFICIENT knowledge of Him? Are you in the Mind of God?...cont above
"how can something be flawed simply because it is vague? Second, you seem to be ASSUMING a requirement from God – that HE MUST BE PRECISE!"
I look at the world and see how precise it is, then I look at The Bible and see how limited its explanation of things are. I also have seen the many different translations of The Bible and have seen stark differences in the many translations. God has to be a logical being that doesn't deceive because deception is considered a sin...
@Strata1R “The New Testament was actually ordered into existence by a Christian ruler in Rome for the purpose in controlling the populace he ruled over.” This is completely false. The Council of Nicaea 325 A.D. did not “order the existence” of the Bible, or any other ecumenical council in the first 500 years of Christianity. The New Testament autographs were written in the lifetime of the disciples (30-90 A.D.)....(cont above)
...but that is exactly what The Bible seems to be doing with it's stories of Noah being able to fit all known species on a boat, and Moses being able to part the waters. Why would God come up with a comprehensive law of physics and then allow it to be broken by certain people? It doesn't make sense. These are nothing but fables that have been created by man and have nothing to do with God. My personal belief is this. Since I think the idea of The Bible as a source of truth...
@Strata1R (b) Understanding the Doctrine of Revelation establishes that The WORD OF GOD refers to the ORIGINAL manuscripts as crafted by the original writers – thus although our translations are highly accurate, they still contain minor (yet insignificant) “flaws” or “differences” (minor punctuation, lettering and so forth). ...(cont above)
@Strata1R The original manuscripts were inerrant and wholly inspired. Inspiration is a product of the TEXT of the original writings (autographs) – not the manuscripts (copies)...
(3) Third, we can not have our cake and eat it too. You are saying, “God does not exist” in one hand and yet in another “God must be logical and un-deceptive.” ...(cont above)
@Strata1R “Why would God come up with a comprehensive law of physics and then allow it to be broken by certain people? It doesn't make sense.”(1) Firstly, “certain people” do not make miracles occur – God is the Causative Agent behind the execution of miraculous events. Individuals (i.e. Moses, Elijah, Peter, Paul) are the “conduits” if you will, or the instruments, through which God worked (works) miraculously. Thus, people do not cause miracles, God does….(cont above)
@Strata1R I have failed to see its untrustworthiness, its “denial of reality” or its fallacious contexts as you say. Further, although followers of a particular religion may do wrong things or appalling things, this does not verify the religion itself is wrong – unless that religion explicitly espouses such actions (which the Bible does not)....(cont above)
@Strata1R “Christians are not more moral than nonbelievers.” I agree. However, the issue is not about one being more moral than the other but more fundamentally: WHERE do those morals come from for both atheists and theists? Where are those objective moral values grounded? Where does right and wrong come from!?!..(cont above)
@Strata1R ...Why assume He must be logical and un-deceptive unless you believe in the God of the Bible – which the Bible affirms HE IS logical and truthful? The basis you use for asserting God “must be a certain way” is inadvertently using a biblical view of God – yet you say there is no God of the Bible. Which is it?..(Cont above)
@Strata1R (4) Fourth, So your criteria for deception is simply because the Bible contains miracles? Well, when one has a pre-determined opinion that “miracles can not happen” then of course the only explanation left with such incidences (Ark, parting Red Sea..act) is that “they are lies.” However, you would need to prove miracles CAN NOT occur. Can you?
@Strata1R (2) Secondly, it seems you are saying that, by definition, miracles are “violations of nature” and thus “don’t make sense.” Several things can be said: (a) you are putting a subtle moral quality to miracles right from start by saying they are “violations” of nature. If there is no God, which you say, then how can there be any “objective violations” at all?...(cont above)
@Strata1R “I will believe in a religion that treats nonbelievers as well as believers, that wouldn't force to "save" the unwilling.”
The God of the Bible does not FORCE the salvation of the unwilling. The Bible affirms free choice and people choose their own destiny. God urges us to come to Him but, as C. S. Lewis said, “He can not ravish, He can only woo.” God loves us so much – the Creator of existence itself loves us – and YET He will not overhaul our will, our choices...(cont above)
@Strata1R In a naturalist worldview, good and bad is simply subjective, mere taste – and in the end meaningless. Natural systems do not have morals – they are deterministic, and instinctive. Humans however are not instinctive nor deterministic by nature, we are rational agents, and moral agents who know right and wrong, good and bad and act or do not act accordingly. GOD is the foundation for moral values.
@Strata1R ...What does it mean to violate something or “break a rule” in a purely naturalistic worldview? Where is the foundation for such rules, and morally loaded wording?...(cont above)
Amazingly, here in Brazil, there are people who do not know that there is the term "new atheism" to refer to atheists with different behavior of atheists.
Logosapologetica 1 day ago
Unfortunately for Mr. Lane here...his moderate view of his "religion" gives support to the fundamentalists of his religion. Islamic moderates do the same for their fundamentalists.
The only answer is to get rid of religion, have basic moral laws (which we can come up with less any religious book) and then go forward as species. Until then we will always be held back by ancient dogma.
djkoch65 1 month ago
@djkoch65 If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist...so what basic law could you, as an atheist, be referring to?
ChristianApologics 2 weeks ago
@ChristianApologics The ONLY reason you believe is because of your parents...if not your parents then your community...if not your community then your church. Any way that you look at it you were indoctirnated into religion. So, without your magically mystery man in the sky...you would have to rely on yourself not to kill, steal or make golden statues..in basic form..i wont kill you if you dont kill me. Point is the book you all believe in is cruch for your weaknesses...written by weak men.
djkoch65 2 weeks ago
@djkoch65 The only reason you believe the earth is round is because you were born in 1900s and not the 1100s. Does that make you wrong because you were born in a different era?
As for morals being invented by man...I ask you, if a society accepted rape and murder, would that be ok because the society is culturally different? No reasonable person would think so. So your premise makes no sense whatsoever.
As for the men of the Bible, their legacy speaks for itself, and I don't need to defend it.
ChristianApologics 2 weeks ago
@ChristianApologics There is no "legacy" of the bible, it is a delusion that has just been "set" in society by powerful people who knew how to control the weak minded. One thing I notice about the "religious" is they always need to stick up for their book even though it filled with inacuracies, total BS and a mix of some truth to give it validity just like a piece of chain-mail. The odds are against your book. Eventually, belief in it will erode. Not completed but enough.
djkoch65 2 weeks ago
@djkoch65 Ok, feel free to give me some examples in inaccuracies (nice spelling, btw). Also, way to answer my questions, you're a champ. Now, the Bible pretty specifically says that the earth is a sphere, that the wind has set patterns, that the ocean has currents, that blood is necessary for life, and that running water is necessary for cleanliness. These things weren't discovered until the last 100-150 years ago. So tell me, were the writers just really, really lucky?
ChristianApologics 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
djkoch65 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChristianApologics You must be an Answers In Genesis person who believes somehow that the bible is some sort of science book. It is folklore plain and simple that has been bastardized over and over, again, by people who wish to control others. It worked well because you can no longer think for yourself as you let the book do it for you. And thank you for the spelling lesson...I forgot I was on the dictionary forum.
djkoch65 2 weeks ago
The entire time I was a Christian I wanted to believe so much that I allowed myself to be deceived by the arguments made by people such as the guests of one minute apologist. It's amazing what happens when you finally say to yourself "it isn't true." It is such a freeing experience. You don't have to lie to yourself anymore! I urge you to question your faith. View it from an outsiders prospective. Don't just nod your head 'yes' to the arguments that these people are making. Think for yourself!
ggallin08 1 month ago
lllll
HaloSparta 1 month ago
His first point is disgusting. Islam is not the religion of peace, but it has a far better claim to the title than Christianity, which stems from worshippers of a tribal god who in the past ordered acts of total war vicious even for their day - Mohammad, at least, claimed these accounts were corrupted. Both, however, spread by the sword, one from Rome, the other from Damascus, Baghdad, and Córdoba, and both from Istanbul. Islam is just slightly uglier right now.
IoEstasCedonta 1 month ago
Click like if you think wlc is a fucking moron
outlaw87100 1 month ago
Google Norway's quality of life and their lack of belief.
MrJTewell 2 months ago
You get lumped together with Islamic fundamentalists because you have EXACTLY the same twisted mindset that opens the door for violent acts being played out 'in the name of god'
RADICAL ideologies such as saying that religion isn't a source of objective truth??
Quick, shut down the universities - they are too radical! LOL
Craig clearly lives in some alternate reality.
Hufflewaffle 3 months ago
Religion is not an objective truth but does that mean that there isn't a God or an afterlife? Doe that mean that it doesn't serve a purpose and reveal valuable things about human nature and society?
boonskety 3 months ago
WLC doesn't quite get the problem that Fundies are Fundies. Islamic, Christian, or otherwise.
It's funny to hear that the excuse for the loss of christianity's appeal is a generations-long conspiracy theory as opposed to actual issues with the religion itself.
Mathenaut 3 months ago
@Mathenaut Its loss of appeal has been going on much longer than the fundies would have you believe. Take in point the fact that most of Europe is overwhelmingly non-religious or outright athiest. They have had centuries more time to get sick and tired of the nonsense of the church. Bear in mind, they are also the countries who have had a direct hand in actual Holy Wars in Christianity's name.
OkamsRazer 1 month ago
@Mathenaut I believe the main reason the US is lagging is because right from our very start we were viewed as a haven for the nutbars of society (often the uber religious). Sure, in our founding years there were people also here for the sake of economic gain, the finding of freedom from political oppression, and a host of other good reasons.
It still remains true regardless that we floundered in a sea of half baked messiahs, crackpots and those believing in Divine Mandate.
OkamsRazer 1 month ago
@OkamsRazer
US is lagging due to regular old corruption and greed. Religion is being used as a tool toward an ignoble end in that arena. In that sense, the crime of the religious is their ignorance, and how they are willing to cripple themselves and sacrifice freedoms if they are led to believe it is upholding their religious imperative - As dictated to them.
But, not all religions have this problem.
Mathenaut 1 month ago
@Mathenaut All religions by their very nature are corrupt because they denigrate the intrinsic quality of humankind. I am an athiest and I personally do not believe that we necessarily have immortal souls (to which as a man of science I also cannot say it's not possible). Once any religion expects us to be groveling and cowing to a supernatural figure that must fear AND love whether it be Yahweh, Vishnu, The Great Turtle or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (yes last one is a joke).
OkamsRazer 1 month ago
@OkamsRazer
That's the thing. Look at the religions outside of Christianity and it's clones in Judiasm/Islam. The Asatru do not fear their gods, neither do the Wiccans or many of the pre-christian religions. Hindu's Shiva is feared, but not in the same sense as the christian god (though, Hindu's issues fall within political corruption entrenched with it's caste system).
Buddhism is an example of a religion that has evolved well beyond it's violent roots.
Mathenaut 1 month ago
@Mathenaut Buddhism HAS no violent roots, nor is it a religion. It has no concept of a God. You ask a buddhist who God is and he wont say Buddha (or if he does he aint no Buddhist), because Buddha is revered as the first human soul to reach Nirvana but it existed before him and it is not He who gives grace, salvation or even aid in such. They intrinsically believe that every human is "on his own" for his or her own "salvation" towards Nirvana.
OkamsRazer 1 month ago
@OkamsRazer
Firstly, you should probably read up on the history of Buddhism.
Secondly, while it has no gods, it does have rigid beliefs and dogmas. Despite that, there is a reason that it doesn't hold the same negative connotation that Christianity does.
Mathenaut 1 month ago
@Mathenaut Yes, I am aware there are some sects of Buddhism which would be considered "Theist" in that they still retain reference to ancient Gods of their cultures, but their core discipline and dogma do NOT establish Buddha as a God.
OkamsRazer 1 month ago
@OkamsRazer
It has little to do with 'gods' in the same sense. But it does advocate an active belief in the supernatural. That is an important distinction.
Mathenaut 1 month ago
@Mathenaut I will grant you that but its no more a "religion" than ancestor worship then.
OkamsRazer 1 month ago
Uhh.. Christianity doesn't have the clean slate as Mr. Craig likes to suggest. The only difference between it and Islam is simply because one has been changed and modernized throughout the ages.
ApatheticOmniscience 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
what a cunt
badgerboyUK 4 months ago
Craig.
Ought to change his surname to `IF`
naybobdenod 5 months ago
The muslims of today are the same as the christians of the dark ages. The crusade is no longer about a temple but proving your belief more right than someone else's.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 6 months ago
It's VERY VERY VERY sad, that a person like Mr. Craig, could point fingers to Islam, while he doesn't seem to realize that today's Islam(or Islam in general), is almost identical with the middle age Christianity.
So while Christianity was FORCED into submission by reason and logic TO SOME EXTENT,not entirely(sadly), Islam kept it's pace.
The evidence for the claims of both religions are near to 0,yet he sadly takes Christianity's side because it not as kuku(...well not anymore,that is) as Islam.
mihaimoldo 6 months ago
It's true, Atheist grow in America will lead Islam to take over it!
More Strength to Less
Christian > Islam > Atheist > Hinduism > Buddhism
fightforfair 7 months ago
Craig's a weasel, and intelligent, rational people see through his convoluted arguments. Others, not so much. Let's face it - he's not trying to appeal to intelligent people. He's after a different demographic.
I have a T-shirt that says:
god = square root of -1
Funny how I get one of two reactions:
1. "I like your shirt!"
2. "What does that mean?”
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Craig's a weasel?? Dr. Craig is world renown philosopher and well respected by his peers both secular and Christian. Even Christopher Hitchens said that Craig was great scholar. You're just a hater with nothing of substance to say.
AegeanKing 7 months ago
@AegeanKing
"Dr. Craig is world renown philosopher and well respected by his peers "
Which, if true, only goes to show that philosophy has reached a dead end.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
The rise of this "New Atheist Movement" is very heartwarming. Is it not fair to lump christianity in with Islam? The radicals are only people who take the words of "Holy Books" literally. Islams foundation is exactly the same as that of christianity, there is as much evidence as there is to support any other religion, (none).
If I released a drug that makes the majority of users very happy but turns some into psychopaths, would that drug not be dangerous? vile?
mehico33 7 months ago
@mehico33 Nice job proving Craig's point. It's really sad to see so many non-believers nowadays.... :(
Halfturretslicer 6 months ago
@Halfturretslicer Which point? Get used to it man, the number of unbelievers will continue to rise as long as religion continues making no sense and over stepping its boundaries.
mehico33 6 months ago
@mehico33 The point that Christianity nowadays is being "tarred with the same broad brush" as Islam. Believe me, I'm used to the growing number of non-believers in recent years, but again, it's sad to see it happening.... :(
Halfturretslicer 6 months ago
@Halfturretslicer Are you able to defend the notion that it is not right to compare the two? I just dont see it, clearly they teach different things, I just find it a bit more efficient to wipe away all religions in one swing. Of course they could be broken down individually but why?
mehico33 6 months ago
@mehico33 There's more evidence for Christianity: Jesus.
Halfturretslicer 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Halfturretslicer
"here's more evidence for Christianity: Jesus."
How so? There's no evidence for the existence of Jesus. But even if you'd grant his existence, along with all the miracles, it would still not give any special meaning to anything Jesus said or be evidence for the existence of a god.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@mehico33 Except the evidence for Christianity is overwhelming, as opposed to say atheism, which is very far fetched.
crazyliclay 4 months ago
@crazyliclay Thats hilarious dude, the historicity of jesus in very much in question, based solely on eye witness accounts (the very weakest form of evidence) which are widely acknowledged to have been written some 100 years after the event supposedly took place.
Evidence for atheism? Now thats a bizarre concept, atheism is the rejection of one particular assertion. Atheism does not require evidence. Similarly you do not need to present evidence to justify your unbeleif in Fairies.
mehico33 4 months ago
@mehico33 no but you have to believe something and for that you have to give evidence. So what do you believe?
crazyliclay 4 months ago
@crazyliclay Ok ill bite, I do have my own level of faith. I have faith in the efforts of man to one day overcome bronze age superstition, to one day be mature enough to solve their/our problems with words and thoughts, to solve the big problems (hunger, pollution etc), to discover the secrets of reality and reap the benefits that will flow from it. I can only base these hopes on what we've already acheived, no guarantee a meteor wont take us out lol. I dont mean to sound like a jerk BTW.
mehico33 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mehico33 You didn't answer my question. What do you believe? you cannot attack my beliefs and not give me a chance to dispute yours.
crazyliclay 4 months ago
@mehico33 we will never solve hunger and pollution, it is a result of the ultimately godless civilization that started since ancient times.
Ending govt altogether would be the best solution.
ptbwf 4 months ago
@ptbwf Youd have to show the numbers to back that up, I think a government that applies logic would be a nice start. Dont waste time on silly bullshit that hurts nobody (gay marriage, weed etc). Weigh it up mathematically, joy vs sorrow, pleasure vs pain (only to the best of our abilities of course but its a start).
No, its the result of a selfish species consuming more energy than it returns to the ecosystem, a species who is too successful, who overpopulates. God isnt part of the equation.
mehico33 4 months ago
@mehico33
Gay marriage and weed aren't harmless.
Every decision that a govt makes will hurt someone in someway, most likely many people in many ways, the only way to take the seemingly "necessary" pain away is getting rid of govt.
ptbwf 4 months ago
@ptbwf Another statement you will need to back up as all evidence is to the contrary.
You speak of "getting rid of govt" yet it is all that protects you from more muscular, more intelligent opposition. The only thing that ensures you get equal opportunities in life as other members of your nation. Goverment is structure, without it there would be no infrastructure and no protection for the weak.
Other nations will recognise that there is power in numbers and will dominate you for your resources.
mehico33 4 months ago
@mehico33
anarchy MUST be global in order for it to work.
If a person is smarter and stronger than me, then my living will hurt their mental and physical strength if they live equally with me, that is just a fact. If I am strong enough and smart enough to survive, then I will.
If you destroy the strongest among us(which, make no mistake about it, the strongest among us are getting weakened), we will be weak and unable to survive as a species, permanently.
ptbwf 4 months ago
@ptbwf Anarchy will never work, what will stop the cunning from simply taking from the weak minded? You seem to be proposing survival of the fittest, or perhaps you imagine that society will police itself, punish its own rapists and theives, that is still govt. Simply a weaker form of it.
What harm has government caused? War? that is simply a magnification, us vs them as opposed to me vs you, a working out of kinks. Anomalies will always occur, structure keeps us together despite this
mehico33 4 months ago
@mehico33
anarchy has already worked for as long as it had to for people to develop civilization, it can work again to diminish the damage that civilization ultimately caused.
EVERY time government taxes, regulates, casts a ruling etc, it is causing irreparable harm to someone somewhere, therefore no govt can preside over an equal and just country or world.
Even in protecting the weak and attempting to be fair to the stronger of society, govts will hurt both.
ptbwf 4 months ago
@ptbwf The reason we banded together and formed communities is that anarchy was not working, we quickly learned that survival was a lot easier as a group, then how do you unite groups? Stop one from harming the other? You impose rules. The suffering you focus on seems terrible as it stands out, its not normal anymore, but evolution only demands so much adaptation as life is a battle by its very nature, suffering has always been here.
Without structured society it would still be lion vs gazelle
mehico33 4 months ago
@mehico33
no, the only reason why we were able to band together was because we aren't monsters(somehow) and we can survive easily without govt.
Science actually created society(and ultimately supply and demand), not really the need to get out of a lawless world, also the success of people in anarchy created civilization.
ptbwf 4 months ago
@ptbwf "because we arent monsters(somehow)", life has many forms, we happen to be animals (as opposed to bacteria, similar patterns but different), animals by nature are self serving, this is driven by a will to survive. We all have our tendencies and always have, those tendencies lead us to do things that cause each other harm, law prevents us doing those things (to a large extent).
"success of people in anarchy created civilization" does this not undermine your stance?
mehico33 4 months ago
p.s. thanks for allowing comments. Drcraigvideos posts a ton of stuff by WLC but heavily censors his comments and blocks users. Keep dialogue alive!
drumrnva 7 months ago 2
But...but...this is longer than a minute! Seriously, there are a lot of us non-believers out here who are skeptical of theism in general, but we recognize the clear differences between general Christianity and radical Islam. We think, we read, we listen, we ponder, we reason, we ask questions. We remain unconvinced by the "evidence" given for theism. We object to wishful thinking and telling people how they should behave in their private lives. We consider life precious and fleeting.
drumrnva 7 months ago
Lol--Craig cannot defend his religion so instead he puts the blame on the rise in atheism on the shoulders of the Muslims. In Craig's mind the rise in atheism could not be because his religion makes no sense when analyzed critically--so he has to find some other excuse. So just like Christian men blame women for sin, they now blame Muslims for atheism...lol. Maybe they should look in the mirror and take some responsibly themselves. Pathetic
atheistprophet5760 8 months ago
@atheistprophet5760 You are an idiot who is obsessed with his own unbelief as your idiotic screenname shows clearly. Craig is the foremost Christian apologist alive today and when he debated Christopher Hitchens the atheist website "commonsenseatheism" said that Craig spanked Hitchens like a small child. You are a pathetic troglodyte who is so obsessed with his own unbelief that he insists on trolling theist videos. I feel sorry for you.
AegeanKing 8 months ago
@AegeanKing I have already refuted every single one of Craig's arguments. In fact, they were refuted by others long ago as well. Craig is a poor scholar, but talented at debate. I would eat him for breakfast.
atheistprophet5760 7 months ago
@atheistprophet5760 correction* I would get eaten for breakfast...
IsaacP150 7 months ago
@IsaacP150 No, I was right the first time.
atheistprophet5760 7 months ago
@atheistprophet5760 If you genuinely believe you would be able to take on Craig, the foremost defender of the christian faith, in a debate and win then you are certainly deluded...
IsaacP150 7 months ago
@IsaacP150 No I am not actually. Go read my blog. I am a professor of philosophy and religion, and I actually invite my students to bring their minister/pastor/preacher/priest to class to participate in the discussions. Every time this happens, they have to admit the truth, or look like idiots because they know that I know what they know. I get many "converts" this way. I love those days.....:)
atheistprophet5760 7 months ago
@atheistprophet5760 I've had a look at your blogs and they've strengthened my faith in God. So thank you very much Professor.
IsaacP150 7 months ago
@IsaacP150 But can you counter them with better arguments? I didn't think so.
atheistprophet5760 7 months ago
@atheistprophet5760 Do you mean can I counter your counter arguments? The only positive argument I find you using is the absence of evidence. From what I saw, your blog is mostly full of responses to Dr Craig's arguments for the existence of God and others.
IsaacP150 7 months ago
@IsaacP150 You obviously do not understand the meaning of arguments. If you can offer BETTER explanations than mine, please feel free to do so. I'll be waiting....:)
atheistprophet5760 7 months ago
@atheistprophet5760 No from what I read you were responding to Craig's Moral argument for the existence of God. I wasn't reading actual arguments against the existence of God on your blog. But the fact that you recommend Richard Dawkin's "The God delusion" gives me the impression that you are not really a serious philosopher.
IsaacP150 7 months ago
@IsaacP150 And still--you offer no counter to my arguments against what Craig said. Dawkins makes some good points, and I also recommend various other texts, which I use in class.
atheistprophet5760 7 months ago
Comment removed
atheistprophet5760 8 months ago
WLC you hypocrit. yes we cast you in the same box with islam. i heard it from your own words, you said that if god commanded you to commit murder it wouldnt be murder because god commanded it. so what guarantees me that tomorrow christians are not going to commit all sorts of atrocities in the name of god? that you preach love? well, hypocrisy exists.
sirdelrio 9 months ago
@sirdelrio If you're familiar with Craig's work you will also be aware that he is highly skeptical of people of any Christian who claims that God commanded them to commit atrocities. He believes that IF God commanded it it would not be murder but that this so unusual for God that it has only happened once before in history. Don't accuse WLC of hypocrisy while you're willing to quote him out of context.
remise2 8 months ago
@remise2 The 'No true Scotsman' fallacy does not fix the fact that divine command theory makes room for atrocities. The question is why is Craig skeptical. The bible has more evidence for an angry god than for a loving one. and the atrocities were not unusual, the whole bible is filled with god-commanded-genocide. all one has to do to see the true colors of yaweh is read the bible. and he is a hypocrit, not for this video, but for his double standards and special pleading.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
@1dionysius You're right, in the last debate I watched, Craig seemed to admit that all the evidence points to a much older world. Although, he never actually denounced creationism.
As far as football fans acting "religiously" I can agree that some would appear to love their team or sport above themselves and/or even practice what may appear to be rituals. But no fan that I know, would actually place their team above their own wellbeing, or the wellbeing of their children. Most religious would.
Braxtonmccoy 9 months ago
It's honestly embarrassing that some listen to William Lane Craig's lies and never check them. (objectively)
New atheism? He's just trying to find a way to make a "religion" of non-belief.
Why don't you tell us all about how you're a young earth creationist Craig? Because not even most Christians can buy into that ridiculous rhetoric. If you lie about something that large, even just one thing (Believe me I have heard much more than just one, from Craig) than you've lost all credibility.
Braxtonmccoy 9 months ago
MR. Craig is not an academic. You cannot call yourself an academic if you selectively choose where in your thoughts to apply logic, reason, and critical thinking. Being an atheist is not a choice i made. My brain/ conscience wont allow me to believe in Jesus, God, Allah, Vishnu anymore than Mother Goose, Rumplestiltskin, or Simba from the Lion King. I see how Galileo must have felt with 95% of the world believing the earth was flat.
MrKGatl 9 months ago
@MrKGatl your brain wont allow you to choose in what you believe? your saying that your brain is a seperate entity inside of you controlling you then? write carefully. You have a choice,everyone does.
everio17 9 months ago
@everio17 Actually yes, my brain is inside of me controlling me. And I just mean that there are truths, theories, fact, etc that I cannot merely choose to ignore or replace with falsehoods or meaningless superstitions.
MrKGatl 9 months ago
No they don't lump christians with islam or jihadists, I think they would agree that islam is a far less tolarant religion than christianity,Dawkins was debating long before 9/11 though Hitch/Harris more so after,and as for the rest of the public at large, are you saying they didn't think about god,life and the meaning of exsistance before 9/11? NO the reason its growing is because are understanding is growing and less and less people are ignorrant to the truth of reality, God did it wont wash.
EmpiricalMind 9 months ago
"renowned scholar and philosopher,"
Hahaa! HAHAHAA. He is only "renowned" with people who swallow his inane ideas hook, line and sinker. Nobody outside of apologetics takes his inane, empty, vapid excuse for a philosophy seriously. He gets curb-stomped EVERY time he engages in a debate with people who use reason as a base for their arguments.
MomoTheBellyDancer 10 months ago
@Strata1R Simply put, the “testimony of an event cannot be refuted by experiences and observations.” In short, we can not refute testimony because that testimony is outside our present experiences and perceptions. As George Campbell asserted, “Miracles are different events (contraria) from experience in general, but not contradictory events (contradictoria) to experience in general.” ....cont above
MrErskine01 10 months ago
@Strata1R ...BUT at most these observations only show that a resurrection, a Red Sea parting, or miraculous healing is “NATURALLY impossible.” This is a matter of Science. However, this DOES NOT prove that such a “naturally impossible” event has NEVER occurred. That is a matter of history. And history is the realm of the collection of eyewitness testimony, archeology and evidence....cont above
MrErskine01 10 months ago
"The issue is the moral worth concern...If the human is EQUAL to an ape in intellect, love, compassion, mercy, hate, frustration, and conceptualization – as you claim (which I wholly disagree) – then WHAT is it then that makes them SPECIAL as YOU do say!?!"
My moral concern with regarding the human species as being separate from the animal kingdom is the establishment of the idea that humans are far superior to nature and therefore human wellbeing should far outweigh that of every other...
Strata1R 10 months ago
ON HUMANS & ANIMALS: We agree that humans and animals are the same in terms of the parts that make them. Yet you believe that animals aren't capable of love and compassion, able to make their own decisions, or learn. I assure you they can do all these things. I recommend you research Jane Goodall's work yourself for I don't have time to list all the findings of her research here.
Strata1R 11 months ago
...The Bible and therefore Christianity as a whole lie on no true foundation. They are both false, just like the conception of the Earth as flat, or as the idea of a talking snake.
Strata1R 11 months ago
@Strata1R First, the bible was not written by God this is clear, however the bible was written by men who followed God, By men who had a great understanding of him. God worked through these men to get his word out, the bible is not a science book. The bible is simply a book that gives insight to God, human history, the human condition, and parts of science.
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@Strata1R The bible does not claim the earth is flat, the books that you get this from are the poetic books, and the prophetic books of the bible, books that often use symbolism. To say the earth has foundations is referring to the axis of the earth, the earth is immovable from its axis. Also in the book of matthew the devil takes Jesus to look at all of the kingdoms on a high mountain, it is understood by bible scholars that of course they could not see all of the kingdoms of the earth...
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@Strata1R ...Though the people of ancient palestine weren't the smartest of people they knew well enough that you could not see all of the kingdoms of the earth from a mountain, this was clear, and to say that this is some sort of flat earth reference is false, the verse has nothing to do with the geology of planet earth, but rather the symbolism of christ's soul to the devil.
thechristianknights 11 months ago
Respond to this video... And What? to say that the new testament was written by a "ruler in Rome" This has no historical basis whatsoever. I assume the ruler you were referring to is constantine, however this statement is false constantine ruled at least 200 years after the new testament was written.
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@Strata1R There are copy's of the new testament that predate Constantine, who was the first christian ruler of rome so to say that he wrote them for some propagandistic reason is simply based on false historical assumption.
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@Strata1R So to conclude on the immovable earth statement all of the biblical verses that refer either to an immovable earth or a flat earth either have to relate with the axis of the earth or the earths horizon. look at the biblical evidence that support scientific theory such as: The universe expanding, the beginning of time, the description of creation, and so on and so forth.
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@Strata1R briefly, you may not believe in the parting of the red seas, however this theory is supported by archaeological evidence in the gulf of acaba. It is believed that the parting of the red sea was caused by strong southeasterly winds which would have revealed a high water ridge which would have allowed the hebrew's to cross, and the waters would have crashed in on their egyptian pursuers.
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@Strata1R Also, the flood of noah was considered to be regional rather than global, this was caused by a mistranslation from hebrew into english. there is evidence of a regional flood in ancient Mesopotamia.
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@Strata1R Who created God? Well God exists outside of time therefor is not bound by the laws of physics, just as an automobile manufacturer is not bound by gasoline. So technically God has always existed in comparison to our time, considering their are no laws to restrict his behavior or his existence, God technically is infinite.
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@Strata1R Also, considering that there are no laws to bound God, his existence is not defined or purposeful, considering God lives outside of the laws of physics and time and space, That would mean that God exists simply to exist. This is not some sort of cop out answer, If one is not bound by physical law such as time, then one's existence is not defined or purposeful. One would exist simply to exist.
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@Strata1R This however does not mean that God does not have a purpose for his creation. The laws of physics are oriented in a way that life, if life was to come into being, has an obligation to search for knowledge ( This would explain evolution, natural (Godly) selection at its finest) The laws of physics are created so any forms of life would try and find the meaning, and purpose of its existence.
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@thechristianknights
"This would explain evolution, natural (Godly) selection at its finest" Isn't it great that The Bible is written in such vague terms and surrounded with so many translation problems that someone like you can later incorporate Darwin's discoveries (17th centuries after the fact) and also defend it against it's own claims that the world is flat by mentioning "oh yea, that part is meant to be read in a symbolic matter, or haha it was a joke, disregard that sentence"...
Strata1R 11 months ago
@Strata1R ...and for both contexts to be matched up and be conveying the same message, which from a scientific stand point they do. It's not as if we have to disregard any part of the bible, it's just a matter of if you're conveying it in its proper context. No part of the bible should be disregarded, but rather regarded in its proper context.
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@Strata1R Now, the key? To quote from something, and regard it as divine Scripture means the Scriptures had to already be in existence and circulating around the ancient world!! Which in turn drives the dating of the disciples writings back even earlier!! In the lifetime of contemporaries of Jesus Himself (30-70 A.D.)!!...(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R You have, at best, vaguely answered my questions. You simply shrug off every response I give and affirm your position by demanding MORE from others. Once more, you resort to attacking the person-hood of people or diminishing Christians with insults by calling them "without reason" and so forth. I feel your stance is not one of the intellect but that of a PRE-determined will. May I ask: What would it take for you to believe? What would you need?
MrErskine01 11 months ago
Comment removed
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@thechristianknights ...How can any Christian be sure of anything that their holy book says, when there is always gonna be someone that can twist the words to mean something completely different? Again don't tie in science to The Bible. When science comes up with a half-assed theory that has to be later steered around its incongruencies, it is quickly challenged and soon dropped. But because The Bible cannot be modified with new information, more excuses have to be developed instead.
Strata1R 11 months ago
@Strata1R You don't have to bend the bible to match up with science, you simply read the bible in a scientific context, it matches up. plain and simple. No bending involved, simply read it in a scientific context and compare it to the way the author was conveying the message and see if it is possible for it to be true. IF the scripture was God breathed, and the author wrote it down in his own context (the context of that point and time) one could expect to compare the two...
thechristianknights 11 months ago
You are right in that science cannot explain what caused the Big Bang, why it happened, or what was there before, but that doesn't mean that the religious explanation of "God created it" brings the situation any closer to clarity, because the questions then can be asked: Who created God?, Why does God exist? etc, and I refuse to accept the suggestion that God has always existed and closing the book on this argument, because I feel that such a conclusion is a cop out.
Strata1R 1 year ago
@Strata1R ...so if that is the case then we can not say religion is the worst evil. My point with that is not to drag down atheists and say you are "evil" but to say that all groups have done wrong things throughout history. What makes you think that if religion was eradicated that somehow utopia would arise? This would never happen. All that would happen would be the rise of another reason to fight, or another ideal (worship of state or something) would spring up to take its place...(cont)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@MrErskine01 Second, science supports the notion that the Universe DID have a beginning and that something OUTSIDE of itself (something ABOVE physics (metaphysical) above nature - super-natural) brought it into being. So the explanation for the universe can not be a physical or material explanation (this would be presupposing that material entities existed before they were created)....(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@MrErskine01
I am well informed about The Bible. I am also a realist. This book was written by 40 authors over many years, around 1800 years ago. People were very daft back then. The world was thought to be flat and, the seas were thought to be filled with leviathans that would swallow approaching ships, and people were convinced that the sun revolved around the Earth. I consider such stories as Noah's Arc, and the parting of the waters by Moses equally dim ideas by today's standards.
Strata1R 11 months ago
@Strata1R "People were very daft back then." Many are daft today as well. Since you are so informed about the Bible, then you must know about these very direct scientific observations made by some of the biblical authors: Trenches and mountains exist in the sea (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6); Springs and fountains exist in the sea (Genesis 7:11, 8:2; Proverbs 8:28); Health and sanitation (Book of Leviticus; Deuteronomy 23:12); Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)...(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R ...Gravitational field of the Earth (Job 26:7); Law of increasing entropy (the universe is breaking down) (Psalm 102:25-27).....These are just a few. The point to all these scriptures is this: HOW could these people even MENTION these things (generally or specifically) back then (2000-3000 years ago) before scientific advancements were made to go deep into the ocean, know the earth suspends in space, or that springs exist in the waters? HOW would they know these things!?! (cont)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R "This book was written by 40 authors over many years, around 1800 years ago." Think of this for a minute please: The Bible, a Collection of 66 books (39 in OT, 27 in NT); written by 40 authors; with different ethnic, political and social backgrounds; living in different locations: dozens of cities and towns; 3 continents (Africa, Europe, Asia); written in 3 different languages (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic); over a period of 1,500 years...(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R ...The result of such differences? = Common drama, theme and message! (1) Drama (redemption from Genesis to Revelation; “Paradise Lost to Paradise Gained”); (2) Theme (Jesus Christ – OT is anticipation of Christ, NT is fulfillment of Christ); (3) Message (humankinds continual problem with sin and the solution being salvation through Christ). How could such diversity bring about such unity!?! Some of the men who wrote NEVER KNEW each other...(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R "I consider such stories as Noah's Arc, and the parting of the waters by Moses equally dim ideas by today's standards." This is not based upon evidence but simply an already premeditated decision to deny miracles. Personal preferences do not affirm the non-existence of miracles. If God exists, miracles are possible. I believe in those miracles upon Faith - you likewise are denying those miracles upon Faith.
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R In closing, Strata1R, it is great to discuss with you. May I simply ask: What would it take for you to believe?
Have a bles...I mean...great day my friend!
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@MrErskine01
As far as miracles are concerned and also to conclude upon this argument, there is a staggering amount of scientific research that has been conducted on the topic of observable miracles specifically in the miraculous healing department. (Pope blessing the sick, people praying at or touching sacred monuments, drinking sacred water, etc.) No statistical evidence was ever found to support miracles...
Strata1R 11 months ago
@MrErskine01
...Furthermore, science has discredited the holy book all together a long time ago. This is why Evolution is taught in schools and Creationism isn't. It is time to move on, and accept science based reasoning, instead of focusing on religion's backward forms of non-reasoning. This is what I believe anyway.
Strata1R 11 months ago
@Strata1R First, Their are many creationist scientist who support the theory of a six thousand year universe, not just the stereotypical redneck from mobile, Alabama. There are physicists, astronomers, cosmologists, Mathematician's, Geologists, you name it there are christian fundamentalists rooted well within modern science. So, to say that science has disproved the theory of a six thousand year universe is probably correct, however there are scientists who say otherwise.
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@Strata1R Second, the hebrew word for "day" in genesis, actually means "period", it is a common mistranslation in English bibles. Many post-modern christians support the theory that the biblical account of creation in the bible supports the scientific theory of how the universe came into being. It is likely that the universe is 14 billion years old, many christians, and jews are scared of this fact because it doesn't make G-d look as magical.
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@Strata1R But the fact is G-d isn't magical. G-d doesn't work against the laws of physics, but with them. Why would G-d Create a set of laws (the laws of physics) and constantly break them? It simply doesn't add up. Miracles do not break physical law, but rather coincide with them. Christians and jews today do not need to be scared of this fact, they simply need to accept that the laws of physics WERE set in place by G-d, so for G-d to break them to create the universe simply doesn't make sense.
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@Strata1R Many atheists would argue that this is a God 2.0 theory(The theory that theists change aspects of God to keep up with modern science, and keep the case for God alive) This simply is not true. The fact is the more we know about science The more we no longer have to put hollow theories about creation in place of them, We don't have to strain to try to keep the bible alive. We don't have to find scientific evidence that supports the bible,but rather biblical evidence that supports science
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@Strata1R Many theists would say trying to find biblical evidence that supports science is wrong, however, IF we are to believe G-d has set in place all that exists we must then believe that G-d set science, and the laws of physics in place as well. So to say that it's wrong to use biblical evidence to support science, simply isn't true. The Bible and the laws of physics are both creations of G-d, so to say it's wrong to use biblical evidence to support science Is simply not true.
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@Strata1R I am in no way saying that science is "the new bible" I'm simply saying that If the bible is true, which we as the faithful believe it is, then there would be no reason to bend science to our favor. The bible should simply coincide with science, and scientific theories. Not to say that the bible is a scientific book, because it is not, but to say if our ancestors actually wrote god breathed scripture then we would expect their theories to line up with modern ones.
thechristianknights 11 months ago
@thechristianknights
All the arguments you make are with the ASSUMPTION that God exists, you have not made any valid claims, nor have provided any evidence to coincide with your OPINION. You have said that "We don't have to find scientific evidence that supports the bible, but rather biblical evidence that supports science." However, I have provided you with many examples where The Bible DIRECTLY says that our planet is flat, thereby going AGAINST science. The fact of the matter is...
Strata1R 11 months ago
@thechristianknights
there are many, many such examples where The Bible is purely wrong. We are currently at a point in history where you have to make a choice between believing in science or believing in The Bible. There is no in-between. The two disciplines completely oppose each other. You also argue that " The Bible and the laws of physics are both creations of God." If this was true we would see some logic parallels between the two things, but such parallels don't exist...
Strata1R 11 months ago
@Strata1R Firstly, understanding any of the passages you even listed requires using correct exegesis – not a “cookie-cutter-approach” of picking and choosing what you want. In Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicle 16:30 passages, the word “fixed” is “kuwn” meaning “established” – which means that the world is established AS IS not that it does not move…(immovable from its established course!!)....(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R How can this be? Because, secondly, the Hebrew word for ‘moved’ (mowt) is in the niphal stem, in these verses, which often “refers to the passive voice.” In short, “to be moved or not to be moved suggests the action of an external or causative agent to bring about change in position,” BUT does not mean the impossibility of motion. Exegesis is vital before you take passages out of context… (cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R As for the flat earth myth – or incorrect exegesis of the passages: First, the Daniel 4:10-11 passage is a statement BY A PAGAN king which doesn’t mean that the Bible endorses that point of view, it simply records it. Second, the passage describes a VISION, and is therefore not intended to be a picture of reality any more than Pharaoh’s dream to Joseph of “cannibalistic cows and cannibalistic ears of wheat” is a picture of reality (Genesis 41)…(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R As for the Isaiah 40:22 passage. How does this confirm a flat earth? The Hebrew word for circle also means “sphere.” No problem here. “the circle of the earth” (the Hebrew word for “circle” can also mean a “sphere”)...(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R Matthew 4:8 – Seriously? This passage confirms a flat earth??? That is completely taking this passage incorrectly. First, it is not to give a geological survey of the earth. Second, you can not show that it is showing the belief in a flat earth...(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R Third, this is a discussion between Satan and Jesus – if you read Luke 4:5, which says, “The devil led him up to a high place, and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world,” you see that this was a supernatural event (instant perhaps). Of course having a presupposition against miracles right from the start will lead to denial of such an event…(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R “Furthermore, science has discredited the holy book all together a long time ago.” Give prove not vagueness. First, AGAIN, the Bible is NOT – I REPEAT NOT – a Science book. It has scientific claims within it, but that is not its central focus. It is revelation. It is a story of redemption from paradise lost to paradise gained - it is theological firstly then philisophical and scientific secondly....(cont)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R “Religion's backward forms of non-reasoning.” You have again deliberately overlooked all the famous intellectuals I listed – AND MANY MORE like them – that HELD religious convictions that motivated them to REASON, postulate, theorize and create! It is simply false what you are saying. Further, name one way I have been “non-reasoning” in our discussion? How am I “stupider” than you? With that, I have to ask, who really is the bigot here?...(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R “There is a staggering amount of scientific research that has been conducted on the topic of observable miracles specifically in the miraculous healing department.” Name them. Tell me, have you observed every possible person in human history who has affirmed a miracle happened to them? I think not. Then, how would you know that NO MIRACLES have ever occurred?...(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R “there are many, many such examples where The Bible is purely wrong.” Please name them. Further, the “dead on accuracy of mathematics” dealing with gravity is false. Firstly, we do not know with 100% certainty if such calculations would apply in other parts of the universe…(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R Your logic is flawed in your argument. It doesn’t not necessarily follow that (1) God created the laws of physics and mathematics with high precision and complexity, (2) God has not revealed Himself with high precision and complexity in the Bible, (3) therefore the Bible is not the Word of God. This is flawed. 1 and 2 do not necessarily follow to (3)…Why? (cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R First, you would need to prove that 1 and 2 are NECESSARILY true – which doesn’t seem possible. You would have to show that God would HAVE TO show Himself at such a high complexity in His Word. How would you do that unless you were literally the Mind of God? God may have sufficient reasons for revealing Himself sufficiently but not totally....(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R Further, your point that “God MUST have created EVERYTHING based on at least an equal level of precision and complexity” is brash. Why assume that He MUST do this? Perhaps He has sufficient reasons not to?...(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R “The Bible is written, it's style in no way resembles how reality is structured.” What ever do you mean? How does it not resemble reality? Because it is not precise and complex? Well then I guess humans do not represent REALITY because many of us are not precise or complex in thinking....(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R “It is written in a very vague and simple matter. This is because it wasn't written by God but by man…” Again, how can something be flawed simply because it is vague? Second, you seem to be ASSUMING a requirement from God – that HE MUST BE PRECISE! How do you know He does not have sufficient reasons for allowing us LIMITED but SUFFICIENT knowledge of Him? Are you in the Mind of God?...cont above
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@MrErskine01
"how can something be flawed simply because it is vague? Second, you seem to be ASSUMING a requirement from God – that HE MUST BE PRECISE!"
I look at the world and see how precise it is, then I look at The Bible and see how limited its explanation of things are. I also have seen the many different translations of The Bible and have seen stark differences in the many translations. God has to be a logical being that doesn't deceive because deception is considered a sin...
Strata1R 11 months ago
Comment removed
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R “The New Testament was actually ordered into existence by a Christian ruler in Rome for the purpose in controlling the populace he ruled over.” This is completely false. The Council of Nicaea 325 A.D. did not “order the existence” of the Bible, or any other ecumenical council in the first 500 years of Christianity. The New Testament autographs were written in the lifetime of the disciples (30-90 A.D.)....(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@MrErskine01
...but that is exactly what The Bible seems to be doing with it's stories of Noah being able to fit all known species on a boat, and Moses being able to part the waters. Why would God come up with a comprehensive law of physics and then allow it to be broken by certain people? It doesn't make sense. These are nothing but fables that have been created by man and have nothing to do with God. My personal belief is this. Since I think the idea of The Bible as a source of truth...
Strata1R 11 months ago
@Strata1R Good to keep discussing with you. Well, this will be long, so...here we go...
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R (b) Understanding the Doctrine of Revelation establishes that The WORD OF GOD refers to the ORIGINAL manuscripts as crafted by the original writers – thus although our translations are highly accurate, they still contain minor (yet insignificant) “flaws” or “differences” (minor punctuation, lettering and so forth). ...(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R The original manuscripts were inerrant and wholly inspired. Inspiration is a product of the TEXT of the original writings (autographs) – not the manuscripts (copies)...
(3) Third, we can not have our cake and eat it too. You are saying, “God does not exist” in one hand and yet in another “God must be logical and un-deceptive.” ...(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R “Why would God come up with a comprehensive law of physics and then allow it to be broken by certain people? It doesn't make sense.”(1) Firstly, “certain people” do not make miracles occur – God is the Causative Agent behind the execution of miraculous events. Individuals (i.e. Moses, Elijah, Peter, Paul) are the “conduits” if you will, or the instruments, through which God worked (works) miraculously. Thus, people do not cause miracles, God does….(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R I have failed to see its untrustworthiness, its “denial of reality” or its fallacious contexts as you say. Further, although followers of a particular religion may do wrong things or appalling things, this does not verify the religion itself is wrong – unless that religion explicitly espouses such actions (which the Bible does not)....(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R “Christians are not more moral than nonbelievers.” I agree. However, the issue is not about one being more moral than the other but more fundamentally: WHERE do those morals come from for both atheists and theists? Where are those objective moral values grounded? Where does right and wrong come from!?!..(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R ...Why assume He must be logical and un-deceptive unless you believe in the God of the Bible – which the Bible affirms HE IS logical and truthful? The basis you use for asserting God “must be a certain way” is inadvertently using a biblical view of God – yet you say there is no God of the Bible. Which is it?..(Cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R (4) Fourth, So your criteria for deception is simply because the Bible contains miracles? Well, when one has a pre-determined opinion that “miracles can not happen” then of course the only explanation left with such incidences (Ark, parting Red Sea..act) is that “they are lies.” However, you would need to prove miracles CAN NOT occur. Can you?
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R (2) Secondly, it seems you are saying that, by definition, miracles are “violations of nature” and thus “don’t make sense.” Several things can be said: (a) you are putting a subtle moral quality to miracles right from start by saying they are “violations” of nature. If there is no God, which you say, then how can there be any “objective violations” at all?...(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R “I will believe in a religion that treats nonbelievers as well as believers, that wouldn't force to "save" the unwilling.”
The God of the Bible does not FORCE the salvation of the unwilling. The Bible affirms free choice and people choose their own destiny. God urges us to come to Him but, as C. S. Lewis said, “He can not ravish, He can only woo.” God loves us so much – the Creator of existence itself loves us – and YET He will not overhaul our will, our choices...(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R In a naturalist worldview, good and bad is simply subjective, mere taste – and in the end meaningless. Natural systems do not have morals – they are deterministic, and instinctive. Humans however are not instinctive nor deterministic by nature, we are rational agents, and moral agents who know right and wrong, good and bad and act or do not act accordingly. GOD is the foundation for moral values.
MrErskine01 11 months ago
@Strata1R ...What does it mean to violate something or “break a rule” in a purely naturalistic worldview? Where is the foundation for such rules, and morally loaded wording?...(cont above)
MrErskine01 11 months ago