Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Trav
Is this you? Claim Profile »
7 months ago
in Sincerely reading the Bible broke my faith - Testimonies of Ex-Christians on ExChristian.Net -- encouraging ex-Christians
"I got to the point where we would be debating and someone would come up with an excellent point about evolution, or sex before marriage, etc."
Another question for the author- What does sex before marriage have to do with the truth of Christianity? Are you honestly telling us that because friends were out-debating you on the subject of sex before marriage, that this made you doubt your faith.!?!? I sincerely hope that I am missing something here....?
Regarding evolution, I' m not sure about you (dont wish to put words into your mouth :- ) ) but I find that a lot of people are actually fairly ignorant of what it is. A few things to keep in mind:
- It's a theory of the development of life, not a theory on the origin of life.
And obviously, the implications of this are massive. Most leading evolutionists either believe God started the process (eg: Francis Collins), remain agnostic on the issue or choose to believe that aliens from another planet deposited life on earth (Richard Dawkins). Either way, it isn't even an aspect of the theory itself.
- It does a questionable job of explaining even the development of life.
This is shown by the fact that the leading evolutionists can't even agree on how the process of evolution took place- they differ on punctuated equilibrium, statis etc. Basically what timeframes the developments of species took place over, what factors caused the changes in species or helped it along. In other words, massive disagreements over the key factors of the theory itself.
- Evolution is taught in classes because it's the best scientific theory we have available to us.
This doesn't mean that it's infallible, or that there aren't huge problems with it (there are), or that other theories don't also have some solid scientific evidence (they do).
show all 3 replies
Another question for the author- What does sex before marriage have to do with the truth of Christianity? Are you honestly telling us that because friends were out-debating you on the subject of sex before marriage, that this made you doubt your faith.!?!? I sincerely hope that I am missing something here....?
Regarding evolution, I' m not sure about you (dont wish to put words into your mouth :- ) ) but I find that a lot of people are actually fairly ignorant of what it is. A few things to keep in mind:
- It's a theory of the development of life, not a theory on the origin of life.
And obviously, the implications of this are massive. Most leading evolutionists either believe God started the process (eg: Francis Collins), remain agnostic on the issue or choose to believe that aliens from another planet deposited life on earth (Richard Dawkins). Either way, it isn't even an aspect of the theory itself.
- It does a questionable job of explaining even the development of life.
This is shown by the fact that the leading evolutionists can't even agree on how the process of evolution took place- they differ on punctuated equilibrium, statis etc. Basically what timeframes the developments of species took place over, what factors caused the changes in species or helped it along. In other words, massive disagreements over the key factors of the theory itself.
- Evolution is taught in classes because it's the best scientific theory we have available to us.
This doesn't mean that it's infallible, or that there aren't huge problems with it (there are), or that other theories don't also have some solid scientific evidence (they do).
3 replies
Jessica
Trav - ' If it is the word of God, then you're offered salvation from your sins by grace-embodied, Jesus Christ who died for you. So why you'd reject that is beyond me!'
' What does sex before marriage have to do with the truth of Christianity? Are you honestly telling us that because friends were out-debating you on the subject of sex before marriage, that this made you doubt your faith.!?!? I sincerely hope that I am missing something here....?'
I dont feel that your comments have been helpful at all. I wrote that testimony for reasons that i have stated earlier and it is my right to express the journey i have been through. If people want to ask questions or start discussions then that is great but for you to come on here and question me in such a scornful and ultimately abusive way is unfair. Of course I dont have all the answers but who does? I have just expressed my feelings and for you to attack me and patronize me is horrible. I thought that this site was for people who had been through similar situations regarding their deconversion, to talk, discuss and essentially help people to realise that they are not alone. Maybe I made the wrong judgement on that.
Jessica
' What does sex before marriage have to do with the truth of Christianity? Are you honestly telling us that because friends were out-debating you on the subject of sex before marriage, that this made you doubt your faith.!?!? I sincerely hope that I am missing something here....?'
I dont feel that your comments have been helpful at all. I wrote that testimony for reasons that i have stated earlier and it is my right to express the journey i have been through. If people want to ask questions or start discussions then that is great but for you to come on here and question me in such a scornful and ultimately abusive way is unfair. Of course I dont have all the answers but who does? I have just expressed my feelings and for you to attack me and patronize me is horrible. I thought that this site was for people who had been through similar situations regarding their deconversion, to talk, discuss and essentially help people to realise that they are not alone. Maybe I made the wrong judgement on that.
Jessica
7 months ago
in Sincerely reading the Bible broke my faith - Testimonies of Ex-Christians on ExChristian.Net -- encouraging ex-Christians
"I came to one of two conclusions:
1. The bible is a book which was written by some good men, many thousands of years ago but is not the word of god, therefore I do not need to live my life by it....or.....
2. The bible is absolutely the word of god and represents him exactly as he is. If this is the case then the unloving, devious, revengeful tyrant presented is not someone/something I want to spend my life trying to serve."
Firstly, I'd love you to expand on your reasons for believing that the truth has to be one of the above alternatives. Is there any inherent reason why the truth couldn't be in between?
Secondly, does the bible literally have to be written by the hand of God, or alternatively be completely fictional? Is there any reason why it couldn't be divinely inspired without being word for word from the mouth and hand of God?
Secondly, I'd like you to expand on why, if the bible IS the word of God, you would completely reject it? If it is the word of God, then you're offered salvation from your sins by grace-embodied, Jesus Christ who died for you. So why you'd reject that is beyond me!
1. The bible is a book which was written by some good men, many thousands of years ago but is not the word of god, therefore I do not need to live my life by it....or.....
2. The bible is absolutely the word of god and represents him exactly as he is. If this is the case then the unloving, devious, revengeful tyrant presented is not someone/something I want to spend my life trying to serve."
Firstly, I'd love you to expand on your reasons for believing that the truth has to be one of the above alternatives. Is there any inherent reason why the truth couldn't be in between?
Secondly, does the bible literally have to be written by the hand of God, or alternatively be completely fictional? Is there any reason why it couldn't be divinely inspired without being word for word from the mouth and hand of God?
Secondly, I'd like you to expand on why, if the bible IS the word of God, you would completely reject it? If it is the word of God, then you're offered salvation from your sins by grace-embodied, Jesus Christ who died for you. So why you'd reject that is beyond me!
1 reply
Monkeys
Original post said: The bible is a book which was written by some good men (or) The bible is absolutely the word of god and represents him exactly as he is
Trav said: "does the bible literally have to be written by the hand of God, or alternatively be completely fictional?"
see how the original poster NEVER said that the options was limited to that of it written down by God word for word by hand and then men by hand.
The original poster said either the Bible is an accurate representation of God or it is not - just a book written by men.
Its normal for misrepsentation to be used to color the opinions of others negatively for ones own agenda.
The options are
1.) A book inspired by God
(meaning it represents God accurately)
2.) A book written by men
(meaning its representation is false)
and now Trac wants to add(?)
3.) A fallible book inspired by God but distorted by men
But does it solve more problems than it creates?
the conundrum leads us to ....if God really wanted his message to go out to all the people wherefore are we left with the tainted option of a non-reliable human edited but perhaps slightly divinely inspired library of books with dubious authorships written and collated hundreds of years later after the events they speak about.
That not only throws out the issue of the veracity of the books but an assumption that they may have some divine merit than casts aspersions on the assumptions of the nature of divinity. Multiplying the issues to be considered.
Assuming this God is all-powerful, all-knowing yadda yadda.
Why would he would allow this bible to be edited, redacted, compiled, translated by normal fallible guys - compiled by Christians who could not agree with each other but were forced to agree by the political neccesities of a Roman emperor holding his empire together, like Jerome who would make translation errors in the Latin Vulgate bible, Luther who would add words in the Bible that supported his point of view, the KJV which seems to be missing a few books from when it was first compiled and the NIV in which a commitee voted from a number of options what was the correct intepretation.
So in between we get these two options we get the paradox of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-benign God who knew this message is all-importnat but couldnt be bothered to exercise some of that omnipotent editorial control.
If he tries to save his point of view with such an argument only to invite more paradox into his worldview.
Then it throws out other subsequent problems - how can we determine which parts are human and which parts are divine. How can we determine which intepretations are correct or not correct. The Trinity has very little scriptural back up but yetis a cornerstone of the xtian faith - so are the ideas of infant baptism and the eucharist. (for certain denominations) more importantly is the fact that the middle option does not solve any problems - it merely accepts the fact that the Bible is not infallible and also opens up that God wants it to be with error. furthermore it makes the Bible less reliable than other religious books like the Quran which is supposedly directly dictated.
Any honest and convinced christian will not accept the middle option .
he can only do so once he has at least attempted to answer
a.) problem of omnipotence, omnipresence and benevelonce inability or unwillingness to keep his critical message free of distortion
b.) problem of intepretation
c.) problem of competing claims of more reliably compiled words of God
Furthermore he doesnt read the argument carefully- one does not want to serve a God who is an "unloving, devious, revengeful tyrant."
many xtians tend to forget the Bible has alot more than just the story of jesus death - alot of the other stories are much more terrifying and much less edifying.
And the rest of his argument is completely non-sequitor. He has to start from zero and prove
a.) existence of sin
b.) existence of Jesus
c.) jesus christ death being the mechanism for salvation
d.) fairness of the plan
and thats just after he proves
d.) Bible is the word of God.
Answer carefully.
Trav said: "does the bible literally have to be written by the hand of God, or alternatively be completely fictional?"
see how the original poster NEVER said that the options was limited to that of it written down by God word for word by hand and then men by hand.
The original poster said either the Bible is an accurate representation of God or it is not - just a book written by men.
Its normal for misrepsentation to be used to color the opinions of others negatively for ones own agenda.
The options are
1.) A book inspired by God
(meaning it represents God accurately)
2.) A book written by men
(meaning its representation is false)
and now Trac wants to add(?)
3.) A fallible book inspired by God but distorted by men
But does it solve more problems than it creates?
the conundrum leads us to ....if God really wanted his message to go out to all the people wherefore are we left with the tainted option of a non-reliable human edited but perhaps slightly divinely inspired library of books with dubious authorships written and collated hundreds of years later after the events they speak about.
That not only throws out the issue of the veracity of the books but an assumption that they may have some divine merit than casts aspersions on the assumptions of the nature of divinity. Multiplying the issues to be considered.
Assuming this God is all-powerful, all-knowing yadda yadda.
Why would he would allow this bible to be edited, redacted, compiled, translated by normal fallible guys - compiled by Christians who could not agree with each other but were forced to agree by the political neccesities of a Roman emperor holding his empire together, like Jerome who would make translation errors in the Latin Vulgate bible, Luther who would add words in the Bible that supported his point of view, the KJV which seems to be missing a few books from when it was first compiled and the NIV in which a commitee voted from a number of options what was the correct intepretation.
So in between we get these two options we get the paradox of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-benign God who knew this message is all-importnat but couldnt be bothered to exercise some of that omnipotent editorial control.
If he tries to save his point of view with such an argument only to invite more paradox into his worldview.
Then it throws out other subsequent problems - how can we determine which parts are human and which parts are divine. How can we determine which intepretations are correct or not correct. The Trinity has very little scriptural back up but yetis a cornerstone of the xtian faith - so are the ideas of infant baptism and the eucharist. (for certain denominations) more importantly is the fact that the middle option does not solve any problems - it merely accepts the fact that the Bible is not infallible and also opens up that God wants it to be with error. furthermore it makes the Bible less reliable than other religious books like the Quran which is supposedly directly dictated.
Any honest and convinced christian will not accept the middle option .
he can only do so once he has at least attempted to answer
a.) problem of omnipotence, omnipresence and benevelonce inability or unwillingness to keep his critical message free of distortion
b.) problem of intepretation
c.) problem of competing claims of more reliably compiled words of God
Furthermore he doesnt read the argument carefully- one does not want to serve a God who is an "unloving, devious, revengeful tyrant."
many xtians tend to forget the Bible has alot more than just the story of jesus death - alot of the other stories are much more terrifying and much less edifying.
And the rest of his argument is completely non-sequitor. He has to start from zero and prove
a.) existence of sin
b.) existence of Jesus
c.) jesus christ death being the mechanism for salvation
d.) fairness of the plan
and thats just after he proves
d.) Bible is the word of God.
Answer carefully.
7 months ago
in A handful of Christian arguments & tactics - ExChristian.Net - Articles on ExChristian.Net -- encouraging ex-Christians
As I said, Hitler was not a Christian- he had a catholic upbringing and then abandoned it in favour of atheism Thats what all the evidence points towards. But my point was this- the only conclusive thing you can say in favour of your assertion that Hitler was a Christian was that he labelled himself as such, early in his life. In light of that, what negative consequences does that bring for the truth of Christianity? Absolutely none.
Secondly, you guys seem pretty intent on bringing down my "different realm" argument. But, unsurprisingly enough, none of you actually provided a solid answer to my question. What makes you think you can understand God? Can an ant understand a human? We are mere ants in comparison to the one who created us.
Look at the fine tuning of the universe- it provides solid evidence that the world in which we live was designed with us in mind. A claim repeatedly made, surprise surprise, in the bible. Of all places! And of course the appearance of design doesnt completely prove a designer. But it does unmistakeably point towards the strong possibility of such.
Look at the historical evidence for Jesus. Or even more importantly, look at the weakness of the alternative hypothesis. It never happened, the disciples made it up- People dying for the sake of a lie? The early Christians changed the bible- Why would they include the testimony of a woman as the first to see the empty tomb (woman's evidence wasnt even considered in a court of law in those days)? etc etc etc. The fact is, if you look at the new testament and the early church history with an open mind, the most likely conclusion is that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, especially when you consider the prophecies he fulfilled, which were written hundreds of years earlier.
show all 7 replies
Secondly, you guys seem pretty intent on bringing down my "different realm" argument. But, unsurprisingly enough, none of you actually provided a solid answer to my question. What makes you think you can understand God? Can an ant understand a human? We are mere ants in comparison to the one who created us.
Look at the fine tuning of the universe- it provides solid evidence that the world in which we live was designed with us in mind. A claim repeatedly made, surprise surprise, in the bible. Of all places! And of course the appearance of design doesnt completely prove a designer. But it does unmistakeably point towards the strong possibility of such.
Look at the historical evidence for Jesus. Or even more importantly, look at the weakness of the alternative hypothesis. It never happened, the disciples made it up- People dying for the sake of a lie? The early Christians changed the bible- Why would they include the testimony of a woman as the first to see the empty tomb (woman's evidence wasnt even considered in a court of law in those days)? etc etc etc. The fact is, if you look at the new testament and the early church history with an open mind, the most likely conclusion is that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, especially when you consider the prophecies he fulfilled, which were written hundreds of years earlier.
7 replies
AtheistToothFairy
Trav: Look at the historical evidence for Jesus
Yes, let's stop right HERE, and look at your historical evidence for Jesus.
Unless you have 'dug up' some new found remarkable evidence, all the existing evidence has been disputed (easily) time and time again; even here on this website.
Your entire xtian religion revolves around this jesus figurehead, yet secular history is deathly quiet about his presence on this earth, let alone all those biblical miracles he's reported to have accomplished, which only live inside the pages of your fable book.
How can ANY 'man' have had such a huge following, been so controversial for his day, and yet avoided being noticed by the major historians of the day?
Did Daddy-god sneak down to earth and burn all the written records of jesus, except what he wanted to much later be included in this piece-meal bible book?
Was jesus perhaps deaf, dumb, and blind, such that he was incapable of writing any messages to his beloved creation?
Was the devil sneaking into their camp at night, burning anything jesus and his men had written down that day?
How DO we explain this huge mystery, hmmm
ATF (Who is all excited about the evidence that Trav will surely come back with)
Yes, let's stop right HERE, and look at your historical evidence for Jesus.
Unless you have 'dug up' some new found remarkable evidence, all the existing evidence has been disputed (easily) time and time again; even here on this website.
Your entire xtian religion revolves around this jesus figurehead, yet secular history is deathly quiet about his presence on this earth, let alone all those biblical miracles he's reported to have accomplished, which only live inside the pages of your fable book.
How can ANY 'man' have had such a huge following, been so controversial for his day, and yet avoided being noticed by the major historians of the day?
Did Daddy-god sneak down to earth and burn all the written records of jesus, except what he wanted to much later be included in this piece-meal bible book?
Was jesus perhaps deaf, dumb, and blind, such that he was incapable of writing any messages to his beloved creation?
Was the devil sneaking into their camp at night, burning anything jesus and his men had written down that day?
How DO we explain this huge mystery, hmmm
ATF (Who is all excited about the evidence that Trav will surely come back with)
cipher
Trav,
Your god exists outside of time, but he has no qualms about threatening to torture us for eternity - that is, in linear time - for failing to recognize him.
Your god exists outside of time, but he has no qualms about threatening to torture us for eternity - that is, in linear time - for failing to recognize him.
7 months ago
in A handful of Christian arguments & tactics - ExChristian.Net - Articles on ExChristian.Net -- encouraging ex-Christians
Dent is right..this site uses some pretty poor arguments.
I mean, his first few dont even touch on the existence/non existence of God, so after accusing Christians of side arguments, he goes onto use a whole heap of side arguments on the whole apologetics issue.
Example, who cares if Hitler was a Christian? A careful look at the context of his political agenda and his statements from the early 1940's (not JUST mein kampf and other writings which were written much earlier), not to mention the broad goals of his regime will clearly show that he was a catholic who abandoned his faith in favour of the atheistic ideology he'd created...however, regardless of that, it has no bearing on the validity of the Christian faith. Absolutely none.
Secondly, argument from design. Why don't we apply the same principle to the creator? He exists in a different realm. If he DOES exist, then what makes you think you'd be able to understand him anyway? He clearly tells us in the bible that he exists outside of time, a concept which he created our finite minds within. What makes you think our finite minds should inherently be capable of stepping outside the concepts within which we exist? You see the universe is inherently physical in its nature, so we should technically be able to explain where it came from, using physical measures. Not sure why you'd assume the same of a supernatural creator.
And what sort of proof are you after, I wonder. Thats what this boils down to, ultimately.
I mean, his first few dont even touch on the existence/non existence of God, so after accusing Christians of side arguments, he goes onto use a whole heap of side arguments on the whole apologetics issue.
Example, who cares if Hitler was a Christian? A careful look at the context of his political agenda and his statements from the early 1940's (not JUST mein kampf and other writings which were written much earlier), not to mention the broad goals of his regime will clearly show that he was a catholic who abandoned his faith in favour of the atheistic ideology he'd created...however, regardless of that, it has no bearing on the validity of the Christian faith. Absolutely none.
Secondly, argument from design. Why don't we apply the same principle to the creator? He exists in a different realm. If he DOES exist, then what makes you think you'd be able to understand him anyway? He clearly tells us in the bible that he exists outside of time, a concept which he created our finite minds within. What makes you think our finite minds should inherently be capable of stepping outside the concepts within which we exist? You see the universe is inherently physical in its nature, so we should technically be able to explain where it came from, using physical measures. Not sure why you'd assume the same of a supernatural creator.
And what sort of proof are you after, I wonder. Thats what this boils down to, ultimately.
2 replies
Monkeys
Hmm...one considers it poor arguments yet travarguments actually rests on an inability to understand what apologists are getting at.
Argument from Design.
The whole point of the argument from design is first to convince listeners that everything has to be designed. Everything is the fundamental assumption.
Now that in itself is a separate argument because its pretty much self-evident we dont have access to the heavenly factories and store houses (as written in the Bible) where snow is produced.nor for that fact blueprints of photosynthesis or angelic (or demonic) workers) helping to manufacture atoms and molecules.
Rain falling on a muddy slope creates a landslide - but that landslide is NOT DESIGNED. A lightning storm strikes a forest and it burns but teh forest fire is NOT DESIGNED. Woemn give birth to babiesbut they DO NOT DESIGN the baby.
But Trav is obssessed by a particular Counterargument against ID.
Its merely to show that ID itself rests on a circular argument.
If Everything is designed - then wherefore not the supernatural relam and the entity that is hypothesized to create the physical world.
The problem with that argument is that it creates two more questions - on ethat reproduces the original problem with the physical world argument.
a.) wherefore is the supernatural world
b.) why cannot everything in the supernatural world be designed too? (which is completely hypothetical cause Travis unable toa ctually point to supernatural things and then we can formulate a methodology to determine if they are designed.)
Trav's only counter argument is that our finite minds cannot comprehend such an entity,
That actually is an assertion - not evidence. Furthermore the arguments veracity doe snot depend on our finite minds comprehending the said supernatural entity, Actually its obvious that its not our finite minds are not in question. The argument from design has become an argument from ignorance.
Now that the argument ahs shifted to the observable physical realm to the non-evidenced spiritual realm - the apologist thinks he can get away from the cheap trick of saying " You cannot question me."
But yet all he has done is multiplied the problem about design twice to two worlds (one that cannot be proved). Furthermore creators as a class does not preclude creation - eg. people who design - may be designed themselves. This is essential to mantaining coherence in ID, or else engineers and architects are excluded from being designed. LOL!
If designers as a class may be designed.
if the fundamental assumption is Evrything has to be designed
Then the only reason for Trav to stop at his supernatural realm entity (which cannot be obsevres) makes no sense. Its a conundrum and why this particular ID argument fails on its own ASSUMPTIONS. The only way to get by the paradox is an appeal to basically the Bible God. (which is not part of ID argument rationally but an appeal to authority which can be detached from ID)
But thats the point! Its not really a coherent well-thought out argument - its a MENTAL LOOPHOLE so people dont really have to question the veracity of their beliefs.
ID does not prove the Bible God. It merely proves that if you consider there to be DESIGNED - then you run into a paradox you hope is saved by your scripture. Unfortunately ID does not save the Bible, you need the Bible to Save ID.
LOL!
Thats why its a weak argument.
As for the Hitler question.
Its all too normal to see the trite argument that atheist have no morality bandied around with the names of several dictators.
Unfortunately both Hitler and Stalin did have allies within the church and the religious institutions in their country. He did not like the institutional church but hey so do many so-called "true christians" who feel that church is all about religion and not moreabout the "true" message of Jesus christ.
He distrusted the church because he realised that they had got him in power only so that he could be used like a pawn against the communists (which they were), and he on the other hand wanted to use them to further his own ambitions (which he did), and the population would follow whoever triumphed on the internal political battle between the Nationalist Socialist and the centre-right parties trying to utilise Hitler. (And they did)
More to the fact Hitler was NOT an atheist - he was another one of the "TRUE BELIEVERS" in God. Once again the apologist gives half-truths.
"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out".
"For their interests [the Church's] cannot fail to coincide with ours [the National Socialists] alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life".
"I often feel that we will have to undergo all the trials the devil and hell can devise before we achieve Final Victory....I may be no pious churchgoer, but deep within me I am nevertheless a devout man. That is to say, I believe that he who fights valiantly obeying the laws which a god has established and who never capitulates but instead gathers his forces time after time and always pushes forward—such a man will not be abandoned by the Lawgiver. Rather he will ultimately receive the blessing of Providence. And that blessing has been imparted to all great spirits in history."
Even more striking is the fact that Christians (and remember Germany had both sizeable numbers of Protestants and Catholics, did not only not stop Hitler they actually fought and died for him and his govt in great numbers. The fatality rate in which German soldiers were willing to die were much higher than that in WW1.
furthermore the Nazis never won a single election, it was through the machinations of the centre-right (including the largest christian centre party) that got the nationalist-socialists in power.
The point ultimately is that the argument that Atheist have no moral centre is meaningless when you compare what religious folks get up to when they are told to shoot and kill their neighbour. Check out the religious stats (christian btw) of the population in Rwanda during the genocides. Check out Stalin's patronage of the Orthodox church which actually increased by the time he died.
It illustrates the methodology of Trav's poor attempt at argument that he immediately associates Hitler which he feels was never a Christian like Trav himself automatically qualifies Hitler as an atheist. Its this lack of logic coupled with disregard to evidence that makes apologetics dangerous to the discovery of truth. Hitler may not have been a Trav-like Christian, but he did believe in God and did condemn atheism. And more to the point- many who believed in Christian god also believed in him. Their christian morality notwithstanding when it ultimately came to rascism, atrocity and murder.
As for the where the universe came from - we dont know yet.
But thats not an ecuse for saying Polly Pocket, the Booga Booga man, A Hebrew War God or an invisible flying old man on a cloud creared it.
Theres a line between honesty and wishful fantasy.
Argument from Design.
The whole point of the argument from design is first to convince listeners that everything has to be designed. Everything is the fundamental assumption.
Now that in itself is a separate argument because its pretty much self-evident we dont have access to the heavenly factories and store houses (as written in the Bible) where snow is produced.nor for that fact blueprints of photosynthesis or angelic (or demonic) workers) helping to manufacture atoms and molecules.
Rain falling on a muddy slope creates a landslide - but that landslide is NOT DESIGNED. A lightning storm strikes a forest and it burns but teh forest fire is NOT DESIGNED. Woemn give birth to babiesbut they DO NOT DESIGN the baby.
But Trav is obssessed by a particular Counterargument against ID.
Its merely to show that ID itself rests on a circular argument.
If Everything is designed - then wherefore not the supernatural relam and the entity that is hypothesized to create the physical world.
The problem with that argument is that it creates two more questions - on ethat reproduces the original problem with the physical world argument.
a.) wherefore is the supernatural world
b.) why cannot everything in the supernatural world be designed too? (which is completely hypothetical cause Travis unable toa ctually point to supernatural things and then we can formulate a methodology to determine if they are designed.)
Trav's only counter argument is that our finite minds cannot comprehend such an entity,
That actually is an assertion - not evidence. Furthermore the arguments veracity doe snot depend on our finite minds comprehending the said supernatural entity, Actually its obvious that its not our finite minds are not in question. The argument from design has become an argument from ignorance.
Now that the argument ahs shifted to the observable physical realm to the non-evidenced spiritual realm - the apologist thinks he can get away from the cheap trick of saying " You cannot question me."
But yet all he has done is multiplied the problem about design twice to two worlds (one that cannot be proved). Furthermore creators as a class does not preclude creation - eg. people who design - may be designed themselves. This is essential to mantaining coherence in ID, or else engineers and architects are excluded from being designed. LOL!
If designers as a class may be designed.
if the fundamental assumption is Evrything has to be designed
Then the only reason for Trav to stop at his supernatural realm entity (which cannot be obsevres) makes no sense. Its a conundrum and why this particular ID argument fails on its own ASSUMPTIONS. The only way to get by the paradox is an appeal to basically the Bible God. (which is not part of ID argument rationally but an appeal to authority which can be detached from ID)
But thats the point! Its not really a coherent well-thought out argument - its a MENTAL LOOPHOLE so people dont really have to question the veracity of their beliefs.
ID does not prove the Bible God. It merely proves that if you consider there to be DESIGNED - then you run into a paradox you hope is saved by your scripture. Unfortunately ID does not save the Bible, you need the Bible to Save ID.
LOL!
Thats why its a weak argument.
As for the Hitler question.
Its all too normal to see the trite argument that atheist have no morality bandied around with the names of several dictators.
Unfortunately both Hitler and Stalin did have allies within the church and the religious institutions in their country. He did not like the institutional church but hey so do many so-called "true christians" who feel that church is all about religion and not moreabout the "true" message of Jesus christ.
He distrusted the church because he realised that they had got him in power only so that he could be used like a pawn against the communists (which they were), and he on the other hand wanted to use them to further his own ambitions (which he did), and the population would follow whoever triumphed on the internal political battle between the Nationalist Socialist and the centre-right parties trying to utilise Hitler. (And they did)
More to the fact Hitler was NOT an atheist - he was another one of the "TRUE BELIEVERS" in God. Once again the apologist gives half-truths.
"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out".
"For their interests [the Church's] cannot fail to coincide with ours [the National Socialists] alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life".
"I often feel that we will have to undergo all the trials the devil and hell can devise before we achieve Final Victory....I may be no pious churchgoer, but deep within me I am nevertheless a devout man. That is to say, I believe that he who fights valiantly obeying the laws which a god has established and who never capitulates but instead gathers his forces time after time and always pushes forward—such a man will not be abandoned by the Lawgiver. Rather he will ultimately receive the blessing of Providence. And that blessing has been imparted to all great spirits in history."
Even more striking is the fact that Christians (and remember Germany had both sizeable numbers of Protestants and Catholics, did not only not stop Hitler they actually fought and died for him and his govt in great numbers. The fatality rate in which German soldiers were willing to die were much higher than that in WW1.
furthermore the Nazis never won a single election, it was through the machinations of the centre-right (including the largest christian centre party) that got the nationalist-socialists in power.
The point ultimately is that the argument that Atheist have no moral centre is meaningless when you compare what religious folks get up to when they are told to shoot and kill their neighbour. Check out the religious stats (christian btw) of the population in Rwanda during the genocides. Check out Stalin's patronage of the Orthodox church which actually increased by the time he died.
It illustrates the methodology of Trav's poor attempt at argument that he immediately associates Hitler which he feels was never a Christian like Trav himself automatically qualifies Hitler as an atheist. Its this lack of logic coupled with disregard to evidence that makes apologetics dangerous to the discovery of truth. Hitler may not have been a Trav-like Christian, but he did believe in God and did condemn atheism. And more to the point- many who believed in Christian god also believed in him. Their christian morality notwithstanding when it ultimately came to rascism, atrocity and murder.
As for the where the universe came from - we dont know yet.
But thats not an ecuse for saying Polly Pocket, the Booga Booga man, A Hebrew War God or an invisible flying old man on a cloud creared it.
Theres a line between honesty and wishful fantasy.
webmdave
If you are presupposing a god that exists and operates outside of known reality and that is incomprehensible to the human mind, then any further discussion of this thing-a-ma-god is a waste of time.
However, I wonder where you get the idea that something you cannot begin to fathom exists? Where did you acquire the ability to step outside the concepts of reality in which you exist to imagine this creature you label a god? And, more importantly, I wonder what evidence you can present that you have a personal relationship with this disembodied entity?
You say that people who do not believe in your god should be able to explain where the universe came from. I wonder, can you explain where the universe came from? If your answer is, "God did it," that's a poor answer. In that case my answer would be, "Nature did it." Surely you can see that "Nature did it," is not really an answer. It doesn't explain anything. In similar fashion, "God did it," adds nothing to the conversation at all.
Instead of putting the burden of proof on the person who doubts that there even is such a thing as a god, how about presenting the evidence you've accepted that you think is proof positive that a god DOES exist. If I were trying to convince you that I'd taken a ride on a UFO, you'd doubt my story and would want a little evidence that I wasn't a nut case, right? Wouldn't it be silly if I demanded evidence from you that I did not ride in a UFO? Wouldn't it be silly if I expected you to provide me with evidence that UFOs don't exist outside the human imagination?
If you believe in a magical "realm" where magical entities live, and you expect others to believe in this magical place, what evidence do you present on behalf of this belief?
Oh, and the honest answer to the question of where the universe came from -- no matter whom you ask -- is "I don't know."
However, I wonder where you get the idea that something you cannot begin to fathom exists? Where did you acquire the ability to step outside the concepts of reality in which you exist to imagine this creature you label a god? And, more importantly, I wonder what evidence you can present that you have a personal relationship with this disembodied entity?
You say that people who do not believe in your god should be able to explain where the universe came from. I wonder, can you explain where the universe came from? If your answer is, "God did it," that's a poor answer. In that case my answer would be, "Nature did it." Surely you can see that "Nature did it," is not really an answer. It doesn't explain anything. In similar fashion, "God did it," adds nothing to the conversation at all.
Instead of putting the burden of proof on the person who doubts that there even is such a thing as a god, how about presenting the evidence you've accepted that you think is proof positive that a god DOES exist. If I were trying to convince you that I'd taken a ride on a UFO, you'd doubt my story and would want a little evidence that I wasn't a nut case, right? Wouldn't it be silly if I demanded evidence from you that I did not ride in a UFO? Wouldn't it be silly if I expected you to provide me with evidence that UFOs don't exist outside the human imagination?
If you believe in a magical "realm" where magical entities live, and you expect others to believe in this magical place, what evidence do you present on behalf of this belief?
Oh, and the honest answer to the question of where the universe came from -- no matter whom you ask -- is "I don't know."
On onehand we have scientist actively testing their theories, arguing and forcing each other to come up with evidence for their hypothesis.
On the other hand we have BIBLICAL SCIENCE.
which gives us an ALTERNATE theory about the DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE
Genesis30: 37-39
37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches.
38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink,
39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted.
sex while looking at sticks.
You can make up your own mind whether the Bible or a Scientific Methodology provides the more problematic conclusion and whether it has what Trav insists is neccessary - good solid scientific evidence.
Frankly Trav has become obsessed with another false duality - attacking the veracity of evolution actually does not improve the veracity of the Bible, or the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita. The real test of honesty and integrity is to see if trav willingly applies the same methods of critique to the Bible or does he merely just regurgitate apologetics without examining his own beliefs.
He attacks evolution on several grounds- will he apply the same methodology (scientific evidence/ lack of conflict of inetrpetation between adherents/ complete lack of problems/fallibility) to the Bible and the passage about sex and sticks?
Or will he just evade the burning questions by another rhethorical distraction?