Religion Debates

User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Religion Debates

Post by Doug »

Image
See here for an audio version.

Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of Britain, goes head-to-head with the author and atheist Christopher Hitchens to debate whether religion is a force for good in the world.

25 Minutes

Here is a written report of the debate.

I came across a video version of the debate. The introduction is several minutes. The debate itself starts with Hitchens at about the 5-minute mark.

Here.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

Here's a religious debate. A response to a fellow who wrote a letter in the paper. If it was Mr. Comber's goal to fit as many errors as possible into one letter then he did pretty good. Otherwise, not so good. Let's unpack:

COMB:
Mr. Patterson’s worldview is obviously in line with naturalism, which excludes a priori any possibility of God, thus leaving evolution as the only viable option to him.>>

DAR
Wrong. There could be a God and he/she/it could be part of nature. It's just that no one has ever come up with a good reason to believe in such an entity. Evolution is currently the only option for two very good reasons:
a) Mountains of very conclusive evidence showing evolution is true
b)The complete lack of even a competing theory for evolution, and this has been the case for at least 150 years.

COM: Within a naturalistic paradigm, the universe has no cause or purpose, but is here by chance, yet the Big Bang theory implies a beginning to the universe - a conclusion that many naturalistic scientists would rather avoid.>>

DAR
a) Theistic assertions about supposed causes are mere assertion. It doesn't follow that because someone asserts there is a God and further, that they think they know it has a purpose, that there is indeed "a purpose."
b) It doesn't follow from either world view that the universe arose by change, or not.
c) The Big bang only implies a beginning to the universe we observe now and says nothing about conditions that may have led to what we observe.

COM: The Kalam Cosmological argument:

DAR
Is silly, for rather long and complicated reasons that Mr. Combs shouldn't have tried to get into in a letter to the paper. And he didn't. He just asserted and ran. Wiki gives a nice overview here. No one pays it much attention anymore other than WL Craig and few followers.

COM: Second, the underpinnings of science itself - observation, reason and consistency in the universe - depend upon the existence of a creator.>>

DAR
Of course they don't. This is presuppositionalism. Interestingly, while WL Craig is a big fan of the Kalam argument, at least he has the sense to know that presuppositionalism is utter nonsense. He calls it the school of begging the question, and he's right. Believers and unbelievers alike use the same basic rules of logic, no Gods required.

COM: There is no reason for the universe to be ordered and fine-tuned as it is for life and observation.>>

DAR
Nor is there any reason for it not to be. Comber justs asserts the fine tuning argument and then runs off to the next thing, not even bothering to try and defend it.

COM: [big snip]... If there is no creator then the greatest accomplishments of science are akin to moving deck chairs around on the Titanic, for it all amounts to nothing in the end.>>

DAR
Sorry about that. Wishing things were otherwise isn't an argument.

COM: When viewed through purely naturalistic lenses, the data of the cosmos suggest one of two inevitable final states for life onEarth: death by heat or cold. If that is our destiny, what difference does any of this discussion make...>>

DAR
This is Mr. Comer once again assuming that unless there is a God telling him there is a purpose to his life, that he can't have a purpose to his life. Kind of sad really.

COM: If, on the other hand, there is a creator and sustainer of the universe as scientific data supports (the data is the same; it’s how one interprets the data), then Mr. Patterson’s question indirectly leads to some very worthwhile discussions.>>

DAR
Notice how Mr. Comer can't even have a "worthwhile discussion" unless he imagines having a "creator and sustainer of the universe." Notice how religion makes people perpetual children.

COM: Are creationists inconsistent in critiquing Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin? Darwin’s theory of evolution has crept into scientific classrooms without merit in an attempt to displace a necessary creator.>>

DAR
Notice the loaded weasel words. Evolution didn't creep in, it barged in a took over. And it changed everything. We have 150 years of accumulated evidence and Comber dismisses this with a hand wave and the mere assertion "without merit." And if he wants anyone to think a creator is "necessary" he might try and develop a good argument for believing in one. He didn't bring one this time.

COM: Einstein’s theories, although not all correct, belong in the science and math classrooms alongside other scientists that denied atheism and recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe: [snip list of religious scientists].

DAR
Mr. Comber makes the standard mistake of thinking Einstein believed in God. He didn't. He was an atheist and said so plainly.

"Dear Mr. Raner:
I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." --Albert Einstein 7/2/45 (Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997)

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

And Einstein's atheism certainly puts him in company with the top scientists today which are overwhelmingly atheist, especially the physicists (over 90%). Interesting to observe that those who understand our universe the best are most likely to not believe in God.

Part of Comber's letter here along with comment thread
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
L.Wood
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:21 am

Re: Religion Debates

Post by L.Wood »

Outstanding rebuttal Darrell.

Here's Comber's entire letter in case fayfreethinkers don't have a subscription to NWA Newspapers:

Mr. George Dean Patterson (Public Viewpoint, Jan. 16) asked why creationists don’t proclaim Albert Einstein to be an idiot. The question itself is framed in such a manner as to pit science against the Bible.

Science interprets data and that data can be viewed through lenses of different worldviews. Mr. Patterson’s worldview is obviously in line with naturalism, which excludes a priori any possibility of God, thus leaving evolution as the only viable option to him.

There are some problems with that worldview, however. Within a naturalistic paradigm, the universe has no cause or purpose, but is here by chance, yet the Big Bang theory implies a beginning to the universe - a conclusion that many naturalistic scientists would rather avoid. The Kalam Cosmological argument:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Second, the underpinnings of science itself - observation, reason and consistency in theuniverse - depend upon the existence of a creator. There is no reason for the universe to be ordered and fine-tuned as it is for life and observation. The degree of fine-tuning of the cosmological constant (first hypothesized by Einstein) is difficult to imagine, but its value exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.

Einstein’s general relativity equations revealed what we’ve been able to test empirically today - an expanding universe, yet that conclusion did not square with the static view of his day, so he introduced a fudge factor called lambda. This permitted his theory of general relativity to mathematically hold the universe at a standstill. Einstein later called lambda his greatest blunder, yet it also reveals a tendency whereby adherence to a naturalistic worldview becomes a goal unto itself - philosophical naturalism. If there is no creator then the greatest accomplishments of science are akin to moving deck chairs around on the Titanic, for it all amounts to nothing in the end.

When viewed through purely naturalistic lenses, the data of the cosmos suggest one of two inevitable final states for life onEarth: death by heat or cold. If that is our destiny, what difference does any of this discussion make and why does Mr. Patterson concern himself about what others think of Einstein? If, on the other hand, there is a creator and sustainer of the universe as scientific data supports (the data is the same; it’s how one interprets the data), then Mr. Patterson’s question indirectly leads to some very worthwhile discussions.

Are creationists inconsistent in critiquing Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin? Darwin’s theory of evolution has crept into scientific classrooms without merit in an attempt to displace a necessary creator. Einstein’s theories, although not all correct, belong in the science and math classrooms alongside other scientists that denied atheism and recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe: Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, William Thomson Kelvin and Max Planck.

JOHN COMBER / Bentonville
"Blessed is the Lord for he avoids Evil just like the Godfather, he delegates."
Betty Bowers
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

Thanks Larry. A fellow calling himself "ExNilo" has stepped in. Here is my response to his points, also posted here.

***
Let's see how ExNilo's points hold up.

***
EXN: Einstein became a deist after Hubble proved the universe had a beginning - a believer in an impersonal creator God:>>

DAR
You provide no evidence "Einstein became a deist." I provided a quote from him saying a Jesuit would consider him an atheist. I have many more.

EXN :"I believe in Spinoza's God..." --Einstein>>

DAR
Lot's of people file Spinoza under the category of atheist. Like Einstein he wasn't a theist and that is what the word atheist literally means (a = not, theist). For example:

"My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true
piety towards the universe and denies only
gods fashioned by men in their own image
to be servants of their human interests." -- George Santayana (1863-1952) U.S. philosopher, writer, professor

EXN: However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:>>

DAR
He said he was an atheist (citation provided) and I'll take his word over yours. It's important to note that not everyone who doesn't believe in God necessarily embraces the title "atheist" at all times. After centuries of furious Christian abuse and derision aimed at the word (not too long ago dictionaries defined atheist as "wicked") it's common for unbelievers to use other titles expressing their unbelief. For instance about half of Europeans don't believe in God but only about 15-20% choose the moniker atheist. This hardly matters, these are just labels. Einstein didn't believe in a personal God which is what theists by definition believe in. He wasn't a theist and asked during his lifetime that people stop lying and saying that he did believe in God. He was very clear on how he understood the word "God."

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," --letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper."
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...

Einstein on morality: "I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it." --Albert Einstein, from Einstein Portrait, (1953)

Einstein's response when asked pointedly if he was an atheist: "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." --Einstein, ibid.

D.

***
EXN: Such a God as you describe (being "part of nature") doesn't fit the notion of God,>>

DAR
Your own personal notion of God I suppose. Since there are no standards of measurement in the God creation business, they come in a lot of varieties. And the raw building material for making new ones is so cheap!

EXN: [you say] "no one has ever come up with..." "Mountains of very conclusive evidence"? care to provide any?>>

DAR
My "mountains of evidence" refers specifically to evolution. Begin your education here:
http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-q...

All of your creationist questions and concerns are dealt with there. If you have a question you can't find the answer to there, post it in our freethinker forum and our experts standing by will promptly help you out:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/

EXN: The so-called "complete lack of even a competing theory for evolution" is another blarring error as it establishes the point that your naturalistic definition of what constitutes a valid theory...>>

DAR
Well, if you want to call it a scientific theory, yes. And that's all anybody really cares about. We've heard the theologists yammering for millennia about this God and that God and what attributes or opinion somebody thinks their God may have but since none of them can back ANY of it up with anything beyond mere assertion (and their theories mostly contradict each other), it's all quite tedious and hasn't amounted to a hill of beans.
Mr. Comber pointed out that some famous scientists were religious in the past, Newton for instance. He wrote a lot of utter dreck about numerology and Bible prophecy. Is that what he is remembered for? Of course not. No one cares about that and it remains on the rubbish pile. But his science, that which can be replicated, tested and verified is still taught today. That's the difference. Science works. Science gets results and gets the right answer about how our world works. Religion gave us these answers long ago it's just that we now know precisely how and why those answers were wrong.
If you have an alternative to the theory of evolution, let's see it and don't forget to bring along evidence for why your theory is true.

EXN: "...this mumbo-jumbo about "supposed causes" being mere assertions" is mystifying.">>

DAR
Not really. None of your supposed causes rise above mere assertion. That's why the only people believing them have to appeal to faith.

EXN: The Big Bang (a purely naturalistic theory) says there was a beginning to the universe.>>

DAR
Note, all scientific theories are naturalistic. Appeals to a supernatural are not explanatory, not useful, not informative and complete dead ends. Saying a ghost did something by "magic" is not in any sense an "explanation." It's a cop out and an excuse for avoiding saying you don't know or avoiding the emotional discomfort of accepting the answer science provides.

cont...

EXN: The premises of the Kalam argument... 1) anything that BEGINS to exist has a cause.>>

DAR
Show this. Here are a few problems for you Kalam argument:

a) It only addresses a supposed cause in the past and says nothing about that cause existing now. If you want an argument for this cause existing now, you need a different argument.

b) As my friend Doug puts this:
"Modern physics recognizes that some events have no cause. So the universe could begin to exist uncaused. The most popular cosmological theory about the origin of the universe, among physicists, is that it began to exist because of a “vacuum fluctuation” that was uncaused." There goes premise #1.

EXN: Is there any exception to this that you can provide to prove it incorrect?>>

DAR
I don't need to. It's your assertion, you back it up. Since we don't have any universes to compare this one too, and you don't know the conditions that may have led to the Big Bang, you're stuck. Best to be honest and say you don't know.

EXN: 2) The universe BEGAN to exist.>>

DAR
Yes, but this is to say nothing about conditions that led to this event. To quote my friend Doug again:

The “big bang” may not have been an absolute beginning. The universe could be cyclical, with a “big crunch” preceding a “big bang,” infinitely in the past. If our universe began to exist, but was preceded by many others in the past, no supernatural first cause is required to explain it." There goes premise #2.

More problems for premise #2:

a) Black holes may cause universes, according to cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking and Lee Smolin.
b) Our universe may be a spin-off of another, which was from another, etc., infinitely into the past and in other dimensions.
c) If our universe began to exist, but was preceded by other “parent” universes, no supernatural cause is required to explain our universe.

EXN: Do you not hold to the Big Bang theory?>>

DAR
I do. There are many (about 13) different lines of evidence supporting it. Do you have any lines of evidence for your religious theories?

EXN: 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. This naturally follows and must be accepted if the 2 premises are accepted as true.>>

DAR
I don't accept #1 and #2 doesn't accomplish what you wish either. Honest people know we don't know what conditions may have led to the Big Bang.

EXN: "...suffice it to say that the cause must itself be uncaused, eternal and not dependent upon the universe itself.">>

DAR
That statement applies equally well to a universe, matter/energy and whatever conditions may have let to our present condition. And my postulation is far simpler, no magical God assertions required. I am reminded of something Ingersoll said about 130 years ago:

"He [the creationist] is perfectly certain that there can be no design without a designer, and he is, equally certain that there can be a designer who was not designed. The absurdity becomes so great that it takes the place of a demonstration. He takes it for granted that matter was created and that its creator was not." --Ingersoll, Why I Am An Agnostic

EXN: "That's the only logical answer!">>

DAR
That's not even an answer. It's a mystical, religious, supernatural assertion with no support beyond wishful thinking.

D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

ExNilo didn't respond to a single point or objection. And now he hints he is going to run. Oh well. Here is my response to his latest:

***
ExNilo writes a response with various complaints but doesn't take a moment to respond to a single one of the standard and well known objections to his Kalam argument that were provided. I wonder why? Was he unaware of them? They clearly seem to show his conclusion does not follow from his premises. Does he want to defend Kalam from these problems or is he going to run?

He talks more about the Big Bang but no one in this discussion has expressed the slightest disagreement with the notion that it is the prevailing theory and well supported by the data. He tries to read several standard and well worn theological implications into the Big Bang but again, doesn't take a moment to respond to the problems pointed out with those either. I don't think this is by accident. No one knows the conditions "preceding" or leading to the Big Bang and that doesn't provide a reason to fill this gap with a God. Nor does this require us to think the universe must operate by the usual chain of causation we observe as we carry about our day. The universe and our understanding of QM give us good reason to understand that the universe is quite a bit weirder than that.

Then he goes on more assertions about the beliefs of Darwin and Einstein (and this matters why?)

EXN: "the tables have actually been turned from the initial letter - Darwin and Einstein were NOT both atheists,>>

DAR
Who cares? Einstein, when specifically asked for clarification on the question of whether he was an atheist, said he was. Here is the fellow who wrote him the letter and the responses:

http://www.ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/2004/nov/raner.php

You keep saying he was a deist but, as usual, do not respond to a request for verification. Einsteins beliefs were complex and like many he didn't like the standard labels and being put in a box. But like almost all physicists, he clearly didn't believe in God and stated so plainly. Get over it.

EXN: "we do not see anything like that today; inanimate or animals do not just appear from nowhere.">>

DAR
Is this supposed to be an argument against evolution? Were you under the impression that evolution predicts "animals appearing from nowhere?" You say you have been studying this for years. Have you tried a science book not published by a Christian/creationist publishing house?

EXN: "researching the scientific data has led me to believe there are HUGE holes in the Darwinian evolutionary theory.">>

DAR
Then you shouldn't have any trouble pointing to one of these HUGE holes. That is if you don't mind seeing it promptly filled in with solid science. Evolution hasn't been in question in scientific circles for about 150 years. There have been no competing theories during that time.

D.
----
“Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.”
--Herbert Spencer, 1820-1903
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

Fresh responses to ExNilo. He's got questions so I'm happy to help him out with some answers.

***
EX: " If you've ever seen "Expelled" the movie, you'll know...">>

DAR
You mean the movie that had so many lies and errors in it that Scientific American had to run a two issue series unpacking all of the whoppers? Begin your education here:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... s-expelled

You really don't want to get in to defending that horribly dishonest movie.

EX: "issues I have with biological evolution: The fossil record –... transitional fossils...>>

DAR
As you've already been informed with the FAQ link, we've got them in spades.

"Transitions at higher taxonomic levels,... are abundant. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Fossil Hominids FAQ:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Intermediate and Transitional Forms:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

The creationists you have been looking to for scientific information, have been lying to you.

EX: Spontaneous Generation proven invalid – Pasteur’s famous experiment...>>

DAR
This is a most elementary error and reveals how fundamental your misunderstanding of this issue are. Short answer:

"What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abiopro ... ation.html

And please note, evolution is not, and does not address, the "rise of life." Please understand that your supposed evolution concern, does not even deal with evolution.

EX: Irreducible complexity - Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” has received much critique, yet his point is still valid.">>

DAR
Behe's material was rebutted, throughly and completely, by his peer's within months of publication. It never recovered and is not taken remotely seriously outside of creationist circles and a certain Intelligent Design political front group (see Dover trial).

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

And note, Behe acknowledges that we share a common ancestor with the gorilla and that the evolutionary transition from reptile to mammal is extremely well confirmed. Be care of your bed fellows.

EX: There is plenty of examples of biological ‘machines’ within our bodies that could not have possibly developed in a gradual, stepwise progression;>>

DAR
You don't have a one and Behe's famous flagship "flagellum" example fails for very well understood reasons (see link).

D.

***

EX: Wow… I have so many Q’s... what are the odds of our brain developing from some primordial soup?">>

DAR
In order to calculate odds, one needs to know the number of variables. Provide the variables and one can calculate the odds. You cannot provide the variables in order to calculate the odds in this case. Sorry about that.

EX: we have things called computers here running pretty complex software (> 1 million lines of code/application) and it takes a large team of intelligence to piece it all together correctly... Mathematically speaking, it is just so difficult to comprehend it just happening by chance.">>

DAR
Evolution does not proceed by chance. This was already explained to you, carefully and quite beautifully, in this thread, by Frank (see above). You reveal again that you don't have an elementary understanding of the theory you are attempting to critique.

EX: Some of our scientists have observed astonishing array of chemical machinery within our biological bodies and trouble accepting that finely calibrated, interdependent biological systems could arise in a step-wise fashion.">>

DAR
You'll have to be more specific. I am not interested in what some unnamed "some of our scientists" may "have trouble accepting" but rather what the evidence shows. The evidence shows us that evolution explains the descent and modification of species we observe today. And it did that in 1860. You missed the boat.

EX: How do you keep such dissention at bay in your world or does everyone there has some special Kool-Aid that they drink to keep them in line?">>

DAR
That's the interesting thing about science. Unlike religion, which enshrines it's errors in holy dogma, science is self correcting and does not lend it self to the grand conspiracy you allude to. Scientists from around the world, coming from all religious persuasions, don't hold their beliefs about evolution because they arbitrarily want to but rather because of the overwhelming, publicly available, evidence.

EX: BTW, what color is the sky in your world?">>

DAR
I am quite happy to address your questions and help you out but do try to focus and keep the rabbit trails to a minimum. This is cross posted in our freethinker forum here: viewtopic.php?p=23178#p23178

Feel free to join in there as well.

D.
***

EX: "In the universe I live in, we have conducted scientific experiments which show our universe is expanding.">>

DAR
Correct. And perhaps even accelerating as it expands.

EX: This leads our intellectual giants to conclude that at one point the universe exploded into existence from nothing.">>

DAR
Wrong. We don't know what led to that "point" exploding. It may have had a cause, or perhaps not (our understandings of causation, time and space break down at this level). If it did have a cause, we have no reason to think it wasn't a natural cause. Asserting a supernatural, magical cause does not provide and explanation but rather pretends to "answer" one mystery with a bigger mystery.

EX: "did it [the universe] result from an infinite regression of cause and effect?>>

DAR
Perhaps.

EX: "our mathematicians here generally agree that that an infinite traverse of a series of caused events would never bring us to the present time">>

DAR
You need to talk to mathematicians that aren't creationists. Post your concern on our forum. We have physicists, chemists, philosophers and mathematicians standing by who can walk you through this. Or you could read about the well know objections to your Kalam arguments yourself.

EX: I’m curious what your beginning universe story is and how you explain it">>

DAR
I don't know and you don't either. Sorry about that. Better to be honest and admit you don't know rather than to pretend that you do, when you don't.

EX: (you DO have a theory that compliments the grand explanation of life’s beginnings, right?).">>

DAR
Your comments are very muddled and slide between three rather grand categories without acknowledging how completely different they are. These are cosmology, biogenesis and biological evolution. These are not the same. Please stop treating them as if they are the same.

EX: we seem to have a problem explaining life arising from non-living matter as one of our renown scientists proved that it cannot happen!">>

DAR
If you are speaking of Pasteur, this has already been dealt with above. You have some very basic reading to do in order to unlearn the nonsense some creationists have taught you.

EX: I’m curious how life popped into existence from non-life in your universe.">>

DAR
Begin your education here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Ten minutes. Easy.

EX: troubling issue – that of the fine-tuning of our universe.">>

DAR
We do need to have a little bit of focus here. You have been entirely non responsive to my questions, and the problems I have pointed out with your assertions thus far. Yet you want me to respond as you produce new rabbit trails. You now want to move onto other grand categories only to probably ignore the new problems as they are pointed out (this is called the "Gish Gallup"). I will gladly talk about the fine tuning argument but if there is to be any progress it might be best to focus on what you already have on your plate.

D.
***

EX: more disturbing questions arising among some people here, such as morality.">>

DAR
Well fortunately we have a book to turn to which tells us what is moral and not moral. And the people reading that book have only divided themselves into 30,000 differing sects which cannot agree on a single issue regarding the moral issues of the day. See our tract on this here (one of my favorites):

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/moralvalues.shtml

EX: "Do you hold to any absolutes in your universe?">>

DAR
I am open to the notion but have many for years asked believers in such things to give me an example of a "moral absolute." By moral I mean a specific rule governing how humans should interact and by absolute I mean "no exceptions." If you believe in a "moral absolute" it wouldn't be too much to ask that you provide an example of one along with an explanation showing how you know it is "moral" and also how you know it is "absolute."

EX: The problem [with moral relativism] is that moral non-absolutes lead to everyone deciding what flavor of the “truth” they want and then who is to say something is absolutely wrong?">>

DAR
Ah, people do that anyway, whether they use their own developed sense of morality (generally borrowed from their culture) or pretend to get it from a book.

EX: "[Hitler] believed there was no accountability after life and thought it was the “right” thing to commit genocide against a certain group of people...">>

DAR
Yes, let's ask him why he did that also what moral foundation he was leaning upon:

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior
as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness,
surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for
what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who,
God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read
through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in
His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the
brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against
the Jewish poison."
--Adolph Hitler, in a speech delivered April 12, 1922
Published in "My New Order"

I can bury you in such examples. It's important to know that his comments echo very precisely the mutterings of Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, who had a very similar view of the Jews.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Doug »

Darrel wrote:EX: Wow… I have so many Q’s... what are the odds of our brain developing from some primordial soup?"
DOUG
The odds are better than the odds of a ghost creating human brains out of nothingness by magic power.

At least we know that there was "primordial soup." We know the mechanisms by which evolutionary changes happen. We know from the fossil record roughly when creatures started to develop backbones, etc. We can point to evidence for the different claims made by the evolutionary theorists.

We don't know that there is a magical ghost that creates things. We don't know of any magic power that would allow a ghost to create human brains. We know of no mechanism that could explain how such a process is possible, let alone showing that it is likely. There is no evidence to point to, no data to compile.

The odds of something happening by evolution are WAY better than your ghost hypothesis.

Please explain the odds of your "magical ghost did it" hypothesis taking place.

So which is the better explanation?
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

MrD chimes in with some godly assertions:

***
Let's consider "MrD's" points.

MRD: "[God's existence] is answered by one word. "Israel.">>

DAR
Mere assertion.

MRD: God made Israel into a nation with whom he worked his miracles,>>

DAR
Bah, that was a long time ago. Even the conservative branch of Judaism doesn't believe that anymore (for instance the Exodus, etc.).

MRD: gave the law through Moses,>>

DAR
But your God (ever changeless), changed his mind about those. Why didn't he just give us the right rules in the first place?

MRD: "and... satisfied the law by becoming flesh in the form of Jesus,>>

DAR
Israel, the Jewish folks that wrote your book from beginning to end, disagree. Ask them.

MRD: and raised Himself from the dead as predicted after 3 days,>>

DAR
There is no record Jesus wrote anything or told anyone to write anything so all we have are anonymous gospel stories written decades later expressly for the purpose "that you might believe." And note, while the claim is Jesus supposedly said:

"Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:..." (Luke 24:45-46), that's just another mistake. There is no Hebrew scripture making such a claim.

MRD: "was seen of hundreds of people after the resurrection,">>

DAR
Name one, and give us their first person testimony (you can't). Paul's story refers to a dream, and dreams don't count.

MRD: An angel declared to them that he would come back again by descending through the clouds and every eye would see him.>>

DAR
That was 1,975 years ago. How'd that prediction work out? At what point is it time to admit this prediction was wrong? Another thousand years?

MRD: He chose Israel to represent Him on earth.>>

DAR
And how'd that work out for Him? Israel considers Jesus a heretic.

MD: Of course, if you don't believe in God, you don't believe in Hell,>>

DAR
There is as much evidence for one as the other. Which is to say, none. There is no conscious hell in the Hebrew scriptures, that was a notion Christians later stole from the Zoroastrians and included because it scares people, especially children.

MRD: "when did not believing in something cause it not to exist?">>

DAR
More importantly for your case, when did believing in something or having faith in something (God, heaven, hell) cause it to exist?

MRD: Non-believers in God fall into the same category [as moon landing deniers].>>

DAR
But completely unlike your faith based theological assertions, we have extremely have good evidence and living witnesses affirming the entirely naturalistic moon landing event. Thus, no comparison.

D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

Another round with MrD:

***
Let's consider MrD's points:

MRD: You deny the existence of God because you do not see Him on TV or in person.">>

Wrong. I am quite aware he avoids TV and is conveniently invisible. I am rather doubtful of his existence because I am unaware of any evidence whatsoever for his existence. Having spent nearly 3 decades believing him, I am certainly open to the idea.

MRD: I bet that you don't question historical accounts of ancient writings">>

When they make extraordinary claims, I certainly do. And you do to, but you make an exception for the Bible.

MRD: Can you verify Confuscious?>>

Mere existence is not very extraordinary so the bar doesn't get set very high for that claim. Also, I haven't met any people claiming he is still alive and interfering with their life.

MRD: "you can find his writings.">>

That helps. Can you point me to what Jesus' wrote? You mean God came to earth with the most important message of all time and he didn't think to confirm it with a note written in his own hand? We have to trust anonymous scribes writing decades later? Sounds fishy.

MrD: "Jesus was a Jew and he existed.">>

I think you're probably right about that. Your case gets much weaker beyond this.

MRD: Josiah, a Jewish historian refers to his existance.>>

You are probably thinking of Josephus. He wasn't born until 7 years after Jesus died so he cannot be a firsthand witnessed of Jesus. And we know his works have been tampered with because we have earlier versions that don't have the phrase you are leaning upon. We have no reference to Jesus during his lifetime. Not one. Several local historians could have mentioned him but didn't.

MRD: most Jews believe in God...>>

Well, kinda. "Jewish" can be refer to religion, culture and/or ethnic background. Jews have a very high ratio of atheism. Also, lot's of religious Jews, including rabbis, don't believe in a personal God (theism).

MRD: "some [Jews] believe in Jesus as the Messiah.">>

Then we call them either Christians, or confused.

MRD: "As far as God changing his mind...He did not.">>

Sure He did. Lot's of times. Let me know if you would like examples from your Bible.

MrD: "The Exodus is a perfect example of the power and miracles of God.">>

The Exodus, as the story goes, is not possible for many well understood, reasons. Let me know if you would like me to lay them out for you. Here is an excellent article explaining why even the conservative Jews no longer take that mythical story literally:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/09/books ... minds.html

MrD: He fed them by sending manna (bread) each night... [snip miracles] That is history,...>>

No, that's not history, it's fable and it did not happen.

**

MrD: You... are in denial of God because you are afraid to die and face Him.">>

You are projecting. Death is natural, happens to everyone, no exceptions. It's not something to fear. Your religion went to great trouble to teach you that.

MrD: "if you don't believe in God, you had better be right">>

This is Paschal's Wager, we have a nice non-tract explaining why it doesn't work:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/pascalswager.shtml

MrD: "A wise man will change his mind, but a fool never does.">>

I've changed my mind lots of times so that verse doesn't apply to me. I like this one:

"A simple man believes every word he hears; a clever man understands the need for proof." --Proverbs 14:15 (NEB)

I recommend this one for you also:

"Test all things; hold fast what is good." 1 Thess. 5:21

I follow the evidence where it leads and will believe anything as long as there is good evidence for it and it can be shown to be true. I used to believe as you did, then I did some investigating and found out I was uninformed and misinformed. Then I changed my mind.

D.
-----
Excerpt from the NYT's article above:

New Torah For Modern Minds

By MICHAEL MASSING (NYT)
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism issues new Torah and commentary called Etaz Hayim (Tree of Life), which offers interpretation of Bible as human rather than divine document; book, incorporating latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and study of ancient cultures, proposes that Abraham never existed, that entire Exodus story as recounted in Bible probably never occurred, that Jericho was unwalled and uninhabitated, and that David was not fearless king who built Jerusalem into might capital but more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide rallying point for fledgling nation;...

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/09/books ... minds.html
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

MrD has some questions.

***
MrD: "How are you able to prove that the account in Exodus is a fable?">>

About 50 different ways. The math doesn't work for one thing. There are anachronisms, unsurmountable logistical problems of feeding and watering (and communicating with) 2.5 million people and their cattle in a desert. The stories are filled with contradictions and then there is the screaming argument from silence provided by archaeology which finds not a drop of evidence where there would certainly be mountains of it. These problems have been known for centuries. I can put something together and post it with a link but it's too long and perhaps off topic for this little thread. Or you could just read some good standard scholarship on the issue. All of it is against your position. Even wiki has some good well referenced introductory material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

MrD: "And don't ask me to prove that it isn't.">>

How about asking you to support your assertions? That wouldn't be unreasonable. All of the scholarship is against you (faith based fundamentalist claims aren't scholarship).

MrD: "to assert that the Exodus is a fable is to deny the existence of God.">>

No, that doesn't follow (non sequiter fallacy). Whether a God exists is true or false quite independently of whether the biblical Exodus occurred. My beliefs about the Exodus are perfectly inline with standard mainstream Christian (and Jewish) scholarship. So your claim doesn't follow and is plainly false.

MrD: "You are unable to prove that God does not exist.">>

Correct. Nor can I prove that a teapot is *not* in space orbiting around the sun or that planets don't move as they do because angels are pushing them in circles. That I can't prove the negative in these cases is *not* a good reason to believe in those claims. The burden is with the one who asserts such claims.
I have a dictionary with about 2,500 Gods listed. Most can't be disproven but some of them can because they have specific self-contradictory attributes. Your God suffers from this affliction. Let me know if you would like to get into some of these problems.

MrD: "You quote many sources... [and] accept what those writers say seemingly without question,">>

No, like you, (except when talking about your religion) I am skeptical of claims depending on the claim in question. The skepticism rises in relation to the extraordinariness of the claim.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and your Bible is filled with miraculous extraordinary claims and there is not even ordinary mundane evidence in support of them. This is why churches spend so much time talking about "faith," which means to believe something without requiring proof or evidence.

D.
----
"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God."
-- Martin Luther, Walter Kaufmann's Critique of Religion and Philosophy

***
A fellow calling himself "Skeptic" thinks he's caught me in a boo.

Skeptic asks: "if they are Jewish by culture or ethnic background they can't be Jewish Christians?">>

No, I didn't say that. It is quite possible to Jewish by culture or ethnic background and be a Christian. Much tougher and eccentric to be an observant religious Jew and Christian at the same time (although a few folks do try, see the tiny "Jews for Jesus" sect).

Best to not get caught up too much in labels and titles. They are at best approximations and the word "Jewish" is very broad.

D.
-------------
As a Jewish acquaintance once remarked:

"There is absolutely no problem with being Jewish and atheist or agnostic. Being a rabbi and atheist or agnostic is slightly more difficult, but not much. You know why? We just don't talk about God all that much. I mean, yeah, we say prayers, but nobody really worries too much about what they mean, they're just traditional.
Judaism is a culture first, and a religion a distant second for the vast majority of Jews. My most un-scientific estimate of Conservative Reform, and Reconstructionist Jews (all bets are off for the Orthodox, but they're a minority anyway) is that a good 50% are atheist or agnostic. My mother thinks it's more like 75% actually! Or at least they would be if they cared enough to worry about it!
There really is no Xian analogy, because Xianity is totally different than Judaism. After all, I don't think there are very many Jews who believe that the Bible is infallible! (Again, all bets are off for the Orthodox. Every group has to have their loonies. They're ours. Aren't they cute? :")
Anyway, remember Judaism is a culture and a fun one at that. Food comes first, then we worry about everything else! Mara "Apikoros means heretic!"
--Greengrass Anthropologist, Archaeologist, Jewish Agnostic, Loose Cannon
"Sa'ah naaghaii bik'eh hozho"

***
Skep: You were attempting to rebut MrD's assertion that some Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah.">>

Not at all. Of course they do this. See the characters in the New Testament. And when Jews do this, they aren't religious Jews anymore are they? They're religious Christians yet by a *different* definition of Jewish, they are *ethnically* Jewish.

Do try to keep up.

You are confusing and equivocating between the religious/cultural/ethnic definitions of "Jewish." Don't do that.

As Jackie Mason once put it:

"There's no such thing as a Jew for Jesus. You can't be a table and a chair. You're either a Jew or a Gentile."

Interesting to see that the Supreme Court of Israel has even ruled on this question:

"In 1993 the Supreme Court of Israel, in a case involving a couple affiliated with Jews for Jesus, ruled that Jews who adhere to the Christian beliefs are regarded by Israeli law as "members of a different faith," and are not eligible for the automatic citizenship that Israel grants Jews... In its summary of the ruling, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the belief that Jesus is the Messiah "cannot be reconciled with Judaism" and "marks the clear separation between Judaism and Christianity."

Bingo. Learn more about this here.

***

"Skeptic" is still claiming to have a mountain without being able to show even a mole hill.

SKP: "Dar... said they were not Jews if they believed in Christ as the Messiah, they were Christians, or confused.">>

Exactly right. And in my eight word sentence I was consistently referring to Jews as defined by *religion* (not ethnicity and culture as you are trying to confuse the issue with). You are trying to build something upon an equivocation entirely of your own creation.

Let's simplify further:

If a Jew [defined by religion] believes Jesus is the messiah, they are then not Jews anymore [as defined by religion], they are Christians.

If a Jew [defined by religion] believes Jesus is the messiah and still considers themselves a Jew [as defined by religion], then they are confused.

Hope this helps.

D.
***
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

SKEPTIC: "Peter... denied Christ because he... was a coward, and this also fulfilled prophecy. Matthew 26:34>>
DAR
Contradictions with the differing stories of Peter's Denials:

***
Problem #1

a) Jesus foretells that the cock will crow only after Peter denies him three times

Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee
now? I will lay down my life for thy sake. Jesus
answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my
sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall
not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.

John 13:37-38
And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he
had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt
deny me thrice. Luke 22:61
And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said
unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me
thrice. Matt. 26:75

VS.

b) The cock did crow before Peter denied Jesus three times.

[First] And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there
cometh one of the maids of the high priest: And when
she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him,
and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
But he denied, saying, I know not,... and the cock
crew.


[Second] And a maid saw him again, and began to say
to them that stood by, This is one of them. And he
denied it again.

[Third] And a little after, they that stood by said again
to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a
Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto. but he began
to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of
whom ye speak. And the second time the cock crew.
Mark 14:66-72

***
Problem #2

All four gospel accounts record Peter's three "denials" of Jesus. The dialogue of
the accusations and his denial's are described contrarily in each account as follows:

* * FIRST DENIAL * *

Matt 26:69-70
Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee... I know not what thou sayest.

Mark 14:67-68
And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth... I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest,...

Luke 22:56-57
This man was also with him. Woman, I know him not.

John 18:17
Art not thou also one of this man's disciples?
I am not.

* * SECOND DENIAL * *

Matt 26:71-72
This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
I do not know the man.

Mark 14:69-70
This is one of them.
[And he denied it again.]

Luke 22:58
Thou art also of them.
Man, I am not.

John 18:25
Art not thou also one of his disciples?
I am not.

* * THIRD DENIAL * *

Matt 26:73-74
Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech betrayeth thee.
Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man.

Mark 14:70-71
Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth
thereto.
I know not this man of whom ye speak.

Luke 22:59-60
Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean.
Man, I know not what thou sayest.

John 18:26-27
Did not I see thee in the garden with him?
[Peter then denied again.]
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

Skeptic says: "Dar, you will always find a reason not to believe.">>

This suggests I am requiring an unreasonable amount of evidence. I am not. It's not too much to ask that a claim of supernatural prophecy fulfillment be verified with good evidence. If there were good reasons to believe, then I would believe. Do you have any of those?

SKP: There are over 300 prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ.">>

Can you verify a single one of them? That's what matters. The truth is in the details. And your number is a little low. I've seen people claim 1,200. Seen them all before.

The problem is, the fellows penning the New Testament had the Old Testament in their hand as they wrote their Jesus story. So it was quite easy for them to incorporate whatever event they wanted to make it look like he did this or that, or fulfilled what they wanted as necessary. Then they follow it with... "as was spoken of by the prophet." You never thought of this trick? It's a very old trick but it still works with the gullible.

We know they were doing this because modern scholarship has caught them making obvious and repeated boo boo's as they did their pious fraud.
Modern scholarship acknowledges there is no fulfillment of messianic prophecies. And the Jews, who wrote the supposed prophecies in question, of course agree.

SKP: See a few of them here: http://www.bprc.org/topics/fulfill.html>>

Pick one, or a few, that you think are the strongest examples, and we'll see how they hold up. Verify one and I'll give you $100. The six very reasonable requirements are listed here:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/bible ... ward.shtml

SKP: "Josh McDowell calculated the odds of Jesus fulfilling only eight of the Messianic prophecies as 1 out of 10 to the 17th power">>

DAR
Considering that not a single event of Jesus life can be verified, I would put the odds of fulfillment at 1 out of 1. That's pretty good odds. It's easy to fulfill prophecy when you misread someone else's religion and can simply say that the character in your story did whatever.

I'll let Thomas Paine explain the odds to you:

"...is it more probable that nature should go out of her course or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie." -–Thomas Paine, Age of Reason, pg. 95

SKP: "I know this isn't enough for a scholar such as yourself.">>

No, it isn't enough because I am interested discovering whether things are actually true. And none of the your prophecy fulfillment claims can be shown to be true. Not one. Try verifying one and see.

D.

***

Skeptic: Dar, my references here:
http://ww.tektonics>>

Ah yes, Bob Turkel. You won't know him by that because he hides behind his phony name "J.P. Holding." I've debated him online and he is profoundly dishonest and purposely misinformed. He is a retired prison guard with no legitimate knowledge of Bible scholarship (but he does fool a lot of fundies with his bloviation!).

More about him here and a picture too:

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/Autho ... urkel.html

And notice your little citation from him actually provides no evidence of any kind. Not a single drop! It's just rhetoric, which is all Turkel ever writes. Mere assertion, no substance whatsover. This does not counter my multiple scholarly sources which show in great detail how the Hebrews shared the exact same misconceptions about cosmology as their neighbors (who, as usual, had the ideas first and they stole them from them).

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

MrD has a wee bit more kick in him:

***

Not sure why MrD is ranting about fools. I don't consider him a fool.

MrD: "Is there a quotation by anyone anywhere that says... pointless to argue with a fool?>>

Perhaps you are thinking of Twain: "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

Jesus talked about fools in Matthew 5:22, when he warned that, ". . . whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire." But he apparently had a short memory because in Matthew 23:17 & 19 he refers to the Pharisees as “fools”. He does it again in Luke 11:40. In Luke 24:25 he calls the two men on the road to Emmaus “fools”. In Luke 12:20 he addresses the rich farmer as “Thou fool.”
Some might consider this hypocritical. Saying one thing and doing another. Fools!

MrD: "It takes a fool to believe that the universe came into existence from nothing.">>

It takes an honest and humble man to admit he doesn't know where it came from. Would it not be *foolish* to pretend you know when you don't?

MrD: "The fact that matter exists proves that it had an origin.">>

See the first law of thermodynamics which informs that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed (certain conditions apply). So it does not follow from the mere existence of matter that the universe had an origin. It may be that matter/energy is eternal. This is certainly a simpler possibility than a God hypothesis that provides no answer anyway.

MrD: A fool... portrays himself as having all the answers.">>

Humankind does have some answers, but not as many as you have, in your book. Where did horses come from? God said horse and *poof*, there were horses. Easy! Yet wrong.

It's important to learn how to discern between good answers, bogus answers, and things that aren't answers at all. This is skeptical scrutiny and is how we separate deep knowledge from deep nonsense. Appealing to the supernatural, ghosts and such, is never an answer. Saying something happened by magic, is never an answer. It provides no explanation or information. It's unwarranted and just makes a bigger mystery.

MrD: I will stake my life on God. By the worlds standards, I have a 50-50 chance of being right.">>

Not sure where you got that math. Christianity is about 32% and dropping:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

But of course it would be a fallacy (ad populum) to suggest that the number of people believing in something has anything whatsoever to do with it being true.

MrD: "If I am not right, I have lost nothing.">>

This is Paschal's old Wager again, and of course you have lost a lot. All the energy invested bowing and scraping for naught. Even Christian philosophers know better than to use this wager. See why here:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/pascalswager.shtml

D.
***
Almost forgot, perhaps MrD was thinking of this fool quote:

"Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue." -Proverbs 17:28

Maybe Skeptic is on to something with the silence?

And when is ExNilo going to come up with one of those "absolute morals" he says are so necessary? I wanna see one of those babies.

How necessary could they be if he can't point to a single one?

D.
-------------
“Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;” --1 PET. 3:15
***
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Doug »

Darrel wrote:Not sure why MrD is ranting about fools. I don't consider him a fool.
MrD: "Is there a quotation by anyone anywhere that says... pointless to argue with a fool?>>

DOUG
Proverbs 26:4 "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him."

Of course, right after the Bible commands "Do not do x," it follows it up with its contradictory: "Do x."

Proverbs 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

Hbcark has a post.

***
Let's look at HB's comments:

HB: I have often wondered how to talk to... someone who thinks God’s Word is wrought with errors.">>

DAR
Standard mainstream Christian scholarship has acknowledged for a century and a half that the Bible is not inerrant. Would you like 100 specific examples? About 15 years ago I wrote a book detailing these well known errors. You can read a free sample here with dozens of examples:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/ourbooks/mirrorsample.shtml

These errors have been known for centuries.

HB: "who would have ever believed the world was flat...">>

Again, all standard Christian Bible scholarship understands that the Bible teaches a flat earth. Your scholarship is at least 150 years out of date.

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/flatearth.shtml

HB: Read: Isaiah 40:22;>>

Okay, lets. Isaiah 40:22:
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants..."

It doesn't say sphere, it says circle. They understood it to be circular, like a big flat pizza. If hold your arm out at the horizon and turn, it is a circle.

I have friend from Israel fluent in Hebrew and also, being a former missionary, biblical Hebrew. His answer:

"The word used for circle is "khug" which means "a circle." or "something in the form of a circle". The root khet-gimel means "to go
around." There is another word 'Igul, which means the geometric form of a circle.
The word for sphere is "Kadur."
If the Bible had used that word you would have a point. But it didn't.

HB: Job: 26:10>>

"He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end."

That you would appeal to this as evidence against the Bible's flat earth just shows how weak your case is.

HB: Proverbs 8:27.>>

"When he prepared the heavens, I [was] there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:"

That gets you a flat pizza, not a globe. The Bible has answers to scientific questions, it's just that they are consistently, almost without exception, wrong.

HB: "America is not a Democracy but a Republic.">>

I don't know why rightwingers like to make this useless point. Our republic, is a form of democracy and thus a form of democracy.

HB: "Josh McDowell,">>

No scholar of the Bible would or should take Josh McDowell seriously with regard to anything about the Bible.

HB: “Cultural relativism... views truth as variable and not absolute.">>

So you believe in moral absolutes? Excellent. I have been looking high and low for years for a Christian who can give me an example of one. Could you provide an example of one along with an explanation showing how you know it is "moral" and also how you know it is "absolute."

By moral I mean a rule that governs interactions between humans and by of course by absolute I mean no exceptions.

D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

Let's unpack the Hbcark pap:

***
HB: The health care bill... There was no debate.">>

Of course there was, and it was televised. Observe:

"Health scare tactics
A GOP blizzard of untrue statements

By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, November 11, 2009

"I'm hoping, for your sake, that you didn't spend your Saturday night as I did: watching the House debate health-care reform on C-SPAN."
--Wash. Post, -http://tinyurl.com/y92vmkv

HB: "They needed or wanted no Republican input.">>

Another popular whopper. They wanted it and when it wasn't devoted to sabotaging reform, they included it. Observe:

"Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical." --http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/

HB: If there was debate or vitriol, it was Democrat against Democrat.">>

Right. Because the republicans largely made themselves irrelevant. Watch for this trend to accelerate as they continue to make themselves a shrinking regional party of angry white people on track to reach minority status in 2044 (those under 25, in about 12 years).

HB: "No one knows for sure what is in the bill.">>

It was posted online for 72 hours before it was even voted on. If you haven't read it, that's your problem. -http://tinyurl.com/yjr3c67

HB: "No one read the bill before passage.">>

False, talking point, canard.

HB: "...it breaks the bank..."

Over ten years it saves 100's of billions compared to the republican plan of status quo, do nothing.

HB: "it was unconstitutional">>

That has yet to be decided but I am very confident you will lose that one as well.

HB: "[not loving] to pass this debt onto to your descendants">>

If you are concerned about debt, observe that nobody spends money and runs up debt better than republicans. See history:

1) Over the last 75 years, Republican administrations have had an average annual deficit of $83.4 billion. The average for Democratic presidents is one fourth of that, only $20 billion.
-http://hnn.us/articles/8301.html

2) Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. Republican presidents increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats."
-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Apr1.html

3) "Using the Bush White House's own numbers, the federal government under Bill Clinton grew at an annual rate of 3.4 percent. But over the past four years under George W. Bush and his Republican Congress, the federal government has grown at a staggering rate of 10.4 percent. More damning is the fact that... George Bush never once vetoed a congressional bill."
-Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day”, pg. 29 (2004)

HB: "[healthcare bill] will not cover everybody.">>

Then it should have been expanded and made more universal. Hardly a viable complaint considering the position of your team.

HB: "It actually takes from some American citizens and gives to non-citizens.">>

False. Observe:

H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

HB: "it disregards the doctor-patient confidentiality.">>

Rubbish.

HB: "It takes a Capitalist state to afford a socialist state.">>

Actually, it was the state that just bailed out and saved the fanny of capitalism. Where were you during 2008-2009?

HB: "Your judgment day is coming...">>

Empty promises.

HB: "America is not a Christian nation>>

You got that one right.

HB [to alpha cat]: "God loves you and so do I.">>

Like your God, you have a funny way of showing it. Do you often refer to people you "love" as "non-persons?"
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

Larry passed along the latest LTE on this Einstein issue. I'll respond here and then perhaps put together a LTE version.

First, the letter in full.

***
EINSTEIN
WAS NO IDIOT Einstein was truly a scientific genius. In that respect, “He never believed that the universe was one of chance” (World Book). Some of Einstein’s personal statements are: “God reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists.” “God does not play dice.” “Science without religion is blind; religion without science is lame.” So why, with all his marvelous achievements, should I call him an idiot, as George Dean Patterson suggests (Public Viewpoint, Jan. 16)?
Since Mr. Patterson is obviously an evolutionist, I would like him to answer the following questions:
1. Why does evolution not conform to the first and second laws of thermodynamics?
2. Has science ever produced life from lifeless substances? (Producing just a single amino acid doesn’t count.) Anthony Flew, a renowned atheist, stated, “Science has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements that are needed to produce life, that intelligence must be involved.”
3. How could consciousness come from mindless matter?
4. Why does the fossil record not support evolution? (Renowned atheist, Harvard Professor Ernest Mayer, admitted in his book, “The fossilrecord remains inadequate to prove evolution.”) In 1859 Charles Darwin expected the fossil record would ultimately prove his theory.
5. What and where in the Bible are anti-science positions?
Unless there are plausible answers to the above questions, how can anyone believe in evolution?
CHUCK CLASS
Bella Vista
***

My response:

CHUCK: "Einstein... never believed that the universe was one of chance”>>

History and science were changed not by what Einstein "believed" but rather by what he could show and demonstrate with verifiable evidence. The Einstein comment you cite here is in reference to his opinion on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and not with regard to the origin or beginning of the universe. We now know that Einstein was in fact wrong. "God" does indeed play dice with the universe.

CH: Some of Einstein’s personal statements are: “God reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists.” “God does not play dice.” “Science without religion is blind; religion without science is lame.”>>

Einstein did indeed marvel at the structure and harmony of the universe. But this observation did not cause him to believe in a personal God. Einstein was not a theist, did not believe in God and stated this plainly during his life. When he famously said "God does not play dice" he was using the word "God" as metaphor.
In 1945 a sailor named Guy Raner wrote to Einstein and asked him to clarify his position regarding claims floating around that he believed in God. His response was:

"Dear Mr. Raner:
I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." --Albert Einstein 7/2/45 (Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997), online here:

http://www.ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/2004/nov/raner.php

He also wrote:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

Chuck then asks for answers to five questions:

1. Why does evolution not conform to the first and second laws of thermodynamics?

It does. This is a misconception started by a few creationists back in the 70's. Short answer: The first law has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. The second law doesn't either. The second law applies to closed systems and the earth is not a closed system (it receives energy from the sun).

2. Has science ever produced life from lifeless substances?

This has no relevance to evolution because evolution does not address the origin of life but rather the change of species over time. Biogenesis is a very different subject and is true or false independently of evolution. Also, science has been around only a few centuries while biogenesis had perhaps a billion years to work with the stew of molecules floating around in the early ocean. We have very good working hypothesis regarding the origins of life. We have had iron clad evidence regarding evolution for at least a century.

3. How could consciousness come from mindless matter?

Good question. This is a gap in our knowledge and no one knows. Yet. Just because a gap in knowledge is identified it does not mean it is appropriate to assume there is a supernatural cause.

4. Why does the fossil record not support evolution?

There are so many independent lines of evidence we don't even need the fossil record. But of course, science has understood for well over a century, that the fossil record does indeed support evolution.

CHUCK: "In 1859 Charles Darwin expected the fossil record would ultimately prove his theory."

And he was right, in spades. He would be especially impressed with the overwhelming evidence that DNA has since provided.

5. What and where in the Bible are anti-science positions?

There is no reason to believe the Bible writers had any notion of science. However, the Bible is filled with examples of supernatural and superstitious claims which were common at the time. It has talking animals (Num 22:27), demon possessed people and pigs (Luke 8:26-39) and even a pack of dead who rise from their tombs and walk around town (Matt 27:52-53). It's certainly unscientific to claim that putting a drop of goats blood on your right big toe cures leprosy (Leviticus 14), or that laying sticks in front of a pregnant animal can change the color of its offspring (Genesis 30:37). The Bible is brimming with such unscientific claims.

CH: Unless there are plausible answers to the above questions, how can anyone believe in evolution?

Scientists and educated people from around the world, coming from all religious persuasions, don't hold their beliefs about evolution because they arbitrarily want to but rather because of overwhelming, publicly available, evidence. I encourage you to make yourself aware of it.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

Doug once put together this excellent exposition detailing an example of Jesus lying. Posted here for reference:

***
Jesus Lied.

During his hearing before the high priest, Jesus says, "I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing" (John 18:20 (NKJ)). Here Jesus is shown making two claims:

(a) Jesus always taught in the synagogues and in the temple, and
(b) Jesus shared all of his teachings with his public audiences; he never kept important parts of his teachings a secret.

So with regard to the two claims (a) and (b), are they true? I'll examine each one in turn.

(i) Jesus' claim that his teachings were always in the synagogues and in the temple is false.
When Jesus states, "I always taught in synagogues and in the temple," does this mean that Jesus was claiming that his teaching, at all times, took place in the synagogue or he taught in the temple? It would seem so.

The word in John 18:20 being translated as "always" in the NKJ, and by almost everyone else, is the Greek word "pantoteh." This Greek word at John 18:20 it has Strong's Greek number 3842. (Strong's list is the standard, scholarly reference list of Hebrew and Greek words from the bible.) This word is a combination of "pas," meaning "all" or "every," and "hoteh," meaning "when" or "while." "All times," basically.

Here is what Strong's Greek dictionary says that this word, #3842, means in Greek:
Definition: 1) at all times, always, ever.

So in English, in Greek, and in all translations, the word here that Jesus uses in John 18:20 has the meaning of "at all times." All major translations use "always" at John 18:20 for Strong's #3842-except the King James Version, which has "ever."

King James Version (KJV)
John 18:20 "Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing."

New King James Version (NKJV)
John 18:20 Jesus answered him, "I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing.

New International Version (NIV)
John 18:20 "I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
John 18:20 Jesus answered him, ""I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret.

Revised Standard Version (RSV)
John 18:20 Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.

Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)
John 18:20 Jesus answered him, `I have talked so that anyone who wanted to could hear me. I have always taught in the meeting houses and in the temple. That is where the Jews always go. I have not said anything in a secret way.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
John 18:20 Jesus answered him, `I spake freely to the world, I did always teach in a synagogue, and in the temple, where the Jews do always come together; and in secret I spake nothing;

Darby Translation (DARBY)
John 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spoke openly to the world; I taught always in [the] synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and in secret I have spoken nothing.

New English Translation (NET)
18:20 Jesus replied, "I have spoken publicly to the world. I always taught in the synagogues and in the temple courts, where all the Jewish people assemble together. I have said nothing in secret."

The Douay-Rheims Bible
John 18:20 Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort: and in secret I have spoken nothing.

The world's best translators agree. The meaning of the Greek word here is "always," meaning "at all times."

But the KJV has "ever"? That, too, means "always." From Webster's New World Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, we find the following primary definition of "ever": "At all times; always." So even where the KJV has "ever," it still means "at all times; always." So Jesus was saying, "At all times I taught in the synagogue, and in the temple."

If someone disputes the use of "pantoteh" to mean "always" or "at all times," let's see the case for that. What does that word "pantoteh" mean, if not what has just been shown? Why should anyone think it means otherwise?

The issue is especially clear when we consider the context of Jesus' statement in John 18:20. The High Priest wanted to know whether Jesus taught in secret; whether he had secret teachings. Thus it would make the most sense to understand Jesus' reply as suggesting that he at all times he was teaching in places where his teachings were available to anyone who wanted to hear them. In other words, he had no secrets. That he follows this up with the statement, "and in secret I have said nothing" supports this reading of the text.

My understanding of John 18:20 is further supported by the verse that immediately follows John 18:20. Here Jesus tells his inquisitors that they may question those who have heard him teach. They know what was said, says Jesus. This reinforces the assertion by Jesus that at all times his teaching took place in public places. Those who heard his public lectures can say what his teachings are; there is no need to question Jesus to find out what he teaches.

NIV Jn. 18:21
"Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said."

KJV Jn. 18:21:
"Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them:
behold, they know what I said."

Today's English Version
"Why, then, do you question me? Question the people who heard me. Ask them
what I told them-they know what I said."

So the story is that Jesus is called in for questioning. They want to know whether he has secret teachings. The High Priest is probably worried that Jesus may be telling the people to believe things contrary to the teachings of the High Priest. Jesus says, "Hey, I don't have any secret teachings. I've always spoken openly, where everyone can hear me. I was always in the
synagogues or in the temple when I taught; I never said anything in secret. Why are you even asking me what I believe? Anyone who's heard me speak can tell you what I believe." This strikes me as the most reasonable reading of the verses in question.

So is it true that Jesus always taught in synagogue and in the temple? What does the biblical evidence show? It shows that this is false.

Jesus taught on a mountain (Matthew 5:1-2):
"Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them, saying..."

On a boat (Matthew 13:1-2):
"That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. Then he told them many things in parables, saying..."

On a plain (Luke 6:17-18):
"He went down with them and stood on a level place. A large crowd of his disciples was there and a great number of people from all over Judea, from Jerusalem, and from the coast of Tyre and Sidon, who had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases."

And in houses too (Luke 5:18-19):
"Some men came carrying a paralytic on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus."

Beside a lake:
Mark 2:13 "Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them."

Mark 4:1-2:
"Again Jesus began to teach by the lake. The crowd that gathered around him was so large that he got into a boat and sat in it out on the lake, while all the people were along the shore at the water's edge. He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said..."

Mark 6:32-35:
So they went away by themselves in a boat to a solitary place. But many who saw them leaving recognized them and ran on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them. When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things. By this time it was late in the day, so his disciples came to him. 'This is a remote place,' they said, 'and it's already very late.'"

So Jesus lied about where he had been teaching. Jesus wants the High Priest to think that he didn't teach anywhere but in the synagogues and in the temple, and this is a lie. Indeed, Jesus' most famous sermon, the Sermon on the Mount, does not take place in a synagogue or in a temple. So this is one lie we can attribute to Jesus.

(ii) Jesus' claim that he shared all of his teachings with his public audiences, that he never kept important parts of his teachings a secret, is also false.
Let's now look at some specific examples of the secretive aspect. Jesus denied that he said things in secret. Jesus claimed, "In secret I have said nothing." Of course, we must grant that this is not to be understood literally. Surely this is intended to mean that Jesus claimed that he did not have important teachings that were secret. The High Priest is concerned with the nature of Jesus' teachings, and Jesus assures him that there are no hidden or secret teachings. But what does the bible show? It shows that this claim is false too.

Going to his lectures would not have let his general audiences know his important aspects of his true teachings.

Mark 4:
2 He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said:
3 "Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed.
4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came
and ate it up.
5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow.
6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.
7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain.
8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, multiplying thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times."
9 Then Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables.
11 He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables
12 so that, "`they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"
[Here Jesus quotes parts of Isaiah 6:9-10]

Matthew 13:3-15 has the same story and quotation. Jesus intentionally talks in parables specifically to keep some people from understanding, and he does this so that they will not turn and be forgiven. (Obviously, Jesus does not want everyone to be saved, but that's another issue.)

Mark 4:33-34:
With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they
could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was
alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

That is teaching in secret. There's more.

Matthew 13:34-52:
34 Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.
35 So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world."[Psalm 78:2]
36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."
37 He answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man.
38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,
39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
40 "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age.
41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.
42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
44 "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.
45 "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls.
46 When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.
47 "Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish.
48 When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away.
49 This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous
50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
51 "Have you understood all these things?" Jesus asked. "Yes," they replied.
52 He said to them, "Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old."

So Jesus is clearly shown using parables, and he's explained that the does so in order to keep those not in his "inner circle" from understanding the real meaning of his teachings. Then his disciples ask for an explanation when they are alone with him, and Jesus gives the explanation. That is teaching in secret. The most important aspect of the parable, its meaning, was told in secret.

Another aspect of the gospels that lends support to my claim that Jesus had secret teachings is the issue known to scholars as "The Messianic Secret." This thesis was first explained and defended by Wilhelm Wrede in his 1901 book _Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien_. It was published in English by Cambridge U. Press in 1971 as _The Messianic Secret_. Wrede's thesis is that Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah, but that after his crucifixion his followers wanted him to be the Messiah and the gospels reflected that. Since earlier, pre-crucifixion verses don't have the populace thinking that Jesus is the Messiah, Wrede postulated that verses were inserted showing Jesus telling people not to tell anyone that he is the Messiah. Perhaps the clearest of these is Mark 9:9: "He ordered them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. So they kept the matter to themselves." If it is an important part of Jesus' teachings that he is the Messiah, and he wanted this a secret at the time he was before the High Priest (since this is before Jesus rose from the dead), then Jesus definitely had a secret teaching when he told the High Priest that he did not. Wrede's thesis has come under some severe criticism, and it may not be defensible as originally stated. I don't intend to defend the thesis. The reason I mention Wrede's thesis is that Wrede brought out a number of related passages as an important issue, namely the passages where Jesus asks people not to say who he is and to keep his activities a secret. Investigation into Wrede's claim has uncovered many instances of the "Messianic Secret." If Jesus specifically tells people to keep his true nature a secret, this surely would come under the category of keeping some of his teachings a secret. Here are a few examples of Jesus asking others to keep his activities or his nature a secret.

Jesus wants demons to refrain from telling who he really is. Mark 1:23-26, 32-34:
23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit cried out,
24 "What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God!"
25 "Be quiet!" said Jesus sternly. "Come out of him!"
26 The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.
32 That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed.
33 The whole town gathered at the door,
34 and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

When Jesus heals someone, he asks the man to keep quiet. Mark 1:41-44:
41 Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"
42 Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured.
43 Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning:
44 "See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them."

Jesus asks people to keep quiet about healing a little girl. Mark 5:41-43:
41 He took her by the hand and said to her, <"Talitha koum!"> (which means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!").
42 Immediately the girl stood up and walked around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished.
43 He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat.

Again after healing another man. Mark 7:34-36:
34 He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, <"Ephphatha!"> (which means, "Be opened!").
35 At this, the man's ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly.
36 Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it.

After healing a blind man, Jesus tells his own disciples to keep quiet. Mark 8:26-30.
26 Jesus sent him home, saying, "Don't go into the village."
27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?"
28 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets."
29 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ."
30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

There are other examples, but the point has been made. Jesus is portrayed as telling people to keep a secret about his true nature and about his activities. To the extent that this could be interpreted as saying something in secret, Jesus lied when he was before the High Priest and said "in secret I have said nothing" (Jn. 18:20). Obviously at least one thing he said in relation to the healings and his true nature was a secret, and that is that he told people not to say anything. He was secretly telling some people to keep a secret. And he wanted them to keep a secret in relation to some important aspects of his teachings and activities, including the fact that he
was (supposedly) the messiah. Jesus wanted to keep his true identity a secret. So he not only told things in secret, as when he explained parables, he asked others to join in the conspiracy of keeping his identity a secret. Jesus gives strict orders, stern warnings, not to tell people about some of his activities or his identity. Even to the point of having demons in on the conspiracy!

To sum up: John 18:20 shows Jesus making two claims: (a) that when he taught it was always either in the synagogue or in the temple, and (b) that he never kept secret important parts of his teachings. Verses from the other gospels show that this is incorrect. Those who believe that the John 18:20 account of what Jesus said is accurate are committed then to either admitting that the many verses that conflict with (a) and (b) are incorrect or that Jesus lied. Those who cling to biblical inerrancy are stuck with the fact that the bible depicts Jesus lying. But this is also a contradiction. Matthew 15:19 and Mark 7:22 show Jesus saying that lying is evil. Proverbs 6:17-19 tells us that god hates a lying tongue and a false witness. If Jesus is god, and god cannot do evil, then Jesus cannot do evil. Jesus was either god or he lied, but not both. The bible says that Jesus was god and he lied, so the bible contains a contradiction."
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Dardedar »

More HB roast:

***
HB: "what we as Christians view as absolutes.">>

Right. You believe in moral absolutes. You don't believe in moral relativism. Got it. The question was, can you give an example of what you understand to be a moral absolute? If you can't, and apparently you can't, what is the point of having them? What is the use of moral absolutes, if you can't identify a single one?!

HB: "a list of just a few absolutes, facts and truths...
1. God created the heavens and the earth.
2. Man ate of the tree in the middle of the garden.
3. Noah built an ark.
4. Abraham had a son named Isaac.
[snip Bible claims 5-15]>>

Good grief. You are so slippery or dishonest with language don't know up from down. Claims about certain reported events in the Bible may be true or false but they have nothing whatsoever to do with question of whether moral absolutes exist and whether you can demonstrate one.

HB: There are more...">>

Apparently you don't even know what the word "moral" means. I provided a normal definition: "by moral I mean a rule that governs interactions between humans."

Is such a concept beyond you? You claim to believe in moral absolutes but you don't have the foggiest idea what one is. This is truly amazing. Maybe you should ask your pastor to help you.

HB: "I will let youse battle..." [HB exits stage left with tail tucked]

HB [earlier]: "Since God does not lie...">>

Actually your Bible provides several specific and quite clear examples of your God lying. Observe:

"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet..." Ezekiel 14:9

"Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee." 1 Kings 22:23 also 2 Chron. 18:22

"...Ah, Lord God! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem..." Jer. 4:10

"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived..." Jer 20:7

"...God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie..." 2 Thess. 2:11

How can you trust someone who is a known liar and admits to lying? Jesus did this too. See a detailed example I just posted for you here:

viewtopic.php?p=23309#p23309

And if you do ever find an example of a moral absolute, do please pass it along. If you don't know what the words "moral" and "absolute" mean, try: dictionary.com

D.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Religion Debates

Post by Savonarola »

Darrel, quoting the Bible, wrote:"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived..." Jer 20:7
In a discussion with a believer a few weeks ago, I was informed that -- in this verse -- the correct word is not "deceived" but "persuaded." As far as I could tell, there seemed to be some scholarly support of that view. Thoughts?
Post Reply