Saturday, February 25, 2012

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by articulett

I realize that atheists and Christians are just not going to see eye-to-eye on the existence of God, the reliability of the Bible, and the accountability that goes with that.  We can't.. It's not going to be possible to come to terms but both  positions can't be true simultaneously.  John Loftus posted the following quote from one of his collaborators and I think it's important because it demonstrates more than I think the author thought she was saying.

It's not that science has ever been wrong... it's that religion has never been right. Science has an error correcting mechanism; faith does not. That's why there is one science-- and it's the same for everybody no matter what they believe.



I would say that the problem isn't with "science". The thing is that scientists can indeed be wrong. Just like one would make a distinction between science and scientists, we need to make a distinction between religion and those who practice it. For example, just because someone claims to be a Christian does not mean that they really believe and follow what the Bible says. For example, if someone denies the Resurrection, can they be a Christan? Nope,

I don't think any evil things have been done "in the name of science" (nor do I even know what that means); although scientific advancements have caused suffering of others along with giving us longer healthier lives and computers and air travel and so cell phones-- things that would make us gods to your bible writers. It's also brought us knowledge that even the smartest people could not know during biblical times-- see DNA and atoms and germ theory, for example.

I find this telling. Does she mean that she does not know what evil is? She seems to be making a distinction between "suffering" and evil and I agree there should be a distinction made. However I would point to the way some "scientist" use science to make money driven by greed despite the suffering it causes. The pharmaceutical industry comes to mind as an example.Not everyone in it is driven by greed but decisions like what gets researched, funded, and released are influenced by finances and greed.

What do you think is the probability that the 3-in-1 god of the bible who became his own son is the "uncaused cause" of the universe? What is the probability that an omnibenevolent omnipotent being would make a place of infinite torture? What for? Why should anyone believe such a thing?

I'd like to know what is the probability that an atheist would phrase the trinitarian doctrine in such a way that it shows that they they understand what it is? I also would like to know if an atheist can understand what the Bible says when it explains the existence of hell? I also would like to know  why Atheists think it's okay to deny the Bible but butcher its teachings - demonstrating that they don't even seem to know what they are denying. I mean they would get upset and want to be correctly represented if some one said that they believed that human beings were descended from monkey.  I agree. If you are going to deny something then at least correctly state what it is you are denying.

Religious people are forced to fit the scientific facts into their religion or to ignore them. They imagine some god will punish them forever if they don't. Science cannot afford to be handicapped by such vested interests. Science doesn't work unless you are on the right track. Any track involved invisible beings (gods, ghosts, demons, angels, fairies, etc.) is the track of magical thinkers. It never leads anywhere and is not a useful guide for those who are interested in what is true.

No where in the Bible are Christians commanded to turn their brains off and ignore evidence. We are supposed to think and reason. I would say that it is the Atheist that  is handicapped because when one chooses to ignore/deny possibilities just because you think they are improbable you can't also pretend to be open-minded. There are many scientific discoveries that seemed completely improbable at first, like the earth revolving around the sun, or a complete accident like the discovery of penicillin.

You pray for John; we'll THINK for you.

Link.

Again God expects us to think and reason...he gave us our minds in the first place. Without God was have no minds.

18Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day, by articulett
Enhanced by Zemanta

54 comments:

  1. it's that religion has never been right.

    I would disagree with Articulett here. Religion is right when it comes to common sense observation about human nature and if it is right beyond that, it is only right in the way a broken clock is right twice a day.

    I find this telling. Does she mean that she does not know what evil is?

    I find it telling that you said you find it telling, but then ask a question indicating that you don't really know what she said.

    I'd like to know what is the probability that an atheist would phrase the trinitarian doctrine in such a way that it shows that they they understand what it is?

    Well, you are on record on this blog stating that you don't understand the trinity, but it's cool. So don't cast stones...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ryan

    1. You have to demonstrate that Biblical Christianity is broken. Asserting doesn't prove anything.
    2. If you understand how evil and suffering is being differentiated here then please explain. It's entirely possible that I didn't understand what she meant because she didn't explain what she meant.
    3. When I said that I didn't understand the Trinity fully, I was talking about the inability for a human mind to fully grasp the infinite being of God and how the persons of the Godhead interact. I don't think any human being understands all of that. This is different than not understanding what it is or how to Biblically explain it or misrepresenting it. It's also different than assuming that the Bible is wrong and confused instead of just admitting that you don't understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's entirely possible that I didn't understand what she meant because she didn't explain what she meant.

    Then how in the world was it "telling"????????

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's telling because I think it shows a lack of desire to recognize that evil is done with science. Science is not evil. But some people do use science to cause unnecessary suffering and it seems like this fact was being glossed over. I made a guess about what was being said. If you think I misunderstood what she said then go ahead and explain it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. But some people do use science to cause unnecessary suffering and it seems like this fact was being glossed over.

    It's nitpicking, but no one, as far as I know, uses the scientific method to cause suffering. They use technology, be it the crossbow, mustard gas or nuclear weapons, coupled with an ideology, to cause suffering.

    ReplyDelete
  6. nitpicking? translation: you have brought up a point for which I have no rebuttal.

    Science =/= scientific method. I'm not referring to the scientific method when I'm referring to science being used for evil. You can't have technology without the science on which the technology is based.

    Nice try to bring up technology used to cause suffering because of politics and ideology in an attempt to side step what I was talking about medical science being partly driven by greed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Science =/= scientific method.

    ??? =/=???

    scientific method = science.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think you may need to invest in a good dictionary.

    "Science" is "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

    "Scientific method" - "refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge."

    I even like the way the steps are referred to (also from the same article):
    1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
    2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
    3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
    4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

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

    Fits with every single science book I ever read and a distinction is always made between "science" and "scientific method". To conflate them as you have is extremely sloppy. But you won't admit it and will most likely charge me with "nitpicking" again.

    ReplyDelete
  9. OK, whatever, but it's still not clear what the heck you are talking about when you say science, which I think you actually mean to say "business".

    ReplyDelete
  10. That's exactly my point. Business and greed gets in the way of doing Science.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Whew....good thing I didn't say that it was. What's the matter, can't just say "yeah, I was wrong to equate science with the scientific method"? I guess your mathematics is also suspect if you think that's what I said.

    ReplyDelete
  12. However I would point to the way some "scientist" use [business/greed] to make money driven by greed despite the suffering it causes.

    But some people do use [business/greed] to cause unnecessary suffering and it seems like this fact was being glossed over.

    Given your comments, I'd say thats more of what you meant to say.

    "yeah, I was wrong to equate science with the scientific method"?

    I wasn't, but you've got to pick your battles...

    ReplyDelete

  13. Given your comments, I'd say thats more of what you meant to say.


    Given the way you butcher Bible interpretation, it is no surprise you don't understand what I said. Let me help you. Science is sometimes abused to the point that human suffering is caused. Understand?


    I wasn't, but you've got to pick your battles


    Wise not to pick loosing battles.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wise not to pick loosing battles.

    You should take your own advice, maybe even once...

    ReplyDelete

  15. You should take your own advice, maybe even once...


    You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. - 1sy John 4:4

    That isn't about you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Right, it's not about me, it's about 2nd century greek christians and heretics.

    It's not about you either, but then again, I really have no idea what your point was.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 1. 1st John is from the first century not the 2nd.
    2. The passage is about everyone who puts their trust and confidence in God and live their lives in service to him.
    3. We agree its not for you because you go against the Word of God.
    4. It points out that any time you go against the word of God, its a loosing battle.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 1. 1st John is from the first century not the 2nd.

    Talk about nit picking. Turn of the century or shortly there after. Your statement has a certainty that's not warranted. If I recall, Tim McGrew argued for a date around 107 (which would be the second century)

    2. The passage is about everyone...

    No, it's really not, but this is exactly why it's not possible to have a fruitful conversation with someone like you.

    3. We agree its not for you because you go against the Word of God.

    We don't. We don't even agree there is a "word" of god, ergo...

    4. It points out that any time you go against the word of God, its a loosing battle.

    Prove that this is actually the case.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 1. 1st John is not the Gospel of John. I quoted 1st John not the Gospel. Dr McGrew was talking about the Gospel and he was referring to a copy of the Gospel and not the original dating. Please try to keep up.
    2. The reason why a fruitful conversation with you is not possible because you don't seem to read a full sentence and instead add things that aren't there. I didn't say that it was about everyone. Did you not read who it was I was referring to? I guess not.
    3. Either there is a Word of God or there isn't. Denying it's existence is the same as going against it.
    4. Before we attempt to prove that going against God is tantamount to failure, I don't think you understand the passage. So do you understand the passage since you missed the point in the first place? Always have to go back to basics when talking to you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 1. 1st John is not the Gospel of John. I quoted 1st John not the Gospel. Dr McGrew was talking about the Gospel and he was referring to a copy of the Gospel and not the original dating. Please try to keep up.

    Actually, it was Polycarps epistle. It's funny when you're wrong. Not because you are wrong, but because of your certainty that you are not wrong. I was wrong too, but that's cool, not the first or last time. But even if you weren't wrong, why do you think the 1st Epistle of John was written before the Gospel? Everything I've seen puts it in nearly the exact same time frame (turn of the century or slightly there after... again, you have a problem with unwarranted certainty).

    Did you not read who it was I was referring to? I guess not.

    I did, the point being it's not referring to anyone outside beyond the second century.

    3. Either there is a Word of God or there isn't. Denying it's existence is the same as going against it.

    Nonsense.

    4. Before we attempt to prove that going against God is tantamount to failure...

    I asked first. Why must you always dodge?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Actually, it was Polycarps epistle. It's funny when you're wrong. Not because you are wrong, but because of your certainty that you are not wrong. I was wrong too, but that's cool, not the first or last time. But even if you weren't wrong, why do you think the 1st Epistle of John was written before the Gospel? Everything I've seen puts it in nearly the exact same time frame (turn of the century or slightly there after... again, you have a problem with unwarranted certainty).

    Let's analyze your "unwarranted certainty" I didn't say that the First Epistle of John was written before the Gospel. All I said was that they were both from the first century. I agree we were both wrong about Dr McGrew said about Polycarp's letter but I fail to see how my being wrong about what he said was worse than you being wrong about what he said. He used Polycarp's letter to date John's Gospel and I said that he was using the date for John's Gospel. I made a mistake no worse than yours, yet you seemed just as certain. My point was the same as McGrew's - all of the New Testament (Gospel of John in particular) dates during the first century and you said, originally, it was the second century which McGrew was able to show does not make sense. Your certainty was indeed misplaced. And now you seem to insinuate that I'm certain and have no reason to be and yet you offer no reason why I should not be certain. I never said which was written first - Revelation or 1st John. I don't know. It don't even think it matters. You say you don't know either which means you have no real reason to assume its 2nd Century and that the Apostle John did not write them. You have nothing.


    I did, the point being it's not referring to anyone outside beyond the second century.


    Prove it.

    Nonsense.

    No, what you meant to say is that you have no proof that the Bible is not the word of God but you like to pretend that you are not unwarranted in your certainty while pretending that you are really uncertain and humble.


    I asked first. Why must you always dodge?


    It's not a dodge. I doubt your ability to grasp what the passage means because you said it didn't apply to anyone beyond the second century. I don't think you have the foggiest notion of what John was saying to the church and before we can demonstrate it's validity we have to agree on what it is saying. If you are not willing to exegete the passage and explain what it saying and who it is saying it to, there is no point in discussing its validity with you. And it's true by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I asked first. Why must you always dodge?

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's not a dodge. If we can't agree on what the passage means, I see no reason to discuss it's validity. I'm saying start from the bottom up because I'm convince you don't understand what the passage says.

    ReplyDelete
  24. All you have to do is prove that any time you go against god's word, you lose. Should be easy right?

    ReplyDelete
  25. You mean like your "arguments"? Yes, indeed easy. But I think we can get much deeper than that. But I understand if you are too scared to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. - 1st John 4:4


    So...what does it mean and how do you know it only applies to people in the 2nd Century?

    ReplyDelete
  27. You apparently believe it means "...that any time you go against the word of God, its a loosing [sic] battle."

    I'd like you to demonstrate, that in reality, anytime you go against god, it's actually is a losing battle.

    ReplyDelete
  28. We still need to agree on what it DOES say.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Why do we need to agree on what it says for you to demonstrate the reality of what you think it says?

    You apparently believe it means "...that any time you go against the word of God, its a loosing [sic] battle."

    I'd like you to demonstrate, that in reality, anytime you go against god, it's actually is a losing battle.

    Chicken.

    ReplyDelete

  30. Why do we need to agree on what it says for you to demonstrate the reality of what you think it says?


    Because it's pointless to discuss what I think it says. Does it say what I'm saying it says or not! You say that its not referring to anyone outside the second century, why? You I see no reason to waste my time if you can't even understand what it says.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Because it's pointless to discuss what I think it says

    You're telling me!!! And yet you've already done that. Now I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate that what you think it says is actually the case in reality.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Maybe you are confused, I'm not asking you to demonstrate that the text means what you think it means, I'm asking you to demonstrate that what you think it means (what it says, it's not all that vague) is the case in reality. In other words, can you demonstrate that it is actually always a losing battle to go against god.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I've already stated I'm not going discuss the validity of the passage until we agree on what it says and to whom it's intended for. You want to shift the focus of this and I won't do that. You need to put up or shut up. I don't think you even understand what the passage says.

    ReplyDelete
  34. You want to shift the focus...

    Um, I asked first... Who's shifting?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Here's the deal, I want you to demonstrate that your intrepration of the passage accurately reflects reality.

    However, I know that if I acquiesce to your "demand", you will take a turn of phrase or liberally interpret something and go off on a tangent, it's happened before, it's what you do.

    Address my original request or not, but if not, I know why... We all know why. It's because you cannot.

    ReplyDelete
  36. No, you're shifting logic. IT's more logical to agree on what the text says and what it means. And then discuss it's validity. Again I doubt your ability to understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. No, you're shifting logic.

    What does that even mean?

    IT's more logical to agree on what the text says and what it means.

    No, because you are the one that will be demonstrating that your version corresponds to reality, so my "version" (which is your version, incidentally) doesn't matter at all, since I'm under not obligation to demonstrate that it corresponds to reality.

    I know you can't. It's ok.

    ReplyDelete
  38. No, because you are the one that will be demonstrating that your version corresponds to reality, so my "version" (which is your version, incidentally) doesn't matter at all, since I'm under not obligation to demonstrate that it corresponds to reality.

    Are you stating that you agree with me that the passage is saying that going against God is a loosing battle? And why did you make the silly statement that it only applied in the 2nd Century when it wasn't written in the 2nd century but the first.

    Answer these questions first because then we can make sure we are on the same page because logically they come before your question.

    Show me your and I'll show you mine.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Well, it's more nuanced than your version (obviously, most things are), but it's your version, applied to very specific late 1st century early 2nd century heretics.

    Now, can you demonstrate that going against god in reality is actually always a losing proposition?

    Answer these questions first because then we can make sure we are on the same page....

    Dance Dance Dance!!! We don't need to be on the same page for you to demonstrate that your interpretation of the passage accurately reflects reality.

    Again, because I get the sense you might still be confused, I'm not asking you to demonstrate that your version is the version the author intended, I'm asking you to demonstrate your interpretation of the passage accurately reflects objective reality (i.e. demonstrate that it is always a losing proposition to go against god)?

    Can't be clearer...

    But by all means, avoid answering...

    ReplyDelete
  40. 1st John is not a heretical work. So no this isn't over yet. I'm not satisfied. You're being real sloppy and avoiding explaining yourself. You didn't answer my questions and I still don't think you even know what the passage means. I'm not interested in my interpretation. I'm interested in what passage truly means. When John wrote this letter what was the message that was to be communicated. I don't think we've even began to agree what that is.

    Your question is designed in such a way that you think is unanswerable. But that's because you don't know God. No matter all the ways you have seen justice served and punishment rightly divided you're too blind to see how God was responsible and instead focus on the examples of when justices seems to have been denied. And whatever example I bring up you'd just ignore. And until you actually see hell, unless God has mercy on you, you're going to keep thinking someone can go against God with impunity. Boy is your face going to be red when you see the end of all of this and then it will be too late.

    So just because no all evil is eradicated now does not mean that God has lost in anyway. Checkmate is coming. Maybe what you should ask instead is when have you ever seen God loose?

    ReplyDelete
  41. But by all means, avoid answering...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Demonstrate that you know what text says.

    ReplyDelete
  43. By all means, avoid answering...

    (for the record, I answered you)... Chicken.

    ReplyDelete
  44. No you didn't. You still haven't explained

    1, Why you think it's only about 2nd Century (when it's clearly written in the first century)?
    2. What's heretical about the passage?
    3. You still didn't say what it means. You just hem hawed and tried to dance out of it.

    Not an answer at all. I can't take you seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Your questions 1 and 2 indicate you have reading comprehension problems.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Your questions 1 [...] indicate you have reading comprehension problems.

    Or are you confused about which years are included in the "First Century" and which years are included in the "Second Century"?

    ReplyDelete
  47. You call the following an Answer?

    Well, it's more nuanced than your version (obviously, most things are), but it's your version, applied to very specific late 1st century early 2nd century heretics.

    Your words. Meaningless. Added to what you said even earlier:

    Right, it's [1st John 4:4] not about me, it's about 2nd century greek christians and heretics.

    See how opaque and imprecise what you write is. I'm stating before you can talk about if 1st John 4:4 is true or not we must agree with what it says. Given that you don't seem to know who it was written to or what it means, it is a waste of time to discuss it's validity. I thought you were able to communicate better than this.

    ReplyDelete
  48. See how opaque and imprecise what you write is.

    Dude, that's the bible. You're the one under the delusion that you can peel back the dogma, tradition, and get at what the authors were actually, in reality, thinking.

    I'm stating before you can talk about if 1st John 4:4 is true or not we must agree with what it says.

    Again, I understand what YOU think it means. What in the world does my personal opinion on what it means (which, as it turns out, is what you think it means minus the universal appeal, see the proto-gnostics for more info...) have to do with you being able to demonstrate that YOUR opinion of what it means is reflective of reality? Well, besides the fact that you obviously are not able to demonstrate that, and you don't want to come out and show that...

    Also, just noticed the post about your sister. I'm sorry for your loss.

    ReplyDelete
  49. we must agree with what it says.

    Again, we really must not. All we need to do is agree on what you think it says. This isn't hard.

    ReplyDelete
  50. See how opaque and imprecise what you write is.

    Dude, that's the bible. You're the one under the delusion that you can peel back the dogma, tradition, and get at what the authors were actually, in reality, thinking.

    The Bible is understandable. It is intelligible. If it's not then you are wasting your time telling anyone that it's wrong. If you think that it's not intelligible then I am truly wasting my time with you talking about if its true because then you don't know what it mean and your question makes no sense. This is why I want to know if you understand the text or not.

    ReplyDelete

  51. Also, just noticed the post about your sister. I'm sorry for your loss.


    Thanks, But at least I know where she is.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The Bible is understandable. It is intelligible. If it's not then you are wasting your time telling anyone that it's wrong.

    This statement doesn't make any sense.

    Also, you don't know what the word "know" means.

    ReplyDelete