digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

The Bible is the Word of God Because The Bible Says So watch!

youtube.com — An explanation of many logical fallacies that theists often commit when trying to discredit science and evolution.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Wonkanobi, on 10/11/2007, -20/+18Double dugg for Jesus giving Bob and erection.
  • Wonderkind, on 10/11/2007, -8/+18Here's a story that explains it all. (It's not mine).
    http://blondesense.blogspot.com/2004/11/kissing-hanks-ass.html
  • FeartheKnighted, on 10/11/2007, -86/+15Evolution is right because evolutionists say so...

    just sayin
    • mtrip, on 10/11/2007, -6/+42Well there's that whole 'reality' thing, don't forget about that.
      • ejaywillie, on 10/11/2007, -5/+21It's called real life evidence, no faith required.
    • thealliedhacker, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16You see, we have these little things called logic and science. You should look them up >_>
    • anillop, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15Actually thats what the whole mountain of evidence is for. You know things like Biology, Geology, Cosmology,etc.
    • brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Evolutionists and the piles upon piles of million-year-old extinct animal fossils that get simpler and simpler the older they are.
      • kelly, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5"It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history"

        "Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard [zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.229).
        • Bamborzled, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1*****. You cited Dawkins out of context. The sentence immediately after your quote refutes your argument.
        • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Skeptic points for you, Bamborzled.
    • ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1pity da fool...
    • SheilaNoya, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Evolutionists have hard evidence and modern scientific facts to back them up. Creationists have an ancient fairytale about a magic man in the sky, which was written by goat herders about 2000 years ago (during the Bronze Age) when they believed the earth was flat. Hmmm... it doesn't sound like it would be too hard to figure out which one is correct.
      • ziffel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1A story which also teaches the sky is a dome of water, that bats are birds, rabbits chew their cud, Pi = 3.0, and so on. So, FearTheKnighted, you go ahead and believe your fantasy tale, and I'll believe the facts.
  • DarkReign16, on 10/11/2007, -12/+32@ FeartheKnighted

    WRONG! There is this little thing called evidence, but you've probably never heard of it. It goes against your beliefs.
    • freehunter, on 10/11/2007, -10/+7Just FYI, you are being dugg down for not using the reply button.
      • DarkReign16, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3I didn't have a reply button due to the chosen "View comments" tab I chose...but it's now changed.
  • FeartheKnighted, on 10/11/2007, -31/+4Who ever said I didn't believe in evolution? I am merely playing devils advocate, and pointing out that everyone has an agenda. Try thinking next time, if it's not against your beliefs.
    • finnodave, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17"Evolution is right because evolutionists say so..."

      Ok, I thought about it, like you suggested, and I've concluded that evolutionists actually support their arguments with evidence and reason... sooooo....
    • Crossmenjeff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8thinking only makes you prove yourself wrong, so don't do it. ever. just follow people with pointy hats... or else
    • lazyrussian, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10lol, DEVILS advocate...oh the irony
    • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That isn't devil's advocate. It just shows that you believe in evolution for the wrong reasons. Crack a book, eh?
  • AndrewJC, on 10/11/2007, -11/+33Circular logic is airtight. This is because it's circular, and therefore airtight.

    I really don't understand why something has to have a logical reason in order to exist, though. There's a lot we can't explain with logic (look, for example, at the difference between general relativity and quantum mechanics), but we accept regardless because we can't understand better. Then again, I'm not your average theist, I guess, since I can perfectly understand why atheists don't believe in God... As I've said before, as long as they don't call me stupid for believing in God, we can get along just fine. :)
    • Crossmenjeff, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1believe what you have to in order to survive.
    • timo1023, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10This is why I'm hot.
      • praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+7"I'm hot 'cause I'm fly, you ain't 'cause you not"

        Circular logic at it's finest.
    • lazyrussian, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Lol it's easy to understand Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity if you study it.
      But it's hard to explain something to a theist who nullifies the laws of physics in his mind.
      • FeartheKnighted, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Guess what, the big bang theory nullifies basically every single law on every level (Newtonian, quantum, relative). Anything else?
        • toobadubad, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Someone is behind in their science! Try the inflationary view: Big bang without defying laws of physics.
        • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I pity you your ignorance, FeartheKnighted.
    • bruenig, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Remember again that this video is a response to another video which said that atheists use logical fallacies. The evidence towards atheism is not necessarily based on long drawn out logical proofs but more so on objectively verifiable evidence.
    • resplence, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4In science, even if there's not enough "logic" for something (not sure what you meant by that), there's always a reasonable amount of compelling evidence, and a theory that might not be perfect, but makes the least acceptable sense. So if that was an argument in favor of bible/religion/theism, for us to just "accept it", a little evidence and reasonable explanations for those would be good.
    • Cameleopard, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6But we don't merely accept the gap between relativity and quantum mechanics. Scientists are working very hard on unifying the two. The reason both are accepted is because of experimental verification of both. Logic indicates that we do not fully understand the manner in which the universe operates because the two are not yet unified; logic does not indicate that both are mutually exclusive. A system must have a logical reason to exist because there has heretofore been nothing observed that exists outside of the natural. Heretofore, anything inexplicable has turned out to be explicable with understanding. It is logical to think things will be no different for the resolution of the apparent dichotomy between relativity and quantum mechanics, and it is logical to think no special case exists for a deity either. In this way, your thought is flawed.
    • chowderdick, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think I can call you stupid... I think that is perfectly fair.
    • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Maybe not to your face (and not intentionally) Andrew, but it's implicit in my being an "atheist". I have to believe that something you're doing is very, very foolish. I'm sure I'd still get along with you, though.
      • AndrewJC, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well, to a certain degree, everybody that holds a certain view believes that those who don't hold that view are incorrect. I mean, if you like a certain band and I don't, each of us will assume that the other simply just doesn't "get it". It's inherent in the very idea of belief.

        The real crux of the issue is accepting that sometimes, other people just won't "get it" and being okay with that. But yes, you're right: The ability to get along with one another lies more in the ability to let things slide and accept the positives for what they are.

        The REAL fun is when two people who ARE willing to let it slide engage in a true debate. Since neither is offended by what the other says, they can both have a real balls-out debate without it devolving into ad hominem attacks. Some of those conversations have been the most entertaining of my life.
    • ElMoustache, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1well put.
      I wish all theists were like you, who understand and accept other's beliefs and dont claim they are going to hell just because of theirs.
  • Louis11, on 10/11/2007, -13/+21You can believe in evolution and be a religious person at the same time.
    • kelly, on 10/11/2007, -8/+14And you can be a hypocrite too
      • patrickloggins, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8I disagree. You'd be a hypocrite if you believed it and were modern-day Christian; but being a "religious person" could be anything. There's plenty of ways that religion and evolution can intertwine. Why do you think people say that scientists "worship" science? Sure, it's logical, but they're a little excited. Like the Mac fanboys of the world. It's good and real, but come on.

        (I'm athiest... just saying)
        • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Good point. A lot atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, etc. conflate all religions when it comes to the myth of creation. Many accept evolution (all the theists I know personally, actually) and still believe in something bigger than themselves, bigger than the universe.
    • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Wow...kelly....that's original, do any critical thinking on your own? You realize that about 70% of Americans believe the Bible is true but it's not the LITERAL word of God, don't you? Boy will your face be red...
      • ziffel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If it's not the literal word of God, then it must be interpreted. Most Christians believe that some parts are literally true, others are figurative, or allegorical. The problem is ... who gets to decide that? This is exactly why we have over 30,000 different Christian sects. If God has a "message for mankind", and it came in the form of the bible, he's a lousy communicator. He could at least do Christians the basic service of clarifying his message.
        • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0If The Bible's to be our measuring stick, God's obviously mentally-retarded.
    • dictum, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1And there in lies the beauty of a religion that promotes morality, love, and acceptance. Rather than argument, hate, and denial.
      • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Beauty's a stretch for me. Tolerability is more palatable. A religion is a religion.
    • ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1louis, define "religious"
  • DarkReign16, on 10/11/2007, -10/+4I don't care if you playing the devil's advocate FeartheKnighted, you're still wrong.
    • FeartheKnighted, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2Keep telling yourself that

      Maybe one day it will come true.
    • ahawks, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2buried for not replying in original thread.
  • cyborgcommando0, on 10/11/2007, -21/+12The Bible is the Word of God because it can be verified to be true via what it record accurately of Archeology, History, Science and Prophecy. The fact that the Bible states that it is true is just another truth that the Bible records in light of the other truths it has recorded.
    • TheTap, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7While a agree with you fully, I would suggest that you (and I) still must rely on a lot of faith to believe God's Word. Yes, there are proofs (dead sea scrolls, Jospehus, etc...) but you still are acting out in faith and there should be no shame in saying that. Accepting the plan of salvation is an act of faith, not archaeological proof.
      • cyborgcommando0, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6The point is that the "strawman" of the video in question and this digg page is that Christianity relies on faith alone without any kind of scientific evidence to back it's claims up.
      • bruenig, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5The authenticity of Josephus is hotly disputed. It appears to be nothing more than an interpolation. Like the part in the bible where jesus says let he who is without sin cast the first stone, it does not have the same vocabulary usage or writing style as the rest of the text, therefore was most likely unoriginal.
    • zackr, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5I agree with cyborgcommando0. Too many theists argue in a one-dimensional playing field set out by secular humanists. It is akin to trying to explain why a certain shrub is really good using a car as a measuring stick. It fails.

      Many people have tried to discount the accuracy of the Bible, and when they come up against a brick wall they use a logical fallacy that sounds a little like this: "OK, the Bible may be true in some areas but I'm just gonna say it's false in all the others I haven't checked up/can't check up". I would be surprised if they even bothered to check up on one or two things. Because they hate God they are invested into doing anything they can to discredit the Bible. This is the exact opposite of the scientific method, one which many evolutionists love to slam creationists for...

      I haven't watched the clip referenced because I have precious bandwidth, but here is how I reconcile the fact that the Bible is the Word of God to a logical, scientific framework:

      1. The Bible is proven to be accurate in all testable areas
      2. For it to be wrong in all non-testable areas given that it is the direct inspiration of the divine, unchangeable, and all-knowing God (already proven correct in other areas) is quite laughable. The Bible teaches in a loving God, not a malicious God who twists the truth the moment that it is untestable.

      There are many other objections non-Bible believers raise, but to me these two points are more than enough. Plus I'm busy and don't have the time to sit on here all day... ;)
      • jftitan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3So by that saying, since we cant disprove that God parted the waters for Moses, then the story must be true. Ahhh, the burning bush... Because I can't make a bush talk to me, while on fire, yet not burn me means the story in the bible is true. one last one, Noah, built an ark with his family, and got two of every animal on board this ark.... must be true. No.... none of those are true in the since of testable arguements. Because those stories are most likely metaphoric. (
      • TheTap, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Again, I agree with you fully, but why are you ashamed to admit the faith aspect of the Bible and feel compelled to attempt to prove it? Those you attempt to sway will eventually cross the Bible's plan of Salvation and there is nothing but faith required or even available to accept Christ. God doesn't ask you to come on 'proof', just faith. The plan of Salvation, in it's simplicity, is illogical. That is why so many can't accept it.
      • Bob042, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3To me that seems rather circular. Sure the bible can be proven to be historically accurate. But how do you prove that it is the word of God? You can't, and therefore point 2 seems to me like the classic "The bible is the word of God because it says so right here! God wouldn't lie in the book of his word, would he?"
    • Crossmenjeff, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6the bible has been translated and has been written down by man. I don't know if you've ever seen anything translated by man, but it rarely comes out right. All your base are belong to us is an easy example. translating something several times makes it even worse. So i believe, when reading the bible, you are reading figurative meanings, good moral stories no different than fairy tales and Aesop's Fables. Sure there is some history in there, people had to write about something, just like today's television shows highlight current events... Fake stories with hopefully good messages that incorporate real events to make you believe the characters are just that much more like you.
      • FeartheKnighted, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6That was a good argument, until the dead sea scrolls were found. These were documents that were dated to be from the time of Jesus, and they are nearly 100% accurate to the modern day Bible. While I agree with the fallibility of man, when it comes to something as important as a religious document we are usually able to get it right.
      • Sacrifice, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I have to disagree with a couple of your points Crossmenjeff.

        First, the statement that a language is rarely translated accurately is incorrect. You mention one example, but fail to mention the hundreds of animes, novels, games, and foreign films that have been translated into clear English. A language can be translated effectively into another language. The poor translation you have cited was caused by people who only had a rudimentary understanding of the English language, not because a language can't be translated accurately.

        Second, it is a common misconception that each time the Bible is translated, it is translated using a previous translation. So the assumption is that the Bible has suffered from the telephone game, and is therefor unreliable. This is incorrect. Each translation of the Bible is translated using the original languages that are found on a few hundred ancient manuscripts. The Bible has considerably more ancient manuscripts than any other ancient literature. As time goes by, new manuscripts are discovered. The Dead Sea Scrolls are one such example.

    • brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13"The Bible is the Word of God because it can be verified to be true via what it record accurately of Archeology, History, Science and Prophecy. "

      You mean how Genesis says that birds and fish appeared on earth at the same time? That the millions of species of animals were able to fit on one boat? Or do you mean the evidence of the Jewish conquest of Canaan (whoops, there's actually not one shred of evidence supporting that story)? Talking Donkeys? Sticks turning into Snakes? Water turning into blood?

      Many of the things roman historians recorded are verifiable by archaeology, history, and science. Many people believe Nostradamus' prophecies have come true. Does that mean the writings of Pliny the Elder and Nostradamus are the Word of God?
      • cyborgcommando0, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Nostradamus made hundreds of prophecies to which all are ambiguous, like a war starting. The Bible makes specific prophecies including dates and names of people hundreds of years prior to their existence, which also come true. There are answers to each of the accusations that you have brought up, if you'd like me to educate you on a particular one I'd be glad to.

        I'd also like to point out that in the 1900's the common argument against Christianity was that there was no evidence of people being crucified on crosses. Then a cross was found with a nail driven through a person's foot. Lack of evidence is not evidence for invalidity.
        • lazyrussian, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3You can find anythign you want in the bible code AFTER THE FACT.

          lol...theists...gotta love em :p
        • brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"The Bible makes specific prophecies including dates and names of people hundreds of years prior to their existence, which also come true."

          That's quite a claim. Where in the Bible does it give specific dates? How are Biblical prophecies any less ambiguous than Nostradamus? Not one place in the Bible will you find something like "On March 8, 2045 Jesus will return and the world as you know it will end." So of course there are many different interpretations of Biblical prophecy.
        • fantasticjon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Yes, I have studied the bible and there are no dates set to prophesies that I can recall. Unless you are talking about those BS Bible code books. Perhaps you could enlighten us and let us know what event to look for on what day.

          (reminds me, this charismatic church in york PA had a bill board that said "Pray for Christ's return on 7/7/07" Every couple of years some crazies pick a day (or a year) for some big event to happen, and it never does. big suprise.
        • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I call *****, cyborg. There are many, many failed prophecies and false promises from God littered throughout The Bible. I hope some day you acquire the courage to look.
    • Anigma, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Simply because certain details of the bible are true does not prove that the entire bible itself is necessarily valid.
    • resplence, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"The Bible is the Word of God because it can be verified to be true via what it record accurately of Archeology, History, Science and Prophecy."

      Is this a joke? It has to be a joke, right? Just to mention one thing, why hasn't 'archeology' ever found traces that the jewish people ever roamed the desert, or were even taken captive by the egyptians in the first place?
      • Sacrifice, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2It is true that there is little archaeological evidence of the Israelites residing in Egypt or roaming the desert. However, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The destruction of unfavorable records is clearly seen in Egyptian history, such as the attempted obliteration of all occurrences of the names of Hatshepsut and Akhenaten.

        Furthermore, one story that lacks archaeological evidence does not make the entire Bible is guilty of this fact. There is archaeological evidence for many Biblical records.
        • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Not "little", ZERO! "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is ad nauseum BS. The absence of evidence is not evidence of presence. I addressed this fallacy! Argumentum ad Ignorantum: the argument from ignorance!
  • TheTap, on 10/11/2007, -18/+6Both God fearing people, and evolutionists throw logic out the window and rely on faith alone. There aren't really any logical fallacies because we both supplant logic with faith.

    Theists believe in a 7 day creation. That defies logic, but it is believed in faith. Creationists choose to take the Bible at face value. That takes tremendous faith, not logic.

    Evolutionists believe in a big explosion that resulted in cosmic order and a solar system that runs like a clock. Explosions wreak havoc, not order. Evolutionists run on just as much faith as a creationist. There is no logic in a massive gas cloud forming the earth and all of it's elements.

    For either side to suggest that they have irrefutable proof is silly.
    • FeartheKnighted, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10This is what more people need to realize. If you stand back and look at it, both sides look just as preposterous and impossible. Which side is right? Omniscient man in the clouds making everything and then disappearing, or everything in the universe being squished into a point smaller than an atom and then for some reason exploding and creating an incredibly ordered universe? If you claim to know absolutely 100% then you are an idiot.
      • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0False! And we aren't claiming absolute knowledge of truth, we're just claiming "better" and "good enough for now" knowledges of truth. That's how science works! Jesus!
    • Gryfft, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2No. Scientists have evidence (see here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html ) showing certain patterns in radiation in our universe. That evidence points to the universe starting with a huge explosion. Science. Observation. Reason. ZERO faith. TOTAL logic.

      We do not ASSUME anything but the fact that we must trust our senses. Theists assume the existence of a God. Atheists assume nothing.

      We only believe what's true. We only hold true what we can prove, with solid evidence to back it up, without a lot of *****, assumptions, or circumlocution.
      • TheTap, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Please tell me you are joking? TOTAL logic you say? Your article link says this as an explanation of the BBT:
        "In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler."

        This universe that you speak of? Where did it come from? It was just there? It made itself?

        That right there is the giant hole in your theory. You have ZERO proof for where that 'expanding' universe' came from. All evolutionists have to concede that it all started with matter and they cannot say where this 'seed' matter came from.

        You need faith to believe whatever you believe as to the origin of the BBT.
        • louiedog, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4You don't need to know where the matter came from, just what happened to it. Where the matter came from has nothing to do with the BBT. When you talk about gravity do you need to know where the bodies came? Nope, just the force between them.
    • Crossmenjeff, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7you might want to grab a science book and read through the different types of science, believe it or not evolution is more of a BIOLOGY thing than a ASTRONOMICAL science. So you can be an evolutionary biologist, and there is more than enough evidence to support the changes and adaptations living things make to survive in different environments.

      And we have evidence also that shows how planets and stars are created. We see that it takes a very long time for a planet to come together, to form an atmosphere, and you can't blame us for not having found life yet, we're still exploring. We didn't expect you to know how to drive at age 3... yup, we're young as a civilization. We can also document Universal expansion, i'm sure one day we'll find the epicenter of that just like we'd find the epicenter of an Earthquake. Hopefully, your God (which is the only correct God, everyone else's is fake right?) will be sitting there in a recliner saying.... "Aw, ya found me, good game"
    • mikesty, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4"Evolutionists believe in a big explosion that resulted in cosmic order and a solar system that runs like a clock. Explosions wreak havoc, not order. Evolutionists run on just as much faith as a creationist. There is no logic in a massive gas cloud forming the earth and all of it's elements."

      I'm not sure that evolution / evolutionists has / have anything to do with the big bang theory. There is logic in the big bang theory, but I don't believe it to be true.

      The thing is, there are far more people who are "certain" that God / Higher Power created the universe, whereas most of those who find the big bang theory suitable will likely say that they're unsure and still accept that it is a theory.
    • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The big bang was not an "explosion". Take an astronomy course. And if you think the universe "runs like a clock", you probably suffer from schizophrenia.
  • harrisbradley, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3I'm going to start tracking everytime I run into a digg story that causes the users to hate on eachother. I don't think that's why we should be here. hate1
    • cyborgcommando0, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Disagreement isn't the same thing as hate.

      When stories/videos like these get popular and get many comments I sometimes wish that DIGG had some sort of forum format.
    • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Theists don't like it when you take away all of their argumentative power...
  • tehdoom, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6There's a difference between playing devils advocate and being a troll. Nonetheless, you are correct, evolution is not "right" because its proponents say so. Evolution is "right" because it has a massive amount of empirical data to support it.

    Skepticism is a good thing, but that doesn't mean you should say "durr, no its not tru, lawl. don't believe everyting u hear" and ignore all ACTUAL evidence.
  • Channel, on 10/11/2007, -8/+6I wonder if there will be a day, when some Christians, in light of evidence that irrefutably disproves their beliefs. That they lash out violently, because they lose sight of how precious their life is, when faced with the loss of their 'immortality'
    • Whammo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Perhaps you should ponder the fact that people have been looking for this evidence for several millenia and have come up empty. You'd think a book written so long ago would be chock full o' mistakes, right? The Bible even got right the fact that the earth is round, which only relatively recently in history has been proven true.

      It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: (Isaiah 14:22 KJV)
      • Gizza, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2People have been dispoving stuff in the Bible for quite some time. And yes, it did get the fact right that the Earth is round, only about 1000 years after everyone already knew that, amazing really.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
        this guy worked out the circumference of the Earth (albeit he calculated it a bit large) about 700 years before the Bible was written. Even though he got it a little off, it clearly shows he knew the earth was round.
        • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0You're right to dismiss it, but his verse is from the Tanakh, which (I'm pretty sure) predates Pythagoras, who is credited with originating the idea of a spheroidal earth.

          It doesn't change the fact that the keepers of this book believed in a flat earth, regardless of how Isaiah might be interpreted.
      • dictum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You realize that this is the exact type of argument that the video is showing to be ineffective.
    • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Maybe a handful, but "reversions" (as I call them, for they are not true "conversions") are highly individual.
  • swooshonln, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12dugg for the enzyte commercial example at the end
  • dcam1, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0I love how they chose to include a clip of Richard Dawkins as portrayed by Southpark. . . A real insight in to his point of view. . Dicks
  • tehdoom, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11@TheTap

    Just because you don't understand the logic doesn't mean that an argument lacks a logical basis. Theories on the original creation of the universe aside, it is quite possible for large clouds of dust to coalesce into planets such as our own. There IS a scientific basis there, regardless of whether you are aware of it or choose to acknowledge it.

    Your last statement is true, we cannot claim to have irrefutable proof that ANY argument about ANY topic is correct. However, it is possible to gauge the probability of an argument being correct compared to another argument. And when I (admittedly not a statistician) look at the two arguments: 1) the conclusion, based on a BOOK written a few thousand years ago, that the entire universe was created in 7 days by an all powerful being that we are unable to gather any data about; and 2) the conclusion, based on scientific observation and explainable through physics, that the universe is the result of truly amazing, but utterly explainable cosmic events; the latter seems far more probable to me.

    Also, on the subject of taking the Bible at face value, I suppose that creationists also believe that we should put to death: homosexuals, adulterers, disobedient children, women who lose their virginity before marraige, all non-Christians, anyone who works on the Sabbath, or anyone who is accused of wickedness by at least two other people. No? Well what about women? Do they think that it is "shameful for a woman to speak in church, that a woman should not teach a man nor hold authority over him, that it is ok to take women as sexual slaves, that if someone rapes an unmarried woman that he should BUY her and become her husband? No? Well it's in the Bible!
    • cyborgcommando0, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2I didn't realize we were Israelites.
      • tehdoom, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3So then you should accept particular passages of the Bible as the word of God and view them as infallible, but not accept others? I don't take issue with the entire book itself, on the contrary, particular passages still hold relevant messages today. However, holding the Bible up the true word of God simply because it says so should make ALL of it His word, should it not?
        • cyborgcommando0, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2All of it is infallible, but if you studied the Bible you would understand that we are under a new covenant and we are not bound to certain Old Testament laws; such as the dietary laws.
          • AndrewJC, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yes, but who, exactly, chooses which laws we have to follow and which we don't? Personally, I seem to recall hearing that Jesus specifically said that he was NOT on Earth to eliminate any existing law.
          • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0That is such ad hoc BS.
    • TheTap, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9tehdoom said:
      Just because you don't understand the logic doesn't mean that an argument lacks a logical basis. Theories on the original creation of the universe aside, it is quite possible for large clouds of dust to coalesce into planets such as our own. There IS a scientific basis there, regardless of whether you are aware of it or choose to acknowledge it.

      I say again, this cloud of dust had to have an origin. There is NO scientific basis, nor attempt to explain where this dust came from. You start with matter of some type and you explain what happened to it, you don't say where it came from. I know where it came from - God.

      Nothing in the new testament suggests we put to death any of those people. We are now under grace. If you read the Bible you would see that it was made clear by God when he tore down the veil to the inner temple (holy of holies).

      I admit that my beliefs require a lot of faith and I am fine with that. I would like an evolutionist to simply say the same.
      • Sornos, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3I enjoy a good rational conversation, so here goes.

        We don't know where all the dust came from. But that doesn't mean we'll never know. We we do know is that the Universe is expanding out from a point. We also know from the background radiation of the Universe that a long time ago things were very hot and very dense. From this we know that something big happened a long time ago, this thing resembled an explosion, hence the Big Bang theory. We know more than this, but I do not.

        Personally I have no qualms with a force that created the Universe from this point, but I do not like to think that there is a force that created the entire Universe (which is very very very big), and will listen to every single human on the planet, and will manipulate the fabric of existence so that select humans will get what they want, and some will not. Personally, if there were such a being, He'd be a jerk. Look at Africa. Furthermore, I believe that humanity is not the sole sentient race, and cannot be. With the size of the Universe being as it is, there is other intelligent life out there, and there is a lot. So this being would listen only to us, and the not the others? Or would he listen to every single sentient being in the Universe? Such a being has quite the job.

        My final point, beliefs should not require faith. You should have faith in people, but not in beliefs. I believe in gravity because I see it every day. I believe in evolution because there are facts. I will never believe in anything just because I am told to. If I am provided facts, I will believe it.
        I'd also like to point out that I admire people of Faith, because I do not have faith. That may sound odd, but have faith, that is what I believe. And just one last question, besides the Bible, what proof is there of anything held within the Bible? Is the Bible the sole source of information of Christian mythos?
      • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Matthew 5:17-20
        "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

        Bet your pastor doesn't talk about that one.
    • tehdoom, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1You're misrepresenting my argument. You said originally that, "There is no logic in a massive gas cloud forming the earth and all of it's elements." That is was I was referring to as an example (hence my comment "theories on the original creation of the universe aside"), because there IS logic in a massive gas cloud coming together to form contents of the universe as we know them today.

      On the subject of the originating event, you said something that I feel the need to call you on: "There is NO scientific basis, nor attempt to explain where this dust came from." That is utter rubbish. There is a theory as to what happened (the Big Bang) that has a very strong scientific basis. The fact is that while we have a reasonably clear picture as to what happened (the theory does have lots of evidence to support that there was a sort of "Big Bang" event, whether you are aware of such evidence), we have less knowledge about WHY it happened.

      As to my final comment, about the more unpleasant aspects of the Bible, they may not be in the new testament, but they are in the Bible. Likewise, the story of creation is in the Bible, but not in the new testament. If you claim the story of creation as the word of God, then I think you should be prepared to accept the rest of the old testament as His word as well. But even if you don't want to accept the entire old testament, as some of it is bigoted, violent, and archaic, look at Genesis itself! In the story of Eden, God kicks humanity out of the garden, dooming our entire species to a life of hardship, misery, and pain, because we ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. "A little harsh," you might say, "but perhaps understandable." Consider this then: How would we have known it to be wrong without having eaten from the tree? If you take the Bible literally, including believing in creation, you should accept that the God of the old testament is, to put it bluntly, a very mean man.

      Now, even if you were to throw out the old testament and keep creation (which strikes me very continent, being able to pick and choose what parts of doctrine you believe in on a whim), not all of the new testament is nice either. For all the talk of loving one's neighbor and such, Jesus seems to have been a fairly violent person. There's a lot of talk of war in the books, including several occasions where Jesus encourages his fellow Christians to take up arms. Let's also not forget when he doesn't want to help a little girl because she is a "dog" gentile. Ah, good times.

      And finally, in regards to your last sentences: "I admit that my beliefs require a lot of faith and I am fine with that. I would like an evolutionist to simply say the same." I would say this, though it is subject to debate: Your beliefs require a lot of faith because there is no reason to them. They are entirely unsupported by ANY empirical evidence at all. Now evolution has, as I said, a massive amount of empirical, scientific evidence to support it. Evolution requires no faith on your part, only logic and rationality.
      • nihilator, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1tehdoom, what are you talking about when you say "Let's also not forget when he doesn't want to help a little girl because she is a "dog" gentile."

        Do you even know what you're talking about? I doubt it. If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, it's Mark 7.
    • mastastealth, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6If you read the book, the chapters before and after the verses you (and many others) like to quote about the Bible (telling you to kill people or whatever you know is obviously not right), you'd see that's not how it works. Jesus already summed up about every rule for Christians into 2: Love God, Love Man. Anyone can take one little bit of the book and make it look bad..."Just because you don't understand the logic doesn't mean that an argument lacks a logical basis".
    • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Um. You atheists are making up your own arguments. 70% of Americans believe the Bible, but don't believe it to be the LITERAL word of God, so that 7 day creationist view....is the minority. Sorry to burst your talking point bubble, but if you really want to have a rational intelligent conversation, lets start with facts.
  • everfalling, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10this is a good compilation of fallacies we should all take time to memorize for any sort of debate or argument, not just religious. one of the biggest problems with our political system is that many speeches and debates by candidates are built on many of these fallacies and no one knows any better to call them out on it.
    • ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately, if you have to speakers, one using fallacies and the other using facts, the one using fallacies usually wins the debate in most people's opinion.
      • everfalling, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1thing is, the one using facts doesn't call out the one using the fallacies, that's why the illogical one wins. gotta call it out, or else people dont recognize it and agree with the fallacy.
        • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Like I did in my Metaphysics class yesterday...oh, that was good times. Hard Determinism FTW!
      • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0That's why I think public debate is a failed enterprise.
  • ShinSennju, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8The real problem its not religion in itself but those who manipulate it to maintain people in ignorance, since in reality Christian theology encourages people to ponder the things in which they believe, even the Pope JPII stated that they are not against evolution, but protestant leaders are experts shaping the way their congregations think, and they just believe whatever they say
    • minoss, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Then why exactly does the Pope go and ask famous scientists like Hawkings not to look into the creation of the world? Religion does not encourage people to question and challenge.
    • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0The Roman Catholic Church endorsing one prevailing scientific theory hardly sets them up as champions of the human intellect.

      I mean, come on: transubstantiation? Really?
  • astutzman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5Historical cities, names and basic events can be confirmed to be fact in the Bible. However, prophecy is in the eye of the interpreter and can not be taken for fact. The existence of Adam and Eve, the resurrection of Jesus, and various miracles cannot be proven outside of the Bible. They must be taken on faith. In fact the whole compilation of the Bible must be taken on faith as there is no distinct scripture reference as to which books and letters from which authors should be compiled together to create a sacred book. In fact there is no reference for anyone to compile a bunch of letters from random authors and call them a "bible". The canon of the New Testament was an event performed by men which involved a lot of speculation over which books and letters to include. I don't remember Jesus, during his ascension, handing out a list and saying, "Hey guys, by the way, here's a list of letters you're all going to write (plus a few people you don't know). Make sure they get compiled into a book and call it 'The New Testament'. Oh yeah... and some guy will write a letter you'll eventually call 'Hebrews'. We don't know who wrote it, but make sure to find it and include in the compilation." In conclusion, I have to say that I really respect anyone that can take that kind of evidence on faith alone. That's a heck of a lot of faith.
    • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Respect? That's a little tricky for me. I'd say that I find it remarkable...
  • over9, on 10/11/2007, -6/+5If God is real, why isn't Santa???
    • cyborgcommando0, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1St. Nicholas did exist.
      • everfalling, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Santa is God's Mini-me.
      • Cameleopard, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Did he fly around in a sleigh distributing gifts to all the good children every year? This is the conception of Santa that anyone sane knows not to be real, and the same kind of reasoning that leads one not to believe in a flying gift giver in the sky leads one not to believe in sky gods. Don't try to skirt the issue.
  • Whammo, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11Christianity 101:

    The Bible and Christianity is not based on logic, it is based on faith. Trying to contemplate Christianity logically is like trying to see in the dark with a hammer.

    But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (1 Corinthians 1:27 KJV)

    But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV)

    As you see the Bible says that God used things that don't seem to make sense on purpose. Nonsense by design. The reason it was done that way was to ensure that a decision for Christ is made with the heart, not the head. Some people cannot grasp that simple yet powerful concept. In the nutshell, we have to understand God on His terms, not ours.
    • Anigma, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2if he exists...
      • Whammo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I cannot convince anyone that He exists, nor will I try. You won't find something you aren't looking for.

        If you are seeking the truth, I suggest you try Christianity, that's all I am saying. Don't need to join a club, or strap bombs to your body, or hate others. All you need to do is ask God to prove he is real by revealing Himself to you. Read the KJV Bible. Seek and ye shall find.
        • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I've heard the exact same appeal from Muslims, who describe identical results. Yours is no better. I hope you ponder that.
    • TheTap, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Where have you been the last hour? 'bout time you spoke up!

      Except I do use NASB.
    • everfalling, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7he probably shouldn't have created such a skeptical being then. If his purpose was to purposely confound those who had gained the ability to think logically, then he can hardly damn them for rigging the game against them. To ask a being to take a step back in thinking after having gone so far in the way of understanding the universe, and punishing them if they don't, is horribly unfair.

      it's like asking someone who's come to understand basic math what's 1 + 1? logically, the answer is 2, but if the game is rigged so that the real answer is to illogically set the numbers next to each other rather than actually combining them, then it's unfair to the person for not coming up with 11 as the answer and being punished for it.
      • Whammo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4To base a decision for salvation on logic would be unfair to people that are lacking in that department. We are more than just a reasoning being, we have a conscience and a soul. It is not a step back, it is using your heart/conscience/soul. As I said in my example it is like using a different tool in your toolbox. God wants us to use logic and reasoning at all times, but they are not helpful in understanding spiritual matters, they are spiritually discerned.

        I can tell you from experience, the proof of His existence does come, as revelation in bits and parts. It is actually a bit like the Matrix movies, except you only get small glimpses of the other side.

        For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1st Corinthians13:12 KJV)

        It is sin that hides the truth from our eyes, not lack of evidence. As a Christian becomes more Christlike he can see things clearer.
        • everfalling, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2"To base a decision for salvation on logic would be unfair to people that are lacking in that department"

          i'm not saying it would be better if salvation was obtained through logic, i'm saying it's unfair to damn those who think logically, and therefor reject what is found to be illogical, when the game is essentially rigged against them in favor of having faith for the illogical/spiritual. i'm all for reaching out to a religion with ones heart and soul, but i think that it's unfair that a mental roadblock has been placed in the way of critical and skeptical people. I'm not sure how you'd resolve the matter of explaining the creation of the universe in more specific terms considering the underdeveloped mind set of those in the earliest days of Judaism and Christianity. In one hand i would rather His word have been relayed in more specific logical terms, as opposed to hyperbole and tales of fancy, but in the other i suppose this would hinder those who were not yet able to understand the universe as it really was back then. The whole idea of leaving us a single fairy tale book to explain the workings of the universe and then not elaborating on it further as we grew mentally kinda irks me.

          "As a Christian becomes more Christlike he can see things clearer."

          I suppose any belief, if held long enough, would effect ones mental state to the point where you'd be more inclined to see visions of your religion, be it Jesus, Moses, Muhammad or the Buddha. It's nice you experienced a personal contact with your religious deity, but speaking to people through dreams, 99.9% of which are nonsense that are a result of your experiences and attitude, seems terribly inefficient. almost like having LSD being the only way to make a mental connection with God, it's not terribly reliable.
        • poppajon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Although, I don't agree with whammo, you don't seem to understand the Christian faith, everfalling. The Christian faith tells the story of a God who was faced with a rebellion started by one who could actually see God (satan, devil, the evil one, lucifer etc.). The human experiment is then primarily a harvesting of followers who can transcend the lure of the evil one on a level playing field (see John Milton's "Paradise Lost). The "playing field" as it were is not sealed off...the supernatural invades the natural at times to lure the race away from the opponent...as evidenced by human art and stories. But ultimately, God is obviously looking for more than logic in His followers (as that didn't work in the evil one's case), He is looking for faith in Himself that has been tested, tried, and true. Logic is a great tool, but it is not the name of the game if the Christian premise is to be accepted...it is only a tool in a tool belt.
        • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0They're lacking because of your stupid religion and all the idiotic philosophies of the world that tell them that logic is meaningless!
      • ballsanya, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0He didn't create a skeptical being. According to genesis, man and woman were created perfect but were corrupted after the fall. It's like 3 chapters in, do a little research. It wouldn't kill you.
        • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Corrupted by God! It's inescapable! If God created everything, God created everything!
        • everfalling, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1so are you saying that humans, as perfect beings, don't have critical minds? if this is so, then that human is hardly perfect. skepticism and critical thinking are what keep us from accepting anything we're told. if we lack skepticism, all we are are mindless sheep. questioning information is hardly a flaw of corruption.
    • brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

      In the world of the Bible, it is really easy to believe in God. Seeing people being brought back from the dead, speaking in tongues, expelling demons (aka curing epilepsy), pillars of fire and smoke, etc. etc. The people in the Bible had regular visual reminders of God's presence. Miracles seemingly happened all the time. Undoubtedly if these things were happening only a fool would truly doubt the existence of God. It's pretty hard to doubt when he speaks to tens of thousands of people directly.

      I don't see how these scriptures can apply to someone in today's natural world. They were given to a theoretical people who witnessed and experienced divine miracles. We have no credible records of such amazing biblical miracles in the modern era. They simply have not happened. The only records of these things have very shady and unknown backgrounds. I find it hard to believe that for 3,000 years, God regularly manifested himself to mankind, then, all of the sudden, conveniently in this modern era, he demands faith without evidence. He stops talking to us.
      • Whammo, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1But the Bible *is* the evidence. And the people that He speaks to today have evidence. All the prophecies of the Bible that are coming true dailly are evidence too. All the focus of the world is on Israel and the middle east, just like the Bible predicted some two millenia ago. Even the most spiritually dead people recognize that we are in perilous times. These are the times leading to Armageddon.
        • brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Even the most spiritually dead people recognize that we are in perilous times. These are the times leading to Armageddon."

          Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word "evidence." A book with unverifiable sources is not evidence. A book that contains prophecies that are only fulfilled in the very same book is not evidence. Every generation in Christianity believes that they are living in a "special" time, a time where everything is going to come to fruition. Heck, even the Apostles believed for the longest time that Armageddon was going to happen in their day. The Millerites and Seventh-Day Adventists believed the world was going to end in the mid-to-late 1800s. I challenge you to produce a scripture that says all the focus of the world will be on Israel and the middle east. Every time I see this "the Bible has prophesied about what the world will be like today!" statement, no supporting quotes or verses are ever supplied. I can't help but wonder if you've actually read anything like that in the bible and thought about it critically, or if you're just parroting what your pastor told you.

          In actuality, we live in pretty tame times compared to just 50 years ago. Humans are finding violence and hate less and less acceptable. There is a ton of backlash about the casualties in Iraq, despite the fact that they're actually quite minimal when compared to other wars. People that believe in Biblical prophecy believe for the same reason people believe in Nostradamus, and the prophecies are always interpreted AFTER the fact. Of course, it's easy to tie in the events of any period to the vague language of Daniel and Revelations. A real prophecy should give specific information: who, what, when, where, etc. Biblical prophecy deals in poetic, symbolic language that can be interpreted in a million different ways. Instead of giving specific names, dates, and places, it talks about seven-headed dragons, goats, rams, talking horns, frogs, rivers of blood, and winged beasts. The fact that no two of the thousands of Christian denominations interpret these "signs" exactly the same should tell you something.
      • everfalling, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"All the focus of the world is on Israel and the middle east, just like the Bible predicted some two millenia ago"

        even if this were true, i don't think it was something terribly hard to predict. by default these areas are going to have conflict, considering you have two waring religions set right next to each other, both claiming the right to a hunk of land their individual god promised them. If their fighting was meant to last this long to fulfill a prophesy, then god did a really good job in keeping these factions at each others necks for so long.
        • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Seriously. I don't think most people (even Christians) think about Israel all that much.
    • themuffinman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7"The Bible and Christianity is not based on logic, it is based on faith. Trying to contemplate Christianity logically is like trying to see in the dark with a hammer."

      Congrats on joining my list of awesome quotes. People like you need to speak up.
      • brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I have no problems with Christians who admit this. If you want to "just believe" and have faith that is fine with me. Just don't try to convince me that science supports that belief, and I won't call you ignorant and foolish. Science is neutral on religion. No scientist can say "this is proof that God had nothing to do with it." The reason anyone lacks belief is a purely philosophical one.
      • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Technically, there is scientific evidence that Jesus actually existing though first century accounts....but lets not bring science into this "theological" debate...
        • ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That still doesn't make any magic in the Bible (including god) any more true though.
        • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0It's scant, at best.
      • everfalling, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1i donno. at least, according to the movie Zeitgeist, there are only 4 major accounts of jesus most historians look to, and they've all been debunked. i really think you'd be hard pressed to find evidence of jesus specifically existing amidst the dozens of other such 'christs' walking around curing the blind and feeding the hungry.
        • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Avoid using that movie as a reference. A great deal of it is inaccurate. I should probably get all my YouTube atheist buddies together and stamp out an official refutation video.
      • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I liked it too, but when he said he was a Christian I got really puzzled.
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6So...

      1) Your god is a trickster who intends to deceive, yet Christians (claim) to hate lies and deception and treat them as sin.
      2) I am with Galileo when he wrote: "I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Supposedly, we have all these "gifts" that are "given" from "god" yet we use them and we are ultimately punished for them? Sounds more like humanity's faulty logic rather than some perfect, all knowing being. What kind of fairness is exemplified by punishing the use of a "gift" such as reason?
      3) Sorry, the "heart" makes no decisions. The brain is the organ of the mind. Decisions come about via the mind (via the interaction of the brain and environment).
      • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Wow. You simply didn't comprehend what was written. Are you purposefully blocking what he's trying to say? Take a time out. Really listen. If you really think about it, God has chosen foolish things to confound the wise. I see this as God telling Christians how to live their lives, that is specifically contrary to the standards of today's society. It's pretty foolish to go against nature and stick with 1 life partner the rest of your life, when nature and society tells us that having many partners is just fine. If you really believe that God is being a "trickster" then it's not my job to convince you otherwise because I don't believe He is. I just believe that his Biblical standards are so alien to society today that of course it's not going to make sense. I mean come on, what does eating crackers and drinking juice have to do with church!?
    • meph, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I really don't know if I can go into all the problems with your position here, mainly because I just won't take the time to do it, plus digg comments aren't going to do anything. I will say, however, that you are doing all Christians a disservice by saying (essentially) "Christianity is illogical. You can't come to God by logic, because God is outside of logic." You are, in effect, invalidating many peoples beliefs, including some of the greatest thinkers in the history of the world (see: Newton, Pascal, etc). Logic is a universal law created by God that even He is subject to, just like mathematics. Whether we are fully capable of understanding these laws or not is irrelevant.
      • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Technically, if he comes to that conclusion. You cannot come to know the creator of logic with logic.....
      • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Um Pascal? Are you really sure you want to claim that one for the logic crowd? Rethink that one, or I could possibly direct you towards a refutation of his Wager.

        And no, your God can't be subject to logic. Have you ever heard of the omnipotence-omniscience-omnibenevolence problem? Therefore, the only option for the Christian is to make the ad hoc assumption that God transcends even logic. Which, for the record, is bollocks.
    • SheilaNoya, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You're right. Logic and religion don't mix. You have to be completely illogical to believe in a magic man who lives up in the sky.
  • soccerman90, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Your just saying more of the believing because it says to believe. If i made up a story of creation there would be no more reason for you to believe in it than there is reason to believe in christianity
    • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1So about 40 books written in a span of thousands of years corroborating each other's stories with 90% accuracy as well as first century accounts that Jesus existed isn't evidence enough?
      • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0No. It isn't. You might say the same of Heracles. Because all the stories are close, and weren't written all at the same time, Heracles existed?

        And for the record, the historicity of Jesus is questionable. But it doesn't matter: because Aleister Crowley existed doesn't mean he had magical powers.
  • lonniebiz, on 10/11/2007, -10/+14I enjoyed your presentation of the common logical fallacies, but your entire presentation's context implies a fallacy of its own. This implicit fallacy is:

    "If Christian's have flawed arguments, then God doesn't exist."

    Even if you are able to point out flaws in Christian arguments, that doesn't logically mean that atheism isn't flawed too.

    Logically, it takes just as much faith to be an Atheist as it does to be a Christian. Christians have an unfounded certainty that God exists and Atheists have an unfounded certainty that God doesn't exist. Both are overly certain and both risk being wrong.

    The Atheist's largest logical flaw is his failure to acknowledge the possibility God could exist despite every single argument he provides.

    For example, evolution has no logical association with the existence or non-existence of God, because God may exist or may not exist if evolution is true OR if evolution is false.

    Give me any Atheist's fact, and I will point out why it doesn't have any logical association with the existence or non existence of God. All you have to do, is replace the word "evolution" (in the previous paragraph) with the Atheist's fact. By the way, the same goes for Christians.

    Anyone who is certain about this topic is too narrow-minded to acknowledge the range of possibilities. To discover the possibilities, the Atheist can simply ask "how can God exist despite my reasons that he doesn't exist" and "What would have to be true for God to exist despite my reasons for why he doesn't exit". The believer can use this same technique for revealing the possibilities she is ignoring.

    The Agnostic doesn't take the risk of being wrong; his logic is sound. An agnostic acknowledges and accepts his uncertainty regarding the existence of God. He may listen to an Atheist or Christain arguments, but those arguments don't lead to any certainty.

    I've known this for a long time, but I'll share it with who ever has read this far: Most people's fear of uncertainty lead them to believing well beyond what they can logically be certain of. They don't know it, but they'd rather be certain than logically sound.

    Lonnie Lee Best

    P.S. Atheist and Christians use inductive reasoning, which by definition, doesn't prove their conclusion:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
    • everfalling, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8"Logically, it takes just as much faith to be an Atheist as it does to be a Christian. Christians have an unfounded certainty that God exists and Atheists have an unfounded certainty that God doesn't exist. Both are overly certain and both risk being wrong."

      actually not really. logically, the burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. if i say there's an invisible and intangible unicorn in the room, the burden of proof is upon me to prove it exists, not everyone else's to prove it doesn't. Just because atheists don't have proof that god doesn't exist doesn't mean that automatically there's a chance he does. if this was true, then that logic would dictate that anything i can come up with that's currently impossible to disprove must have a chance of existing. so to accept there's a chance god must exist means you would also have to assume things like the sun orbiting china teapot, the invisible unicorn, and the flying spaghetti monster must also have a chance of existing.
      • lonniebiz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Actually, your confusing likelihood with certainty.

        "Burden of proof" is more of a legal term. In logic, the burden of proof is on everyone involved who wants to be certain. In law, influentials' preferences determine who has to prove what. In law, the goal is to resolve conflict despite uncertainty. In logic, you must acknowledge and accept uncertainty. In science, you observe what has happened previously and you predict future behavior based on the past. This is practical, but logically, just because something has always behaved a certain way, that doesn't mean that it will continue to behave that way.

        What I'm about to say is going to sound absolutely absurd, but it is logically sound: I can't logically rule out the existence of a "unicorn in the room that I can't see". If I had to immediately bet my life on the existence of a invisible unicorn in the room, I'd bet that the unicorn doesn't exist. However, I don't have to bet my life on such an issue. So, instead I will apply logic. Logically, as absurd as it may sound, it is possible that there is an invisible unicorn in the room right now, that I'm unable to perceive. I can't be certain of what exists and doesn't exist outside my range of perception. As absurd as this seems, it is logically sound and contains no logical fallacies.

        Bet on what you think is most likely, but don't express unfounded certainty on a likelihood.

        Lonnie Lee Best
        • Cameleopard, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4You're neglecting pragmatic atheism in this argument, however. Many atheists, including Richard Dawkins, acknowledge the possibility of a deity (wherein said possibility is in the company of anything imaginable), discredit its likelihood, and live without the real influence of such a possibility on their thoughts and decisions. It is impossible to contain and entertain the possibility of anything imaginable, and the case of a deity is no different from any other, such as the invisible unicorn. So, practically, we all live without the consideration of the possibility of what is imaginable but unobserved regarding most of what fits into this category. Not giving weight to what is unlikely is certainty. If it is unfounded intellectually, it is necessary practically.
        • lonniebiz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3
          Well let me think... this is getting into semantics. How do we define Athesist? The way I would define atheist is:

          Someone who believes that God doesn't exist.

          However, it seems that the word "believe" is a bit ambiguous. You see, I only believe that which I'm certain of. But, apparently, (from what you say) many atheist believe despite their doubts (faith), but still say they "believe".

          So would you define an atheist as:

          "Someone who believes (but may have some doubts) that God doesn't exist."

          Or do you want to be even less strict:

          Someone who thinks it's more likely that God doesn't exist than does Exist

          or perhaps better:

          "Someone who advocate the non-existence of God"

          Yeah, may that's the best definition. This definition would allow Richard Dawkins to remain an atheist despite his doubts.

          Lonnie Lee Best
          • brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"The way I would define atheist is:

            Someone who believes that God doesn't exist."

            And you would be wrong. I think this definition is most correct:

            "Someone who thinks it's more likely that God doesn't exist than does Exist"

            Not all atheist advocate the non-existence of God. We see the idea of God is something invented by primitive humans to explain the unexplainable. We see how logic and reason have explained many of these things, and that eventually the God explanation will become obsolete. What are the chances an all-powerful being that created the entire universe exists? What are the chances this creator happens to fall in line with the holy book of one religion on a tiny blue planet in the corner of an obscure galaxy? What if there is intelligent life on other planets? What if one of their religions is correct? Atheists believe the way they do because they see no well-demonstrated reason to believe otherwise. Again, it is not belief there is absolutely, positively no God whatsoever, period. It is simply the lack of belief in a God. It is by definition the opposite of faith.
          • poppajon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0agnostic < look that word up
    • brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -5/+7lonnie, you're guilty of false dichotomy here.

      First off, there are more than just the two stances of Atheism and Christianity. There are thousands of religions in the world. You have actively rejected the millions of Gods over a billion Hindus worship. You have actively rejected Thor, Odin, Zeus, Ra, and Set. Why? The adherents of other religions believe in their deities just as strong as you do. You are effectively an atheist to all the Gods mankind has ever known, except one. So if every fantastic mystical theory of the universe deserves equal time, than the likelihood of the Christian God being the "right" God is astronomically small. There is also the possibility that if there is a God, no one has gotten it right.

      Logically, it does not take as much faith to be an Atheist. Christianity, and religion in general, are anti-logic. You have faith your God exists because it was the God you were taught about. If you had grown up in India you would likely believe just as strongly in Brahma. There is a difference between Theism and Religion. You are the one making the claim an all-powerful invisible force that conforms to the holy book you happen to hold dear is the one that is responsible for "all this," and you have absolutely no evidence to back it up. I can make the claim that "all this" is the result of a sneeze from the nose of the great green Arkleseizure, and that we all should be mindful of the "coming of the great white hankerchief." Now, you'd say that claim is ridiculous, and rightfully so, but if you were born into a family that taught this as undeniable fact, and lived in a society that believed the same, you'd be less inclined to think so. You don't just have evolution to disprove (if you happen to believe in a literal Genesis, anyway), you have Zoaranstraism, Shinto, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Ba-Hai, Confuscism, Sikhism, and Scientology to disprove as well. Atheists reject religion because they have learned to step back and not allow their personal experiences with a particular faith to cloud their judgement.

      Do Atheists say that "there is absolutely, positively, no possible way that ANY god exists, period.?" No. It is impossible to prove a negative, that something doesn't exist. Do you believe in pink unicorns? Probably not. One could say that you are A-unicornist. Do you leave for the possibility that they COULD exist? Sure, but IN PRACTICE, you don't actively believe in them. Many people think Atheism is belief there is no god, when in fact it is the lack of a belief in God. Do we leave the possibility open for God existing? Sure, but we put it on the same "could exist" shelf as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Thor.
      • lonniebiz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I'm not making that mistake. I only used Christians as an example; I think more abstractly than that implies. Replace the word "Christian" with the phrase "God Believer of any type" and give my comment a reread, for that is what I really mean to say.
      • lonniebiz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4"Logically, it does not take as much faith to be an Atheist".

        My main point isn't to argue the "amount of faith" an atheist has; it is to point out that an Atheist HAS faith. When someone believes something they can't be logically certain of, that's faith.

        faith = unfounded certainty = logical flaw

        Lonnie Lee Best
        • brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3I see your point. If I may use your logic, EVERYONE has faith. You and I have faith that an invisible pink unicorn is not in the room right now. We have faith because we have not seen any evidence of such. I think there are two different kinds of faith: reasonable faith and unreasonable faith. Reasonable faith is based on what we have perceived of our environment. Does it take faith to believe in evolution? It takes faith in the mountains of evidence supporting it. Reasonable faith is based in fact and evidence, and, above all, is willing to adjust itself when new evidence comes to light.

          Unreasonable faith makes rash, unprovable speculations about the unknown. It is not based in fact, and often takes centuries to change, usually begrudgingly and due to social pressure as opposed to evidence.

          I don't think you're advocating unreasonable faith, but this is purely a semantics argument. When atheists speak against faith, they mean unreasonable faith. Unreasonable faith states that God exists with no supporting evidence. To someone that requires evidence to believe something, this is delusional. We accept the fact that what unreasonable faith says might be true, but because unreasonable faith has no evidence to back it up, we determine that unreasonable faith's position is likely incorrect. We will change our minds if any real evidence comes to light, but right now there is none.
        • TubaTechno, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1So faith based on the evidence of the origin of the scriptures and their accuracy, and the many historical non biblical documents referring to Jesus in the first century is "unprovable"?
          • Phyltre, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Yes, because our only view of the world from before a century or so ago comes from books. Sure, there's lots of corroborating books out there. But there's also plenty of contradictory stuff out there, and none of us were there in the past to see it. Every time you accept what you're taught in a history class (or read in a historic account), you've investing a little bit of faith in it. And the amount you invest increases the farther you go back--because every day there are debates as to whether our current view of history is correct in very fundamental ways. You are accepting without tangible proof that there isn't some political/whatever entity going around rewriting history books, or tampering with historic accounts, (hint: this just happened to Japanese text books, you might have heard about it in the news)... and that such an organization has never successfully existed between the event and your reading the account of it. We can be relatively sure of the past 100 or so years, but the farther you go back, the more wily human beings get between you and what happened. In fact the Bible is fairly superior in this because we have the nearly original documents (although scientifically they're not proof of supernatural events, just proof that such events were recorded.) History books are rewritten all the time, because the vast majority of all humans that ever lived were illiterate. They weren't writing any history.

            So yes, there's significant faith there. Welcome to a truly scientific world.
          • Cameleopard, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What are these numerous non-Biblical documents referring to Jesus within the first century after his supposed death? I'm aware of Josephus, but as far as I know, that's the ONLY source. Furthermore, the Biblical sources, which were written long after Jesus' alleged death, are highly inconsistent with each other and history (for instance, Herod wasn't in power at the time of Jesus' supposed lifespan). So, what of this corpus of evidence you aver?
          • lonniebiz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes, it would require faith to be certain of those document's authenticity and it would also require faith to be certain of those document's invalidity.

            Inductive reasoning doesn't produce certainty.

            Lonnie Lee Best
    • OneAndOnlySnob, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Here's the problem with your entire post: The author of the Youtube video asserted that there is no god. He simply pointed out several logical fallacies that pretty much everyone uses by accident at some point, with specific examples for Christianity. That doesn't mean Christianity is false. It simply means those arguments are not sound.

      Secondly, I am an atheist, and contrary to what you say, I acknowledge that there may be a god. I find it incredibly unlikely, but it's definitely possible. However, even though I acknowledge the possibility that god exists, I will not concede to the possibility that Christianity is true, because I think it is literally possible to prove that both the Bible and the faith itself are way too illogical to be anything other than the works of man. And there is a lack of historical evidence outside the Bible to indicate that it is true. And the same thing applies to every religion I've been introduced to.
      • lonniebiz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5How do we define Athesist? The way I would define atheist is:

        Someone who believes that God doesn't exist.

        However, it seems that the word "believe" is a bit ambiguous. You see, I only believe that which I'm certain of. But, apparently, (from what you say) many atheist believe despite their doubts (faith), but still say they "believe".

        So would you define an atheist as:

        "Someone who believes (but may have some doubts) that God doesn't exist."

        Or do you want to be even less strict:

        Someone who thinks it's more likely that God doesn't exist than does Exist

        or perhaps better:

        "Someone who advocate the non-existence of God"

        Yeah, maybe that's the best definition. This definition would allow Richard Dawkins to remain an atheist despite his doubts.

        Lonnie Lee Best
      • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Do you mean "did not assert", because I didn't, and as a fellow atheist, I would expect you to catch that.
    • tehdoom, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Lonnie, I agree with you, agnosticism is the only position that does not require faith.

      However, that being said, I don't think that the level of faith required for theism is the same as that required to be an atheism. The reason is the difference in probability between a theist's beliefs or an atheist's beliefs being correct. Looking at Christianity and Atheism specifically, the complexity of the universe does make it seem improbable that it was not created by some intelligent being. But, a being complex enough to create the universe would, logically, have to be even more complex and therefor even more improbable (this point about complexity is summarized from a far better one in Richard Dawkins' God Delusion, so forgive me if I have misrepresented it). Besides the complexity issue there's also the fact that a benevolent, omnipotent God is illogical. (there are many arguments for religion's illogicality, so I'll stop at 2 for now) Allow me to quote Epicurus:

      "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
      Then He is not omnipotent.

      Is He able, but not willing?
      Then he is malevolent.

      Is he both able, and willing?
      Then whence cometh evil?

      Is he neither able nor willing?
      Then why call him God?"
      • lonniebiz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Right, my main point isn't to argue the "amount of faith" an atheist has; it is to point out that an Atheist HAS faith. When someone believes something they can't be logically certain of, that's faith.

        faith = unfounded certainty = logical flaw


        I like your reasoning about omnipotent/malevolent. However, the fundamental question is "Does God exist", and you're getting into the question "Is Christianity's Description of God logically possible?". That's beyond the scope of the fundamental topic.

        Lonnie Lee Best

        Regarding you other comments, I'm not too interested in
      • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0You too, are guilty of misunderstanding the atheist position, which isn't a position per se, and I'll explain why. The atheist doesn't, by definition, have to believe or disbelieve anything, while the agnostic does. The agnostic makes the assumption that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of a God is absolutely impossible (a premature, and probably incorrect assumption), while the atheist is not by definition required to make any claims at all.

        The problem comes when the people who taught you the word "agnostic" conflated "strong" and "weak" atheism into one, when in reality the strong atheists are somewhat moronic. Weak atheists, by virtue of their defintion, are not required to posit a single thing.

        Epicurus is ours. Give 'im back.
        • lonniebiz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"The agnostic makes the assumption that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of a God is absolutely impossible (a premature, and probably incorrect assumption)"

          That's not an assumption. You're comment implies that Agnostics faithfully start with that statement (as a believed assumption) and then proceed to build on top that assumed foundation. That's not the case; That's not an Agnostic's assumption, that is an Agnostic's *conclusion* that is based on top of the following logic (which I've already stated in my main post . . . I will repeat it here for the reader's convenience):

          "For example, evolution has no logical association with the existence or non-existence of God, because God may exist or may not exist if evolution is true OR if evolution is false.

          Give me any Atheist's fact, and I will point out why it doesn't have any logical association with the existence or non existence of God. All you have to do, is replace the word "evolution" (in the previous paragraph) with the Atheist's fact . . ."

          Furthermore, even if it is possible to logically prove the non-existence of God (something that "Atheist" Richard Dawkins doesn't even believe is possible), no Atheist has done it. Every piece of evidence fails the logical test above.
    • jayhawks71, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Lonnie, you have essentiallly based your argument on one of flaws covered in the video. Why must one entertain every speculation that is placed before us, even in the absence of not only convincing evidence, but ANY evidence whatsoever. It appears from your use of the "G" in your spelling of "God" that you are advocating the Judeo-Christian deity. Why don't you entertain or "accept" the validity of the myriad gods that are not from the Judeo-Christian tradition exist and perhaps are responsible for morality, creation, etc..., after all, you expect non-theists to entertain the notion that has no evidence. Theists like to play the game of philosophical whack a mole. Keep throwing up straw men, non-sequiturs, and false dichotomies to keep rational beings busy... to essentially keep them in the batters box trying to fend off every far fetched idea with the logical fallacy.... you can't prove it doesn't exist.... therefore, it does!
      • lonniebiz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Practically, in life you make decisions despite your uncertainties. However, logically, you must not express certainty based on a likelihood. You don't have to consider every possibility. It only takes one contradicting possibility to prevent certainty.

        I only used Christians as an example; I think more abstractly than that implies. Replace the word "Christian" with the phrase "God Believer of any type" and give my comment a reread, for that is what I really mean to say.

    • rebotfc, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Haha, Lonnie tried to be clever by using a tired ontological argument but failed.

      For his argument to be consistent "God" would be no more possible than the tooth fairy, green leprechauns at the end of rainbows, or the flying spaghetti monster.
      • lonniebiz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Practically, you can live your entire live without believing in God, the tooth fairy, green leprechauns, and spaghetti monsters. But, Logically, you can't be certain about the non-existence of anything in that list.

        The seemingly absurd examples you grouped with God may (for some) give Atheism a pragmatic appeal, but logically it fails because it implies:

        "Because when speculating the unknown, there are numerous absurd possibilities, then all possibilities are equally absurd and therefore nothing outside my perception exist."

        Each of a human being's 5 senses is of limit perception. There are sounds the human ear can't hear. There are colors that humans can't see (infrared, ultraviolet). Something that feels smooth to a human is porous under a microscope. So much exists outside of our perception, and I bet much more exists outside the perception of the scientific tools we've created too.

        Lonnie Lee Best
    • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0"'If Christian's have flawed arguments, then God doesn't exist.'"

      That's an inference you've made, and nothing I've implied. Something more correct you might draw from it would be "because Christians have no coherent arguments, it follows that it is not logical to be a Christian".

      You've made the common mistake of not understanding what atheism actually is. Allow me to fix that for you: atheism is the default position where one does not believe in any gods. As Richard Dawkins eloquently puts it "We're all atheists about some god or another. Some of us just go one god further". I regard all gods the same way as I would regard Poseidon or Loki. It's not that I believe your God doesn't exist, I just don't believe he does. It's an important, but difficult, distinction to understand. Right now, I don't believe you are wearing a pink shirt, but I simultaneously don't believe that you AREN'T wearing a pink shirt. I have no belief on the subject. I am a pink shirt atheist.

      You've also gave and incorrect definition for "agnostic". The agnostic makes the a priori assumption that knowing whether or not there is a God is absolutely impossible. I don't make that assumption, and am thus more broad-minded than the agnostic. I don't believe it's impossible to know whether or not you are wearing a pink shirt.

      Thanks for the comment. Hope you get something out of this.
      • lonniebiz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1A new Atheist starts off not believing in God. They don't believe God exists, period. Then when an agnostic comes along an points out that it is logically unsound to be certain about the non-existence of God, that seed of objectivity grows.

        Eventually, the proud Atheist acknowledges that it is indeed logically impossible to be certain that God doesn't exist. However, they are (1) so proud of being an "Atheist", and (2) so dedicated to disproving the existence of God, that they change the definition of atheism so that it accounts for the logical flaw that the agnostic pointed out. Then they start watering down words like "belief" and they come up with cute little adjectives to put in front of their title, such as: Agnostic Atheist, and in your case "Pink-Shirt Atheist". Richard Dawkins isn't that brilliant. He hasn't taught me anything I haven't already thought about. I understand everyone one of his point just as thoroughly as he does. Everyone of his point is inductive reasoning that doesn't lead to certainty. Its merely speculative. That's why I don't write books about it, or try to lead the masses toward it. Here's a analogy that I think illustrates all atheist's facts:

        Pretend there is a balance scale. Atheist strive to put all their "evidence" on one side of that scale and as the their side lowers and lowers they think their right. However, there is one very heavy possibility that they don't like to dwell on (put on the other side of the scale). As I've already mention in my main post. I'll repeat it for the reader's convenience:

        "For example, evolution has no logical association with the existence or non-existence of God, because God may exist or may not exist if evolution is true OR if evolution is false.

        Give me any Atheist's fact, and I will point out why it doesn't have any logical association with the existence or non existence of God. All you have to do, is replace the word "evolution" (in the previous paragraph) with the Atheist's fact. By the way, the same goes for Christians [believe in God]."

        Now, if Atheists want to be agnostic while they are trying to disprove God, then I propose a new definition for the word Atheist:

        Atheist - Someone who favors the non-existence of God.

        This is a better definition. Why? First of all it does bastardize the word "belief" for the sake of "remaining Atheist" (after a agnostic disabusement). This would include the people of the original definition ("Someone who doesn't believe in God") while also include those who "aren't certain" but continue to promote and advocate the non existence of God on Digg.com.

        Lonnie Lee Best
  • angeliqlight, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14alright... i wanted to just say that i am a christian. i also wanted to say that i, along with many other christian people i know, would never treat another human being this way regardless of their personal beliefs. i look at this athiest girl with the same love i look at everyone else with. some people get christianity confused with religion.. religion is about seperation, rules and limitations. Christ despised religious people. the word christian means "Christ like". a person who truthfully says "i am a christian" is a person who does his/her best to follow Jesus Christ's example because they believe he is the guide to everlasting inner peace on earth and eternal life with God after this life. the people who treated this girl with such disrespect, by definition, are NOT christians. they may believe that Christ is the son of God.. but by their actions they are obviously confused about what it means to live a christian life. to all the athiests out there: like i said, i got no beef with you guys and would embrace you as brothers/sisters just as i would any christian person. i hope that one day people will stop stereo-typing christians when they hear about things like this..but on the same note, i would hope that one day christians would stop stereotyping nonbelievers and treat them as Christ would.
    • Whammo, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4I have nothing against Atheists or any non believers either. However it is my duty as a Christian to try and show them the truth. I look at my Christianity sort of like AA, only it is Sinners Anonymous. I realize that we all are sinners, including myself. Not that I used to be a sinner, but AM a sinner. I am simply acknowledging that I need help from a higher power (Jesus Christ) because I cannot stop sinning on my own.
      • ICSU, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1angeliqlight, Whammo's is a great example why there is a problem with particular religions and gods
      • everfalling, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2it is not your duty to show non-believers the 'truth'. if someone wants to seek out god, they'll do it on their own, and you can help them then. it's generally rude to approach anyone with your beliefs in an attempt to sway them toward your side unless they initiate the discussion. you wouldn't like Mormons, J.W.'s, or even atheists coming and knocking in your door doing the same thing to you, so you shouldn't do it yourself.
      • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Fitting, because AA is a patently religious institution, and that people can be court-ordered to attend it is in clear violation the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

        But that's a rant for another day.
    • mrhaines, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Its good to know that there are other Christians in this world who think that way. Cheers!
  • bringonts2, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7Man, I'd usually side with the antagonists who bring up logical points and questions that need to be addressed, but this is one of those times where they are speaking without any real knowledge of their object of criticism. I was insanely disappointed with those who had to do with the writing of the articles/video. If you want to form a true opinion, stop with this one-sided crap. This is just the same old "I hate you, you hate me" argument. If you want to form a true opinion, you have to erase your presuppositions and listen to both sides of the argument. Neither of these points have been satisfied, so no Digg. If you want "rationality" as you all most often claim, this is not where you will find it.
    • Hier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0That's an ad hominem if I ever heard one.
  • waluum, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2True theists are not against science, they just don't put their faith in it because it is too slow for them. They submit to all of the truths of science, not to scientists, because the truths are irrefutably backed up by evidence. They do not, however, submit to all of the theories of science because the theories are backed up by incomplete evidence (evidence at hand). Scientific theories are not inherently false, nor are they inherently true, they are simply the accepted ideas/conclusions based on evidence at hand, which constantly updates itself to reveal the error and truth of theories - which is a perfectly natural and acceptable thing since man does not know all and see all.

    The truth of the Spirit, which mainstream science rejects, cannot and will not be proven to all men, as much as an emotion cannot be adequately measured, nor can the unseen be seen unless it, which is intelligent, makes itself known. But physical, or non-physical, intelligence is afforded choice - the choice to reveal itself as it wishes, when it wishes, to whom- or what-ever it wishes.<