*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, April 18th, 2012 11:51am PDT - promote requested by poolcleaner.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

hehe i liked the Buddhist jokes

I watched every religious debate Hitch had. And I waited, in anticipation, for someone to provide an argument which he could not refute. It never happened. Using logic, free thought, intellect, rationale and common sense - not to mention his acerbic wit - he demolished all the religious apologists who were unwise enough to take him on.

Listening to him gives me the courage to face the fear of my death, and reminds me that death itself is as natural in our world as is birth. upvote.

To live in the time and witness this great voice of unyielding reason consistently slap back the ignorant, the fearful and the disingenuous. Wonderful.

"What I loved most about Hitchens was his passion. No... his anger! His outrage at religion and how it enslaves humanity. There is a hadith (I'm an Ex-Muslim btw) about how one of the greatest acts is a word of truth in the face of a tyrant. I always loved that hadith. What could be greater than the words of truth in the face of the tyrannical, albeit mythical God of the Abrahamic religions. RIP Christopher. You stood up for God's battered wife: Humanity!" - youtube comment

Very occasionally I am reminded why I don't disable youtube comments.

Anyone else read the title about the 2012 Global Atheist Coven?

Top 15 on your first video, Spacegirl. AND you received an honorary downvote from Ant. That's like killing two birds and an ant with one stone.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, April 18th, 2012 2:53pm PDT - promote requested by JiggaJonson.

>> ^A10anis:
I watched every religious debate Hitch had. And I waited, in anticipation, for someone to provide an argument which he could not refute. It never happened. Using logic, free thought, intellect, rationale and common sense - not to mention his acerbic wit - he demolished all the religious apologists who were unwise enough to take him on.


You must have missed this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

>> ^VIR:
Listening to him gives me the courage to face the fear of my death, and reminds me that death itself is as natural in our world as is birth. upvote.


Walking through a mine field, courage may get you to the other side, or it may get you blown to pieces. What is important is what the truth is. Is the path you're on leading you to disaster? Are there any live mines in your path? What you need is a map, and that doesn't come from man, it comes from God. The bible says it is appointed once for man to die, and then the judgment. Which means death may be natural, but it isn't the end. What you should fear is not when your life ends, but when you are standing before God on judgment day, with no forgiveness for your sins. You need the salvation of Jesus Christ so you can escape condemnation, and receive eternal life. That is what Jesus did for you on the cross. He took the punishment for your sins so that you can be forgiven.

You have faith that Christopher Hitchens is no more, but have you thought about the alternative? That right now, Christopher is well aware there is a God, and would do anything he could to take back what he said and repent while he was here? Unfortunately, it is too late for him, but it isn't for you. Turn from your sins and get right with God while you still have time. Don't put your eternal future at stake because of the choices someone else made. Seek God and hear what He has to say, because He wants to save you from Christophers fate.

I honestly don't know why I bother... oh well, here goes.

First off, thank you for the Hitchens video, I don't think I had see that one yet. Now I've seen it though, I see that Hitchens once again quite successfully defends against the vapid, circle jerk arguments which assert proof without evidence. In fact a Hitchensism comes to mind that I quite enjoy, which states that, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Good stuff. Simple. Easy to put to use.

Take for example Shiny's ridiculous assertion about Hitchens being in his make-believe after life.

Shiny: Oh no, the after life is real and you're going to burn in hell fire. I know it's real because the bible says it's so and the bible is the truth.
Inquiry: How do you know it's the truth?
Shiny: Because the bible says it's the truth.
Inquiry: What evidence do you have that it's the truth?
Shiny: The bible says it's the truth.

No evidence. Fallacious claim dismissed.

You may choose different words to express yourself, but this is the very essence of your circle jerk argument and like all other apologists and zealots, it proves nothing except your willingness to accept something without evidence.

You contribute nothing.
You advance nothing.
Your words are empty.
You merely wretch up that which was fed to you...

...and I have no appetite for your absurdly limited menu.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^A10anis:
I watched every religious debate Hitch had. And I waited, in anticipation, for someone to provide an argument which he could not refute. It never happened. Using logic, free thought, intellect, rationale and common sense - not to mention his acerbic wit - he demolished all the religious apologists who were unwise enough to take him on.

You must have missed this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8


Actually, no, I didn't. And, if you seriously think that Craig bested Hitch, you should watch it again. Craig, in every debate, simply uses pseudo babble with a liberal sprinkling of gospel. Never has Craig been able to back up his "argument" with anything but faith, and faith cannot be used as an argument. Hitch, on the other hand.... well, if you can't see it, sadly, you never will.

You're welcome, but I think you took a wrong turn somewhere when you followed that link, because Hitchens lost that debate pretty badly. Don't get me wrong, because I think Hitchens did win most of his debates, if only on his rhetorical abilities, but on that one he floundered..which is particularly clear when watching from 1:19:00 or so when he was subject to direct questioning by Craig.

In any case, the fallacious claims are all on your side, considering the rest of your post is nothing but a strawman argument. Congratulations, you defeated me in your imagination..did you get a boost of self-esteem? I also wonder how a self-described militant antitheist could escape the label of zealotry?

Let's say that I told you that I buried one million dollars somewhere in your neighborhood, and I gave you the GPS coordinates for its location. I also told you that if you didn't dig up the money within 48 hours, it would go back into my bank account. The GPS coordinates are very convenient to your location and are on public property. All you would have to do is go and check it out for yourself.

But, instead of going over to the location to dig, you start doing some research. You interview a lot of people in the neighborhood and you find out that no one actually saw me bury the money. You also find out that many other people have claimed to have buried treasure in the past, and many of those claims have turned out to be false. Further, on the basis of speculation as to what I was doing that day, you dig around many other locations where I was said to have been. After this, you finally come to the GPS location and look for forensic evidence, such as foot prints, that I was there. You test the malleability of the dirt at the location to see if it feels like it had been dug in recently. In that 48 hour time period, you do absolutely everything except putting your shovel into the ground and directly investigating the claim. At the end of the time period, you tell me that on the basis of your investigation, you have rejected my claim as false. I take you over to the location, dig up a suitcase and show you the money. It would have been yours if you had just taken a leap of faith and spent 5 minutes of your time investigating it.

Do you think the way you investigated this made any sense? If not, then why you do you think that the way you investigate the question of Jesus Christ makes any sense? You want to investigate it on your own terms, in your own way, stubbornly refusing to even consider the only actual way you would find evidence for the claim; the way that He told us to find Him. In all the time you have ever invested in this, you have refused to do the one thing that could yield up the truth. Does that make sense?

Jesus specifically said you wouldn't find any evidence for God any other way. He said He is the only way, and if you want to know God, you have to go through Him. Why are you so against actually testing His claim to see if it is true? Do you think the Lord of all Creation is incapable of proving His existence to you? Is it because you would feel silly? Isn't it worth feeling silly for a few minutes to potentially gain an eternal reward? Isn't it worth stepping outside your comfort zone for a few minutes to potentially avoid an eternal consequence? The only thing which is stopping you is pride.

I wasn't spoon fed anything; I was agnostic for most of my life. I had no predisposition towards Christianity, and actually many against it. I was opposed to religion in general, and the claims of Christianity in particular. I did just what you're doing; I dismissed it, thinking I knew enough about it to rule it out, when it was all just based on my superficial understanding. My proof constituted a few verses taken out of context, my rejection of any judgment for my sins, and the hypocripsy I had seen in Christians in general. Yet, it wasn't evidence at all, it was simply what I preferred to be true.

Yet, God was merciful to me. He drew me near to His Son, and when I finally gave my life to Him, Jesus revealed Himself to me. He will do the same for you, if you came to Him in humility and asked Him into your life. If you just asked Him what the real truth is, instead of arrogantly believing that you have it all figured out, He would show it to you. He makes it plain to everyone that He exists, it's just that people write these things off or deny them to themselves because they don't want to submit to God. They don't want to believe it is true.

Only God can reveal Himself to someone; I can only point to Him. No amount of argument is going to give you faith. You have to choose to want to know Him, to want to know what the actual truth is. It's something that happens in your heart, when you desire to know the love of God, and you simply do not have any idea how much He loves you. It is what you are here on Earth for, to know that love of His; to be in relationship with your Creator.

I pray that you learn that and understand that. You have to realize that you don't actually know either way. Step outside your comfort zone and listen to your conscience, because it witnesses against you that you have sinned against a holy God. There is forgiveness for you, but it is your choice to receive it or not.

>> ^SpaceGirlSpiff:
I honestly don't know why I bother... oh well, here goes.
First off, thank you for the Hitchens video, I don't think I had see that one yet. Now I've seen it though, I see that Hitchens once again quite successfully defends against the vapid, circle jerk arguments which assert proof without evidence. In fact a Hitchensism comes to mind that I quite enjoy, which states that, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Good stuff. Simple. Easy to put to use.
Take for example Shiny's ridiculous assertion about Hitchens being in his make-believe after life.
Shiny: Oh no, the after life is real and you're going to burn in hell fire. I know it's real because the bible says it's so and the bible is the truth.
Inquiry: How do you know it's the truth?
Shiny: Because the bible says it's the truth.
Inquiry: What evidence do you have that it's the truth?
Shiny: The bible says it's the truth.
No evidence. Fallacious claim dismissed.
You may choose different words to express yourself, but this is the very essence of your circle jerk argument and like all other apologists and zealots, it proves nothing except your willingness to accept something without evidence.
You contribute nothing.
You advance nothing.
Your words are empty.
You merely wretch up that which was fed to you...
...and I have no appetite for your absurdly limited menu.

Craig did extremely well in that debate, especially in the segment where they asked eachother questions. You can see that at the 1:19:00 mark, and I think any objective observer would have to admit that Christopher just completely folded..he was stammering and unsure of himself, a rare thing for him, but there it is on video.

Could you give an example of an argument that Craig used from that debate which you feel is inadequate?

>> ^A10anis:
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^A10anis:
I watched every religious debate Hitch had. And I waited, in anticipation, for someone to provide an argument which he could not refute. It never happened. Using logic, free thought, intellect, rationale and common sense - not to mention his acerbic wit - he demolished all the religious apologists who were unwise enough to take him on.

You must have missed this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

Actually, no, I didn't. And, if you seriously think that Craig bested Hitch, you should watch it again. Craig, in every debate, simply uses pseudo babble with a liberal sprinkling of gospel. Never has Craig been able to back up his "argument" with anything but faith, and faith cannot be used as an argument. Hitch, on the other hand.... well, if you can't see it, sadly, you never will.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Craig did extremely well in that debate, especially in the segment where they asked eachother questions. You can see that at the 1:19:00 mark, and I think any objective observer would have to admit that Christopher just completely folded..he was stammering and unsure of himself, a rare thing for him, but there it is on video.
Could you give an example of an argument that Craig used from that debate which you feel is inadequate?
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^shinyblurry:
&
gt;> ^A10anis:
I watched every religious debate Hitch had. And I waited, in anticipation, for someone to provide an argument which he could not refute. It never happened. Using logic, free thought, intellect, rationale and common sense - not to mention his acerbic wit - he demolished all the religious apologists who were unwise enough to take him on.

You must have missed this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

Actually, no, I didn't. And, if you seriously think that Craig bested Hitch, you should watch it again. Craig, in every debate, simply uses pseudo babble with a liberal sprinkling of gospel. Never has Craig been able to back up his "argument" with anything but faith, and faith cannot be used as an argument. Hitch, on the other hand.... well, if you can't see it, sadly, you never will.



You say; "Could you give an example of an argument that Craig used from that debate which you feel is inadequate?"
Yes, all of them.
As for your assertion that Hitch "folded," and was "unsure of himself." What are you talking about? He was perfectly concise and logical. He, quite understandably, becomes terse in the face of "white noise" being presented as fact. As you say; "there it is on video."

@ Shinyblurry's post starting with "Your welcome" (didn't quote the lot of it because i don't want that dribble being repeated below my post)

Your hypothetical story used to make a point about how you make yourself feel better was quite disturbing. Under the same logic you employed there.. if someone told you "kill 1000 babies" and all suffering would end for eternity, your story would only encourage an idiot to be a horrific murderer because of some deranged persons words.

You state "The only thing which is stopping you is pride.". No, it's the use of intelligence.
* It's not believing things because they make me feel better, or allowing me to think less because i can say magic did it.
* It's the love of actually thinking about situations from a 'likely/unlikely true based on scientific reasoning' position, which is what drives human advancements forward.
* It's not naively thinking or pretending there are great things to learn from a disgusting book of prejudice, torture, fear and horror (i.e. kill your loved ones because you hear voices or let towns rape your daughters because they're of less value than a male stranger).
* It's not believing claims that a book is an accurate account of history and the universe, when it gets the most basic things a God would know wrong, coincidentally these claims are just the way things would appear to a human's untrained eye (sun revolving around the planet).
* It's because the bible (unbelievable in it's own right), once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions.

Quote "Yet, it wasn't evidence at all, it was simply what I preferred to be true.". Seems like not much has changed, except your preferences.

Your preaching is nothing more than the same unjustified crap that those who don't have facts to support them continue to make. IMO you've either given up on your critical analytical abilities, or you're a troll copy/pasting.. given how similar your sentences are to other preachers.

Christianity is a sacrificial cult, full of unsubstantiated claims.
Jesus's so called miracles appear in many other religions, usually descriptively to the letter.
Your beliefs come from a time where women were valued as little more than a discard-able possessions.
And If your God did exist, then said God can go fuck themselves, as i have no desire to follow the direction and teachings of a psychopathic asshole.

PS: although I'm not censoring myself too much, it's not my primary intention to offend you (but don't care too much either), just can't stand how people spouting this type of content can think they 'should' be taken seriously.

I miss Hitch. I didn't always agree with him, but I was always forced to question my beliefs, even (in fact especially) when he was on my side.

The world is a duller place without him.

>> ^A10anis:
@ Shinyblurry's post starting with "Your welcome" (didn't quote the lot of it because i don't want that dribble being repeated below my post)

Your hypothetical story used to make a point about how you make yourself feel better was quite disturbing. Under the same logic you employed there.. if someone told you "kill 1000 babies" and all suffering would end for eternity, your story would only encourage an idiot to be a horrific murderer because of some deranged persons words.

Actually, the point of the hypothetical was to show the sloppy reasoning inherent in digging for treasure in a spot marked other than X.

>> ^A10anis:
You state "The only thing which is stopping you is pride.". No, it's the use of intelligence.
* It's not believing things because they make me feel better, or allowing me to think less because i can say magic did it.

So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?

>> ^A10anis:
* It's the love of actually thinking about situations from a 'likely/unlikely true based on scientific reasoning' position, which is what drives human advancements forward.

Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

>> ^A10anis:
* It's not naively thinking or pretending there are great things to learn from a disgusting book of prejudice, torture, fear and horror (i.e. kill your loved ones because you hear voices or let towns rape your daughters because they're of less value than a male stranger).

The bible, apart from the revelation of God, is a historical account of the actions of fallen men. Men who were sinners and sometimes did things which were morally wrong. That there was no effort to cover up those sins is a point in favor, not against.


>> ^A10anis:
* It's not believing claims that a book is an accurate account of history and the universe, when it gets the most basic things a God would know wrong, coincidentally these claims are just the way things would appear to a human's untrained eye (sun revolving around the planet).

If you want to address the accuracy of the bible, you must first accurately portray the bible. My guess is that you have only studied the bible through the lens of skeptics. Do you know the actual history of how this idea came about? The bible does not say the sun revolves around the earth, but it was interpreted that way by Claudius Ptolemy in the 2nd century. Claudius proposed a theory of geocentricity, which at the time, was far more accurate than the existing theory of heliocentricity, and he interpreted certain passages of scripture to support his assertion. These passages, specifically Joshua 10:12-14, and Psalm 93:1, do not teach geocentricity at all, but were taken out of context by Claudius and others to promote the theory.

>> ^A10anis:
* It's because the bible (unbelievable in it's own right), once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions.

The scientific theories which contradict the literal truth of the bible, such as the theory of deep time, macro evolution, and abiogenesis, are not subject to empirical testing. You cannot prove these theories in a lab. They are inferences based on circumstantial evidence, and are not truly scientific. You must *believe* them, and real science is based on knowledge, not belief.

>> ^A10anis:
Quote "Yet, it wasn't evidence at all, it was simply what I preferred to be true.". Seems like not much has changed, except your preferences.

Your preaching is nothing more than the same unjustified crap that those who don't have facts to support them continue to make. IMO you've either given up on your critical analytical abilities, or you're a troll copy/pasting.. given how similar your sentences are to other preachers.

What changed is that I fairly investigated the claims of Jesus Christ, instead of dismissing them based on a superficial knowledge of Christianity. When I did that, I received supernatural evidence that they were true.

>> ^A10anis:
Christianity is a sacrificial cult, full of unsubstantiated claims.

Your gross mischaracterization not withstanding, how have you investigated the claims of Jesus Christ?

>> ^A10anis:
Jesus's so called miracles appear in many other religions, usually descriptively to the letter.

Have any actual evidence to support this claim? Be sure to include the original sources and not just the claims of skeptics.

>> ^A10anis:
Your beliefs come from a time where women were valued as little more than a discard-able possessions.

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Scripture teaches that woman have the same value in the eyes of God as men do. God has assigned us different roles, but he shows no partiality between men and women.

>> ^A10anis:
And If your God did exist, then said God can go fuck themselves, as i have no desire to follow the direction and teachings of a psychopathic asshole.

I would suggest it is the distorted lens through which you see God that informs your negative opinion of Him.

>> ^A10anis:
PS: although I'm not censoring myself too much, it's not my primary intention to offend you (but don't care too much either), just can't stand how people spouting this type of content can think they 'should' be taken seriously.

Atheists rarely censor themselves when they speak to Christians. Nothing you've said here is unexpected. I do not take offense at what you said; on the contrary, I care about you as a human being made in the image of God, and I see you as being worthy of love and respect. My hope is that you come to know the love of Jesus Christ. You simply have no experience of God at the moment, but God is willing to show you He is there at any time. He loves you more deeply than you understand. Draw near to Him and He will draw near to you.

The problem I have with the "buried million dollars" story is that it's complete propaganda, utter flatuent bullshit.

Religion promises you the million dollars. Sure, even more...
...but it then says you need to pay everything you possibly can to get the coordinates, but you will receive them only after you die.

No church, NOT A ONE, allows you to believe without paying. Period. Every last one says if you don't pay, to don't get to Heaven(tm). It's win-win for the religion, they get the cash wether or not there is an afterlife, as well as if the allegeded afterlife doesn't work as they say.

Religion is based on humans, and humans are devious, disgusting, and delinquent. Churches are just ancient pyramid scams, allowed to fester and spew their vile lies only through fear and threat.

From Evangelicals paying for whores, or pedophilic Catholic priests, every religion shows its true colours. Religion is disgusting, and preys on the week-willed and the ignorant.

@shinyblurry

Two points I want to make, one that you have never addressed here, and another that you haven't addressed well.

First, you've made the assertion many times here that if we will only just invite Jesus into our lives, he will reveal himself to us, etc. I've told you somewhere here that my own family did just that. We were all faithful Catholics. My parents have been practising for over 70 years. My sisters were Catholic for varying lengths of time from 15-26 years. I was Catholic until I was 14. We all fervently believed, but at no point was anything revealed to any of us. Nobody in my family has ever directly experienced anything like what you claim will happen in 5 minutes.

Second, most times that you make the assertion that if you look for Jesus wholeheartedly that you'll find him, I remind you that the same can be said for every religion on Earth. If I gave myself to Islam, I would become Muslim and believe. If I gave myself to Judaism, I would become Jewish and believe. You gave yourself to Jesus, so you believe in him, not Mohammed. If your test for your claim of Jesus's divinity is that if we seek him we'll find him, then by that exact same test, we could also prove that Islam and Judaism are also true. Can you give me something other than statistics on the predominance of Christianity in the world to support the claim that Jesus is the true god and the other religions are false?

>> ^Sepacore:

@ ... (didn't quote the lot of it because i don't want that dribble being repeated below my post)


I thank you.

@ SpaceGirlSpiff, great sift btw.

@ Shinyblurry
Disclaimer: your quotes of my post say 'A10anis said'. Wouldn't be good for A10anis to get flak for any of my comments/opinions.
I didn't properly frame-quote you again this time because i couldn't be bothered trying to separate your quotes from mine, but your response was much more respectable imo

Regardless of what your point meant to be, what your hypothetical story states is to act on another persons unverified word, that is not rated as trust worthy by past events. People aren't likely to do this on any other subject, because their reasoning will interject and a request for evidence will be made.
E.g. kill that women because she's a witch.
In this case you're likely (i hope) to either want proof beyond reasonable doubt prior to acting, or will disregard the request. For me, same goes for other extreme cases like the idea of God existing or any God being the correct one.

I didn't say pride had no affect. Your statement was that pride was the 'only' thing stopping A10anis, i disagreed and outlined a few other things stopping me personally. For the record, my bio states "Proud to be an atheist". There's pride alright, a fair bit of it, but it doesn't start, dominate nor end the subject for me.

Quote "Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?"
1. Firstly, although humans are still learning about many subjects and haven't yet fully explained everything, we've done a remarkably good job so far over the past 400 years, and are at a stage where we don't need Gods in order to explain things and are content with mysteries over magic while we figure things out.
2. Because there's no evidence, I leave it to those who make the incredible claim to prove it. 'Spaghetti monster' argument, onus is on the claimer for proof.
3. I also look at the size of the universe vs the size of the claimed favorite species and see it as an illogical waste of effort. It's like building the entire earth for a few ants that will exist for a few minutes.
4. But my favorite is the psychology of it. Leaving this out because I would write a novel and loose my weekend in the process.

Re the sun comment, I've read a few religious books as i was walking away from the whole concept, some cover to cover, others skimmed through them, didn't like the ideas of how horrible stories were passed off as 'good' because of a belief in God.
But now days I do take most statements like my sun one from net searches, and yes, you're right, the book doesn't say it directly. But it not far off seems to imply it a few times, at least enough for the head of the Catholic church to have gotten behind the idea for a decent period of time.

Original sources? No sorry (had a bit of a search but lost interest), I'll give you this link instead, review it if you care. Reason being, if my statement turned out to be wrong, I'd accept it quick smart as i don't actually care whether Jesus was like others before him or not, and if i was right, again wouldn't care but also i doubt it would have much impact (a general statement re believers). I made the comment because from what i have read previously it seemed plausible.
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html

Investigated Christ? Bits and pieces, but not a complete investigation by any means. The guy either died a long time ago or never existed. So I'm at a bit of a disadvantage and lacking a devoted level of interest to go balls out on the research. I settle for the notion that we're able to come up with plausible concepts and explanations without involving a God.

Quote: "I would suggest it is the distorted lens through which you see God that informs your negative opinion of Him."
I agree, if by distorted you mean 'different' to your lens.

>> ^messenger:
First, you've made the assertion many times here that if we will only just invite Jesus into our lives, he will reveal himself to us, etc. I've told you somewhere here that my own family did just that. We were all faithful Catholics. My parents have been practising for over 70 years. My sisters were Catholic for varying lengths of time from 15-26 years. I was Catholic until I was 14. We all fervently believed, but at no point was anything revealed to any of us. Nobody in my family has ever directly experienced anything like what you claim will happen in 5 minutes.

That isn't really surprising. There are two kinds of Christian out there, those who have a religion and those who have a relationship with Jesus Christ. Catholics primarily fall under this first category of Christian. The Catholic religion, if you've done your research, is essentially Christianity blended together with paganism. There is no pope in the bible, no nuns, no monks, no sacraments, no confession, no mary worship, no bowing to statues, no praying to saints, etc. These is very little resemblence between what catholics practice and the Christian faith. That is why so many catholics do not know Christ. My mother, who attended the catholic church when she was a child, told me she barely ever heard about Jesus while she was there.

A Christian who has a religion is someone who simply has a head knowledge about Jesus. They were most likely brought up in the church, and have inherited their parents religion. They don't know why they believe what they believe, it is just simply what they were indoctrinated with. They believe Christianity is going to church, reading the bible, and praying. These people do not know God and are not born again.

A Christian who has a relationship with Jesus Christ is born again and supernaturally transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. They have intimate knowledge of God because they have the Holy Spirit living within them and experience the presence of God on a daily basis. These are those who have given their entire lives and personalities over to God, as Lord and not just Savior.

While by a miracle some catholics are actually born again, most are not. You do not know the Lord for the reason that you had a religion and not a relationship. I don't blame you for running away screaming from the catholic religion. I empathize with anyone who escapes that madness. What I pray is that you consider Christ without the burden of that religion, and look at what He actually taught about how to know Him.
>> ^messenger:
Second, most times that you make the assertion that if you look for Jesus wholeheartedly that you'll find him, I remind you that the same can be said for every religion on Earth. If I gave myself to Islam, I would become Muslim and believe. If I gave myself to Judaism, I would become Jewish and believe. You gave yourself to Jesus, so you believe in him, not Mohammed. If your test for your claim of Jesus's divinity is that if we seek him we'll find him, then by that exact same test, we could also prove that Islam and Judaism are also true. Can you give me something other than statistics on the predominance of Christianity in the world to support the claim that Jesus is the true god and the other religions are false?


If you invite Jesus into your life as Lord and Savior, you will receive the Holy Spirit, whom will supernaturally transform your being and give you an undeniable revelation of Gods existence. You will experience true joy, a lasting peace, and have intimate knowledge of the love of God. I am not saying this as some sort of metaphor..that is what will literally happen to you. You will know when you encounter the living God, versus some feel-good experience with false religion.

@shinyblurry

Thanks for your answers. As to the first, could you suggest then which variety of Christianity a prospective Christian might find the right support to really know Jesus? Evangelical? Mormonism? CofE?

To the second, did you sincerely try to have a relationship with God through any other religion, or was your church the first one you really dedicated yourself to?

I have watched a lot of Hitch videos, and he did sweat and stammer a lot. In this debate, objectively, I think he was drunk of his gourd, the way he rambled off on tangents, and that may mean he "lost" the debate for wasting a good chunk of Craig's question time. A lot of what Hitch said was nonsense, but when he was talking on point, he didn't miss anything. It was Craig who kept missing the point that what atheists are saying is that we accept none of the theistic stories, that weak atheism is a not a strong position or a belief.

OR, if your and Craig's claim is that so-called "atheists" are redefining the word and making it mean something wrong, I still don't see what the problem is. We're telling you what we believe (or don't). There wasn't a label for what we are until it became necessary to have one that identified people with a unique faith system (a lack of one). If we're not using the word according to what you believe the original meaning is, so what. It's just a label. When most modern atheists use it, it's a shorthand for, "There is no religious faith system or description of God that I believe is correct." Note that this doesn't exclude any possibility. It only states that right now, I don't believe it.

To your million dollar story, if you actually said those exact words to me, and as per your example, many others were in the habit of making the same promises which had always turned up empty, I would probably lump you in with the others and lose the opportunity, and so be it. If I didn't, I'd spend half my life digging up people's gardens. And yes, looking like an ass in public would be an additional penalty I'd work into the calculations.

Judging my decision as wrong based on the negative outcome is a logical fallacy, just as making a statistically incorrect play in poker, but still winning on a fluke doesn't make the decision correct. So if I make a logical decision -- the same one you made in your life many times before your numinous experiences started -- based on the information I have, it is the logical one.

On another note: how can you assure me that what happened to you will also happen to me? Do you have personal experience that shows that everyone with no faith or numinous experience who tries opening their hearts to Jesus succeeds in being entered by the Holy Spirit? You never had to do so, so how would you know it always works?>> ^shinyblurry:

I think any objective observer would have to admit that Christopher just completely folded..he was stammering and unsure of himself, a rare thing for him, but there it is on video.

@shinyblurry

I know your response wasn't to me, but I thought I'd give my answers anyway.

So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?


Read it again. Nobody claimed to have a superior intellect to anyone else. The contrast is between using our intellect and not using it. As Galileo famously put it, "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Now, he was talking from the perspective of a person of faith who simply didn't believe the bible or church teachings anymore but certainly did still believe in God. We are speaking as people with sense, reason and intellect who don't see sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that God might reasonably exist.

Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

The lack of evidence for existence is a non-concrete kind of evidence for the lack of existence. So the overwhelming lack of evidence for God is a bloody strong case. Everywhere we look in nature, we continue not to find God.

The scientific theories which contradict the literal truth of the bible, such as the theory of deep time, macro evolution, and abiogenesis, are not subject to empirical testing. You cannot prove these theories in a lab. They are inferences based on circumstantial evidence, and are not truly scientific

Please, stop talking about science. You really do not understand it. You sound like a religious sceptic spouting crap about the bible. Really, what you say about science is just non-verified faither talking points. All science is based only on observation and drawing generalized inferences from that. "Theories" are just that. The strength of a scientific theory is roughly [how well it predicts other things] ÷ [how many things you have to just accept]. The belief in a particular atomic structure for oxygen has many predictions, which are testable and have largely been shown reliably true. So the atomic structure of an oxygen atom is a generally accepted theory, even though we will never be able to sense it directly. It's scientific. On those same grounds, the theory of evolution is also a strong theory in science. It has very few conjectures (three simple ones, I believe I heard Dawkins once say), it generates predictions, the predictions are testable, and they affirm the theory. Saying that evolution is untestable is as ridiculous as saying we haven't investigated every oxygen atom, so the model of the atom is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

>> ^messenger:
Thanks for your answers. As to the first, could you suggest then which variety of Christianity a prospective Christian might find the right support to really know Jesus? Evangelical? Mormonism? CofE?

You're welcome. Every denomination has its flaws and failings, some more than others. Neither is every church in every denomination the same. I am non denominational yet I attend an AOG church. I don't agree with all of their doctrine but the pastor teaches on solid biblical principles. I would recommend that a prospective Christian start to seek the Lord out through a private bible study. Based on that, they could move on to attending services in town and seeing what fits or where they are led, or a bible study with other Christians. I would recommend they avoid any church that teaches sacraments, cults like JW, 7th day Adventists, Mormonism, and the church of christ. Look for a church that teaches from the bible, and focuses on Jesus and sanctification.

>> ^messenger:
To the second, did you sincerely try to have a relationship with God through any other religion, or was your church the first one you really dedicated yourself to?

Yes, I did explore many of the various belief systems, philosophies, and religions of the world. I was seeking God at the time and He led me through most of them, giving me clues along the way, which eventually led me to Jesus Christ.

>> ^messenger:
I have watched a lot of Hitch videos, and he did sweat and stammer a lot. In this debate, objectively, I think he was drunk of his gourd, the way he rambled off on tangents, and that may mean he "lost" the debate for wasting a good chunk of Craig's question time. A lot of what Hitch said was nonsense, but when he was talking on point, he didn't miss anything. It was Craig who kept missing the point that what atheists are saying is that we accept none of the theistic stories, that weak atheism is a not a strong position or a belief.

OR, if your and Craig's claim is that so-called "atheists" are redefining the word and making it mean something wrong, I still don't see what the problem is. We're telling you what we believe (or don't). There wasn't a label for what we are until it became necessary to have one that identified people with a unique faith system (a lack of one). If we're not using the word according to what you believe the original meaning is, so what. It's just a label. When most modern atheists use it, it's a shorthand for, "There is no religious faith system or description of God that I believe is correct." Note that this doesn't exclude any possibility. It only states that right now, I don't believe it.

If you don't know then you're agnostic. If you do know, then youre an atheist. There is no position inbetween I know and I don't know. It's that simple. That's why Hitchens had to admit "I do not therefore believe that God exists". The attempted redefinition of atheism simply a tactic to avoid any burden of proof.

>> ^messenger:
To your million dollar story, if you actually said those exact words to me, and as per your example, many others were in the habit of making the same promises which had always turned up empty, I would probably lump you in with the others and lose the opportunity, and so be it. If I didn't, I'd spend half my life digging up people's gardens. And yes, looking like an ass in public would be an additional penalty I'd work into the calculations.

Judging my decision as wrong based on the negative outcome is a logical fallacy, just as making a statistically incorrect play in poker, but still winning on a fluke doesn't make the decision correct. So if I make a logical decision -- the same one you made in your life many times before your numinous experiences started -- based on the information I have, it is the logical one.

My point had nothing to do with statistics. The point was how ridiculous it is to spend so much time doing everything you can to rule the claim out except to actually test it directly. Especially considering that there is nothing to lose in testing it, and everything to gain. So no, it isn't logical, and since you can pray in your room, you don't have to embarass yourself doing it.

>> ^messenger:
On another note: how can you assure me that what happened to you will also happen to me? Do you have personal experience that shows that everyone with no faith or numinous experience who tries opening their hearts to Jesus succeeds in being entered by the Holy Spirit? You never had to do so, so how would you know it always works?

What Jesus is interested in, foremost, is sincerity. Ask yourself these questions; if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him? Would you serve Him the rest of your days? Would you place your entire faith and trust in Him alone? If you can answer yes to those questions, and you sincerely want to know if Jesus really is God, then there is no doubt He will answer your prayer. It may not come immediately, but it will come, and it will be undeniable.

>> ^messenger:
So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?

Read it again. Nobody claimed to have a superior intellect to anyone else. The contrast is between using our intellect and not using it. As Galileo famously put it, "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Now, he was talking from the perspective of a person of faith who simply didn't believe the bible or church teachings anymore but certainly did still believe in God. We are speaking as people with sense, reason and intellect who don't see sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that God might reasonably exist.

It's the entire contention that someone who believes in God is not using their sense, reason and intellect that is prideful. Did you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? Some extremely intelligent people believe in a Creator, and they can back up their beliefs with logical evidence. You see theists through a grossly distorted lens created by your own prejudice, and it blinds you. Galileo, by the way, did believe the bible; what he didn't buy is the catholic interpretation of it, and rightly so.

>> ^messenger:
Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

The lack of evidence for existence is a non-concrete kind of evidence for the lack of existence. So the overwhelming lack of evidence for God is a bloody strong case. Everywhere we look in nature, we continue not to find God.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Although I think there is evidence, such as fine tuning and information in DNA. In any case, do you honestly believe you can point an instrument at God and say "there he is!". Is this idea not fundamentally ridiculous? I think what youre confusing is mechanism with agency. You think because you describe a mechanism, how something works in a mechanical sense, somehow it rules out an Agent. God says He upholds the entire Universe; that He is the one that keeps the atoms from flying apart. How does mechanism rule out Gods agency?

Not only that, but if God created the Universe, do you realize that the entire Universe is evidence of Gods existence? The question I would put to you is, how would you tell the difference? How would you know you're looking at a Universe God didn't create? What would you expect that to look like?

What about the laws of logic? Where do they come from? If they're only in our brains, subject to constant flux, then what is rationality? It isn't anything you can trust if what you believe is true. Therefore all of your arguments fall apart. You have nothing in your worldview that can explain it, yet I can explain it. I know there is an omnipotent God who made us in His image, and we are rational beings because He is a rational being.

>> ^messenger:
Please, stop talking about science. You really do not understand it. You sound like a religious sceptic spouting crap about the bible. Really, what you say about science is just non-verified faither talking points. All science is based only on observation and drawing generalized inferences from that. "Theories" are just that. The strength of a scientific theory is roughly [how well it predicts other things] ÷ [how many things you have to just accept]. The belief in a particular atomic structure for oxygen has many predictions, which are testable and have largely been shown reliably true. So the atomic structure of an oxygen atom is a generally accepted theory, even though we will never be able to sense it directly. It's scientific. On those same grounds, the theory of evolution is also a strong theory in science. It has very few conjectures (three simple ones, I believe I heard Dawkins once say), it generates predictions, the predictions are testable, and they affirm the theory. Saying that evolution is untestable is as ridiculous as saying we haven't investigated every oxygen atom, so the model of the atom is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

If you understood it better than I do then you would know what macro evolution is. The scientific method uses empirical evidence, which comes from empirical experimentation or observation. There is no experiment to prove macro evolution, nor can it be empirically observed. It is simply an unjustified extrapolation from micro evolution (which is proven beyond a reasonable doubt), and based on nothing but inferences from *circumstantial* evidence and not evidence based on empirical observation.

Many people have this conception that the theory of common descent is as certain and proven as 2 + 2 = 4, or as Sepacore put it:

"once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions"

That is certainly how it is taught in schools, as absolute fact, and that's why I believed it too. It's when you stop looking at their conclusions and see the actual data they base them on that you will get the shock of your life. Yes, you're right, the theory makes a few predictions, all of which have turned out to be wrong..such as this:

The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Darwin

Darwin predicted that for his theory to be true, there must be innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record. What have we found?:


"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .., prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's prediction. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, pg 45-46.

What we find is that creatures appear in stasis, and enter and leave the fossil record abruptly with no changes.

Another prediction is a start from simple to complex, with an increase of diversity of the phyla over a long period of time.

"Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer."
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1st edition, pg 307.

What we find is that all of the phyla we have today all abruptly appeared in the "cambrian explosion"

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs ... "
S. Gould, The Panda's Thumb, pg 238, 239.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for how poor a theory macroevolution actually is, but you won't have a shortage of true believers in it, even though they don't even understand what evidence it is based on. I do know something about science, and although I am a layman, I am perfectly capable of understanding of what makes a sound theory, and what doesn't. I would believe in macroevolution if the evidence supported it. Not only does it not support it, but it actually argues against it. It is shocking to someone who has been indoctrinated (like I was), but if you want to talk about fairy stories, macroevolution is a whale of a tale.

@shinyblurry

I would recommend they avoid any church that teaches sacraments

Wow. I'm surprised to hear there are Christian churches that don't practice sacraments. Do you mean, none of them? No weddings, no communion, no confession, no confirmation, no last rites, no.... the other ones? Especially communion seems a strange omission since you were commanded by Jesus to do so. Or did you interpret, "Do this in memory of me" to only apply to the Apostles?

I did explore many of the various belief systems, philosophies, and religions of the world.

With my question here, I was indirectly taking issue with your assertion that only if I pledge myself to Jesus can I truly commune with God. So in my question, my intent was to find out if you ever fully give yourself to any religion before Christianity, like become an active, fervent follower. I'm guessing the answer is no. If I'm right, then I don't see how you can say Christianity is the only way to commune with God. If I'm wrong, and you did fully dedicate your soul to some other religion first, then I'd simply like to hear about that experience.

@shinyblurry

If you don't know then you're agnostic. If you do know, then youre an atheist. There is no position inbetween I know and I don't know. It's that simple. That's why Hitchens had to admit "I do not therefore believe that God exists". The attempted redefinition of atheism simply a tactic to avoid any burden of proof.

I think you know what I believe and don't, and what I know and what I don't. At this stage, I think definitions are just semantics, and I'm not going to explain again what those words really mean. So, here's my official statement with all the contentious words taken out: I don't believe that any description of God I've ever heard is true, and I don't know if my belief is accurate.

The attempted redefinition of atheism simply a tactic to avoid any burden of proof.

Seriously? You cannot claim to understand science, and then state that the burden for a non-claim lies with the person not making the claim. Scientist Anna says, "I believe the Higgs boson exists." Scientist Bob says, "I don't believe that the Higgs boson exists." Neither of them have any evidence. Anna is introducing a novel assertion about something. Bob isn't. Bob can ask Anne to prove it exists. Anne cannot ask Bob to prove it doesn't exist. Anne may, however, ask Bob why he doesn't believe it exists, since the Standard Model predicts its existence. If Bob shows why be believes the prediction is false, either by showing the SM has been used incorrectly, or stating he doesn't believe in SM at all, that's the end of his "burden" for that question. He does not have to scientifically prove the Higgs boson doesn't exist. He can't. It's logically impossible.

The theistic equivalent is you asking my why I don't believe in God. To this I tell you that to me, there's insufficient evidence, which is a position you should understand since it was exactly your own position until you got some direct evidence. That's the end of my "burden".

An equivalent for you might be if I asked you to prove to me that Thor and Ra don't exist. You couldn't. You could only give your reasons why you believe they don't exist. Same here. I'm in the same position as you, except I don't believe that Thor, Ra or Yahweh exist.

The point was how ridiculous it is to spend so much time doing everything you can to rule the claim out except to actually test it directly.

And my point is I wouldn't spend any effort trying to rule it out at all. I would just assume you're another false buried money promiser and move on. The reason I'm talking now isn't to rule anything out -- I never accepted the premise to begin with.

Especially considering that there is nothing to lose in testing it, and everything to gain. So no, it isn't logical.

Changing my whole perspective of the universe is an immense effort of mind. It's not "nothing". And why would I bother? Just to win an argument with you? Like I said above, I don't for a minute accept it's true, so I have no motivation for spending any energy proving it.

Ask yourself these questions; if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him? Would you serve Him the rest of your days? Would you place your entire faith and trust in Him alone?

1. No. If that's true, he gave me my life, and he can take it away if he wants to, but I have no respect for Indian givers.

2. No. I don't serve anyone. He can do what he likes. He made me the way I am -- someone who relies on empirical evidence and sceptical about all superstition, and if he doesn't like it, it's his own fault. He should love me the way I am. And if he does, he should just let me come into heaven because he loves me, not because he needs me to worship him. I don't like egotists any more than Indian givers.

3. Yes and no. Yes, if Jesus turns out to be God, then there'll be no faith required. I'll know it. You can't disbelieve something you know is true. But no, I wouldn't trust him. A god isn't by definition benevolent or omni-anything. If he told me to accept that anal sex is a sin, he and I would get into a debate about what "sin" really is, why he defined sins to begin with, why he created the universe such that people would sin, why sin displeases him, and how those people can be faulted for following God's own design. And if the only way he could convince me he was right was by threatening me with eternal torment in a pit of fire, and promising to reward me with eternal happiness if I agreed with him, then I'd think he must have a pretty weak argument if he has to resort to carrot and stick tactics. I likewise don't like people who resort to violence or threats of violence to make people agree with them.

It's the entire contention that someone who believes in God is not using their sense, reason and intellect that is prideful. Did you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? Some extremely intelligent people believe in a Creator, and they can back up their beliefs with logical evidence. You see theists through a grossly distorted lens created by your own prejudice, and it blinds you.

Someone who believes in something despite evidence against it is not using sense, reason and intellect. The Bible contradicts itself internally (contradictory lists of the "begats" is the clearest example I can think of), so cannot be accurate. If you believe the Bible is infallible, that isn't a reasonable belief. Some people "believing in a personal god" doesn't equate to "believing in Yahweh", which is your contention, so it doesn't matter if they're true or not. There's nothing unscientific about spirituality, and identifying some aspect of your spiritual experience a personal god. There's plenty unscientific about declaring the Bible to be infallible. Again with not understanding science.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Although I think there is evidence, such as fine tuning and information in DNA.

The absence of circumstantial evidence where you might expect to find it is circumstantial evidence of absence. If the Bible were true, we would should expect, for example, that miracles would continue to occur, because why not? They should be even more commonly documented because of our massively increased population and information technology. But they appear to happen less! This is absence of circumstantial evidence. Amazing discoveries in science aren't evidence for God. God is one theory that explains them, but it doesn't work the other way -- you can't start with an amazing fact, and declare that it suggests all other theories are wrong. No matter what the universe looks like, it will still conform with the theory of God creating it, so amazing discoveries are not evidence -- they're just things we can't explain yet, like retrograde motion was once considered "amazing" and attributed to gods.)

You think because you describe a mechanism, how something works in a mechanical sense, somehow it rules out an Agent. God says He upholds the entire Universe; that He is the one that keeps the atoms from flying apart. How does mechanism rule out Gods agency?

This where I start picturing you with your hands over your ears going LALALALALALA! Nothing rules out God's agency. Nothing rules out God period. He cannot be ruled out because there's nothing verifiable about his existence whatsoever. Nobody ever makes this claim, ever, ever, ever. It's like you wish we were saying this, but we're not. Really, we're not. BUT, if someone claims that their god has a chariot that moves the sun across the sky, I call bullshit because we have actually seen with our eyes that the Earth is spherical and rotates on its axis, which causes the apparent motion of the sun. If someone says the Earth is only a few thousand years old, I say bullshit and refer you to archaeology and to every branch of science that demonstrates the Earth to be much older.

...if God created the Universe, do you realize that the entire Universe is evidence of Gods existence?

This is the least scientific thing you have ever said.

What about the laws of logic? Where do they come from? If they're only in our brains, subject to constant flux, then what is rationality? It isn't anything you can trust if what you believe is true. Therefore all of your arguments fall apart. You have nothing in your worldview that can explain it, yet I can explain it.

You and I agreed before, no solipsism. You realize that you are using logic to prove that logic isn't real? "If-then" statements and implied questions come from logic. If logic doesn't stand on its own, then you can't use it to prove that it doesn't stand on its own. If you want to know where the rules of formal logic come from, you can look it up. If you don't accept them as valid, you've descended into solipsism, at which point I don't even accept that anything exists but my own mind. If you accept the definitions and rules of logic as valid on their face, then we don't require anything to explain where they came from. Logic is definitions, like equality. a=a. How do I know this? It's the definition of equality. If you disagree, then words have no definition, and thus no meaning, and we also agreed that "words have meaning".

Also, as your argument goes, if you assert that logic is a creation, and that God created logic, this entails that God exists outside of logic. Interesting prediction.

@shinyblurry

If you understood it better than I do then you would know what macro evolution is.

No, I wouldn't, necessarily. That's one field of science that I know very little about. If you've read a single book about it, you know more than me. That' doesn't mean you understand better than me how science works in general.

But since you bring it up, the theory of macro evolution may or may not be weak, I don't know, but outdated quotes from Darwin and about Darwin about the impossibility of macro evolution don't convince me any more than outdated quotes from Newton about the impossibility of the Solar System holding together. Do you know what Newton concluded? He concluded it must be God holding it together. Einstein figured out why it really doesn't fly apart, and it wasn't because of God.

Likewise, the problem of the lack of fossil records has been resolved since Darwin's time. The fossil evidence of intermediary links isn't a problem with the fossil evidence: it's a problem with Darwin's model. Darwin believed all evolution happened gradually, as he had observed. But there's no reason to believe it must all be slow. If one species had some tiny mutation that happened to give it a massive advantage over other species, its descendants would naturally spread into all sorts of new niches and tons of evolution would take place, both for it and other animals in its environment. Again, these changes were very rapid, so rapid, that they may not have left fossil evidence. Sometimes they did and other times they didn't, or we haven't found it yet. Check this video out: It's mostly a rebuttal to the "God is not a blind watchmaker" argument for Intelligent Design, but you can skip to 1:33 and still understand the premise. If you watch until 8:42, you'll see the reason why we wouldn't expect to find fossils of intermediary links, and why this isn't an argument against macro evolution anymore.

>> ^messenger:
Wow. I'm surprised to hear there are Christian churches that don't practice sacraments. Do you mean, none of them? No weddings, no communion, no confession, no confirmation, no last rites, no.... the other ones? Especially communion seems a strange omission since you were commanded by Jesus to do so. Or did you interpret, "Do this in memory of me" to only apply to the Apostles?


You won't find the word sacrament in the bible. Marriage, that is fine. Baptism too, although it isn't sprinkling like the catholic church teaches; it is full body immersion. Child baptism is not biblical. Christians should take communion, but not according to the pagan rituals of the catholic church, or regarding what they call the "trans-substantiation". The cracker does not literally become the flesh of Jesus, nor the wine His literal blood. It is simply something we do to symbolize our fellowship with Him, and the body of Christ.

The rest you have mentioned are nowhere to be found in the bible. They simply come from the traditions of the catholic church. It is not a Christian institution, and this is why neither you or your family has ever come to know Jesus Christ.

>> ^messenger:
With my question here, I was indirectly taking issue with your assertion that only if I pledge myself to Jesus can I truly commune with God. So in my question, my intent was to find out if you ever fully give yourself to any religion before Christianity, like become an active, fervent follower. I'm guessing the answer is no. If I'm right, then I don't see how you can say Christianity is the only way to commune with God. If I'm wrong, and you did fully dedicate your soul to some other religion first, then I'd simply like to hear about that experience.


My experience was, that after I became aware that God exists, He led me through the various religions and philosophies of the world over a number of years. He gave me clues along the way, leading me step by step, until He finally brought me to the bible. This was not a natural progression for me, because I had a big resistance to Christianity. It was actually one of the religions I thought was the least likely to be true. But He had given me signs beforehand about truth that was in the bible that I didn't understand at the time, so that when I started to read the bible, I could see it was His book. This gave me enough faith in it to give my life to Christ, and when I did, He supernaturally transformed my life. This isn't stated metaphorically; I mean it in a literal sense.

>> ^messenger:
I think you know what I believe and don't, and what I know and what I don't. At this stage, I think definitions are just semantics, and I'm not going to explain again what those words really mean. So, here's my official statement with all the contentious words taken out: I don't believe that any description of God I've ever heard is true, and I don't know if my belief is accurate.


What that means is that you don't know if there is a God or not. That makes you an agnostic and not an atheist.

>> ^messenger:
Seriously? You cannot claim to understand science, and then state that the burden for a non-claim lies with the person not making the claim. Scientist Anna says, "I believe the Higgs boson exists." Scientist Bob says, "I don't believe that the Higgs boson exists." Neither of them have any evidence. Anna is introducing a novel assertion about something. Bob isn't. Bob can ask Anne to prove it exists. Anne cannot ask Bob to prove it doesn't exist. Anne may, however, ask Bob why he doesn't believe it exists, since the Standard Model predicts its existence. If Bob shows why be believes the prediction is false, either by showing the SM has been used incorrectly, or stating he doesn't believe in SM at all, that's the end of his "burden" for that question. He does not have to scientifically prove the Higgs boson doesn't exist. He can't. It's logically impossible.


I understand I have my own burden of proof, but if someone wants to say that I am wrong, they are making a negative claim. It's up to them to provide reasons to substantiate their claim, and no, I don't think this need constitute absolute proof. If they're just saying "I don't know", then that is a different story. Most atheists don't want to concede that they don't know, because then they would have to admit that God could possibly exist, so they invent a new definition of atheism to obscure their true position.

>> ^messenger:
The theistic equivalent is you asking my why I don't believe in God. To this I tell you that to me, there's insufficient evidence, which is a position you should understand since it was exactly your own position until you got some direct evidence. That's the end of my "burden".


It depends on what you're trying to claim, about your own beliefs, or mine. Yes, I can relate to your position, having been there. That is why I describe atheism as religion for people who have no experience with God. I too was a true believer in naturalistic materialism until that veil was torn, and then I immediately realized that everything I knew, was in some way, wrong. Can you even conceive of such a thing, messenger? Do you care enough about the truth to be willing to let the tide take your sandcastle away from you?

>> ^messenger:
An equivalent for you might be if I asked you to prove to me that Thor and Ra don't exist. You couldn't. You could only give your reasons why you believe they don't exist. Same here. I'm in the same position as you, except I don't believe that Thor, Ra or Yahweh exist.


I wouldn't try to prove to you that Thor or Ra do not exist. I believe they do exist, but that they are not actually gods. They are fallen angels masquarading as gods, as with every other false idol.

>> ^messenger:
And my point is I wouldn't spend any effort trying to rule it out at all. I would just assume you're another false buried money promiser and move on. The reason I'm talking now isn't to rule anything out -- I never accepted the premise to begin with.


That's exactly the point; your conclusion is fallacious. You merely assume I am wrong because some people have made similar claims which were false. That is not a criterion for determining truth. If you had an incurable disease and only had a few days to live, and some people came to you promising a cure, and some of those claims turned out to be false, would you refuse to entertain any further claims and simply assume they are all false? I think not.

>> ^messenger:
Changing my whole perspective of the universe is an immense effort of mind. It's not "nothing". And why would I bother? Just to win an argument with you? Like I said above, I don't for a minute accept it's true, so I have no motivation for spending any energy proving it.


What effort does it take to entertain a possibility? You could simply pray something like this:

Jesus, I admit that I do not actually know if you are God or not. I would like to know whether it is true. Jesus, if it is true then I invite you into my life right now as Lord and Savior. I ask that you would forgive me for all of my sins, sins that you shed your blood on the cross for. I ask that you would give me the gift of faith, and help me turn from my sins. I ask that you send your Holy Spirit to me right now. I thank you Jesus for saving me.

If you pray that and sincerely mean what you say, then I have no doubt Jesus will answer it.

>> ^messenger:
1. No. If that's true, he gave me my life, and he can take it away if he wants to, but I have no respect for Indian givers.


It's appointed one for man to die, and then the judgment. He isn't going to take away your life, he is going to judge the one you have. Do you believe that you should be above His law?

>> ^messenger:
2. No. I don't serve anyone. He can do what he likes. He made me the way I am -- someone who relies on empirical evidence and sceptical about all superstition, and if he doesn't like it, it's his own fault. He should love me the way I am. And if he does, he should just let me come into heaven because he loves me, not because he needs me to worship him. I don't like egotists any more than Indian givers.


That isn't true; you serve yourself. If God has a better plan than you do, and your plan can only lead to a bad end, why wouldn't you serve God?

Yes, God made you the way you are, a person who knows right from wrong and has sufficient understanding to come to a knowledge of the truth. He loves you, but not your sin. He gave you a conscience to know right from wrong, and when you deliberately choose to do wrong, it isn't His fault. Yet He is patient with you, because He wants you to repent from your sin, so you can go to Heaven. As it stands now, you're a criminal in His eyes, and you are headed for His prison called hell, and He would be a corrupt judge if He just dismissed your case. But He is merciful and doesn't want to send you there. That is why He has given you an opportunity to be forgiven for your sins and avoid punishment. He sent His only Son to take your punishment, so that He can legally dismiss your case and forgive you, but also you must repent from your sins. If you refuse to stop doing evil, why do you think you should be allowed in?

>> ^messenger:
3. Yes and no. Yes, if Jesus turns out to be God, then there'll be no faith required. I'll know it. You can't disbelieve something you know is true. But no, I wouldn't trust him. A god isn't by definition benevolent or omni-anything. If he told me to accept that anal sex is a sin, he and I would get into a debate about what "sin" really is, why he defined sins to begin with, why he created the universe such that people would sin, why sin displeases him, and how those people can be faulted for following God's own design. And if the only way he could convince me he was right was by threatening me with eternal torment in a pit of fire, and promising to reward me with eternal happiness if I agreed with him, then I'd think he must have a pretty weak argument if he has to resort to carrot and stick tactics. I likewise don't like people who resort to violence or threats of violence to make people agree with them.


There'll be no faith required when you die and see Jesus at the judgment seat, but it will also be too late to receive forgiveness for your sins. Neither is God trying to convince you that He is right, because your conscience already tells you that you are wrong. You know that you are a sinner, and that you've broken Gods commandments hundreds, if not thousands of times. You're acting like I don't know you are a human being. What are you possibily going to have to say to a Holy God with your entire life laid bare before Him?

>> ^messenger:
Someone who believes in something despite evidence against it is not using sense, reason and intellect. The Bible contradicts itself internally (contradictory lists of the "begats" is the clearest example I can think of), so cannot be accurate. If you believe the Bible is infallible, that isn't a reasonable belief. Some people "believing in a personal god" doesn't equate to "believing in Yahweh", which is your contention, so it doesn't matter if they're true or not. There's nothing unscientific about spirituality, and identifying some aspect of your spiritual experience a personal god. There's plenty unscientific about declaring the Bible to be infallible. Again with not understanding science.


If you're referring to the geneology of Jesus, it is presenting one geneology through David's son Solomon, which is the royal line, and one geneology through David's son Nathan, which is the non royal line. The lineage in Matthew is Josephs line, and the lineage in Luke is Marys line. There is no actual contradiction there, or anywhere else in the bible. What skeptics call contradictions are usually things they simply do not understand.

In any case, it would not be unreasonable to believe the bible, even if there were contradictions. This is simply a fallacious argument.

>> ^messenger:
The absence of circumstantial evidence where you might expect to find it is circumstantial evidence of absence. If the Bible were true, we would should expect, for example, that miracles would continue to occur, because why not? They should be even more commonly documented because of our massively increased population and information technology. But they appear to happen less! This is absence of circumstantial evidence. Amazing discoveries in science aren't evidence for God. God is one theory that explains them, but it doesn't work the other way -- you can't start with an amazing fact, and declare that it suggests all other theories are wrong. No matter what the universe looks like, it will still conform with the theory of God creating it, so amazing discoveries are not evidence -- they're just things we can't explain yet, like retrograde motion was once considered "amazing" and attributed to gods.)


Your contention is false for a few reasons; first, that miracles do not occur, and second, that we should expect to find an abundance of miracles. Not only have I seen miracles occur, I have been a party to them. As far as the number of miracles, we shouldn't expect to know how many miracles occur. God isn't performing for the general public. Even the post-resurrection appearances were only for a limited number of people.

We do have circumstantial evidence for Gods existence, such as the information in DNA and the evidence of fine-tuning. The theory of God has explanatory power, and is a better explanation for these phenomena. We should never ignore a theory which better explains the evidence.

>> ^messenger:
This where I start picturing you with your hands over your ears going LALALALALALA! Nothing rules out God's agency. Nothing rules out God period. He cannot be ruled out because there's nothing verifiable about his existence whatsoever. Nobody ever makes this claim, ever, ever, ever. It's like you wish we were saying this, but we're not. Really, we're not. BUT, if someone claims that their god has a chariot that moves the sun across the sky, I call bullshit because we have actually seen with our eyes that the Earth is spherical and rotates on its axis, which causes the apparent motion of the sun. If someone says the Earth is only a few thousand years old, I say bullshit and refer you to archaeology and to every branch of science that demonstrates the Earth to be much older.


It is the persistant claim of atheists that science has sufficiently described the Universe and is regulating God to a smaller and smaller corner. It's called the "god of the gaps" and you hear this all the time. You hear it from eminient scientists like Dr Krauss. So I don't wish it is being said, it is being said all the time.

As far as the age of the Earth goes, there are more evidences for a young earth than an old one. Since you don't know much about macro evolution, you probably don't know much about the theory of deep time either. Paleontology and archaelogy are historical sciences. The age of the earth is assumed, and the evidence is interpreted through that assumption. The assumption itself is never challenged.

>> ^messenger:
This is the least scientific thing you have ever said.


Messenger, you seem like a thoughtful person, so step outside of your box for a moment and think about this. The statement that "If God exists, the entire Universe is evidence of His existence" is a scientific statement of absolute fact. If it isn't, explain why not.

>> ^messenger:
You and I agreed before, no solipsism.


I engaged in no solipsism, as you will see, and I also thought we weren't going to be doing cherry picking either. I noticed you avoided these questions:

The question I would put to you is, how would you tell the difference? How would you know you're looking at a Universe God didn't create? What would you expect that to look like?

>> ^messenger:
You realize that you are using logic to prove that logic isn't real? "If-then" statements and implied questions come from logic. If logic doesn't stand on its own, then you can't use it to prove that it doesn't stand on its own. If you want to know where the rules of formal logic come from, you can look it up. If you don't accept them as valid, you've descended into solipsism, at which point I don't even accept that anything exists but my own mind. If you accept the definitions and rules of logic as valid on their face, then we don't require anything to explain where they came from. Logic is definitions, like equality. a=a. How do I know this? It's the definition of equality. If you disagree, then words have no definition, and thus no meaning, and we also agreed that "words have meaning".


I am not using logic to disprove logic, I am using logic to show you that you don't have a foundation for your own rationality. You live your life as if logic is a transcendent and absolute law, the same way as you do right and wrong, but you can't account for it in your worldview. It's a bit like sitting in Gods lap to slap His face. If logic doesn't have the same value independent of human belief, then you have no basis for your own rationality. Words do have meaning, which is why I am pointing out you have some intellectual sinkholes in your worldview that you just accept without thinking about it.

>> ^messenger:
Also, as your argument goes, if you assert that logic is a creation, and that God created logic, this entails that God exists outside of logic. Interesting prediction.


I didn't say God created logic, I said He is a rational being. Since we are made in His image, we are also rational beings.

>> ^messenger:
No, I wouldn't, necessarily. That's one field of science that I know very little about. If you've read a single book about it, you know more than me. That' doesn't mean you understand better than me how science works in general.


It doesn't mean that, no, but it does mean that you spoke authoritatively and condescendingly about something that I actually know more about than you do, jumping to conclusions based on your misunderstanding of what I said, that on a lack of knowledge about the theory itself. I would say this is positive evidence in my favor, and negative evidence against you.

>> ^messenger:
But since you bring it up, the theory of macro evolution may or may not be weak, I don't know, but outdated quotes from Darwin and about Darwin about the impossibility of macro evolution don't convince me any more than outdated quotes from Newton about the impossibility of the Solar System holding together. Do you know what Newton concluded? He concluded it must be God holding it together. Einstein figured out why it really doesn't fly apart, and it wasn't because of God.


They aren't outdated quotes, they are predictions that were made about what we should expect to find if the theory is true. Darwin made a great discovery, that changes can occur within a species. From there, he made an unjustified extrapolation that all species had a common ancestor. He expected to find evidence for this theory in the fossil record, but what he found was evidence against his theory. He blamed this on the relative poverty of the fossil record. 120 years later, we know it isn't the poverty of the fossil record; there simply is no fossil evidence to confirm macro evolution.

Do you know what a gluon is? It is a theoretical sub-atomic particle that binds quarks together. It has never been observed; it is simply a fudge factor, and without it, atoms would fly apart. Scripture says God is upholding them.

>> ^messenger:
Likewise, the problem of the lack of fossil records has been resolved since Darwin's time. The fossil evidence of intermediary links isn't a problem with the fossil evidence: it's a problem with Darwin's model. Darwin believed all evolution happened gradually, as he had observed. But there's no reason to believe it must all be slow. If one species had some tiny mutation that happened to give it a massive advantage over other species, its descendants would naturally spread into all sorts of new niches and tons of evolution would take place, both for it and other animals in its environment. Again, these changes were very rapid, so rapid, that they may not have left fossil evidence. Sometimes they did and other times they didn't, or we haven't found it yet. Check this video out: It's mostly a rebuttal to the "God is not a blind watchmaker" argument for Intelligent Design, but you can skip to 1:33 and still understand the premise. If you watch until 8:42, you'll see the reason why we wouldn't expect to find fossils of intermediary links, and why this isn't an argument against macro evolution anymore.


You're talking about the theory of punctuated equillibrium, or the modern "hopeful monster" theory. This is one of my favorite quotes:

In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had been previously been simply embarrassing; 'all these years of work and I haven't found any evolution.'

Gould & Eldredge
Paleobiology v.3 p.136


It's the theory to explain why there is no evidence for evolution. How convenient. Do you realize that this makes macro evolution unfalsifiable? It also makes macro evolution a metaphysical theory, like abiogenesis, which you must take on faith. The video you referenced is not an accurate demonstration of macro evolution, either, since nothing is being added to the genome. A reconfiguration of the same genetic material is not traversing above the species level and is therefore micro evolution.

Since you're never read a book on macro evolution, try this one and challenge yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890510628/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=