Book Plunge: Why Science Does Not Disprove God

[Gary]

You aren't punished merely because you didn't believe the right things. You are shamed for not living an absolutely perfect, sin-free life.

Please explain/define this "shaming" you discuss.

[JonathanL]

And your opinion matters to me why??

Because, being a believer in the supernatural, I'm one of the people who needs to be convinced of the intellectual superiority of anti-supernaturalism if you want to see your mission of bringing belief in the supernatural to it's knees brought to realization.

[Gary]

Because, being a believer in the supernatural, I'm one of the people who needs to be convinced of the intellectual superiority of anti-supernaturalism if you want to see your mission of bringing belief in the supernatural to it's knees brought to realization.

There is no hope for people like you. You are hopelessly brainwashed as is Nick, Piggy, Wormy, A-drifter, and Sparky. (I have some hope for Tabby, but I'm not betting on it.)

My goal is to expose the anti-science nonsense and cult tactics of this ancient superstition so that your grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be embarrassed to admit that one of their ancestors believed this stuff.

[Sea of red]

What the hell are you blathering about??

I never alleged that you claim to be an expert in the supernatural. I alleged that you feel you know more than me regarding science and that this scientific knowledge somehow translates into you being more knowledgeable about a Resurrection. Science nor theology nor philosophy are needed to discount the very, very, very improbable claim of the reanimation of a dead man in first century Palestine, two thousand years ago. That has been my point all along that for some reason none of you seem to be able to grasp.

I don't need to make deep arguments to dispute the existence of leprechauns, fairies, goblins, or reanimated/walking/talking Jewish prophets! I simply need to look at the probability of their occurrence in collective human history and make a common sense judgment that it is a bogus, superstitious claim. Can I prove that? No. But can I prove that leprechauns do not exist either? No!

That is my point. That has been my point ever since my first comment in the debate: ALL YOU NEED IS COMMON SENSE TO KNOW THAT THE RESURRECTION MOST PROBABLY DID NOT HAPPEN THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEED TO BELIEVE IT DID ANY MORE SO THAN YOU WOULD BELIEVE THE CLAIM THAT LITTLE LEPRECHAUNS PROWL YOUR BACK YARD!

You don't get it.

These are apologists that have read intricate defenses of what they believe. You can't just come on here and call them irrational and bash their religion, and offer no insight they haven't run across before. It would be like a Christian offering Pascals Wager on an atheist forum and expecting a civil response - it's just not going to be in the cards.

I'll be back later to give you an idea of what you're up against, so sit tight.

[One Bad Pig]

There is no hope for people like you. You are hopelessly brainwashed as is Nick, Piggy, Wormy, A-drifter, and Sparky. (I have some hope for Tabby, but I'm not betting on it.)

I got a condescending nickname!

[Christianbookworm]

Please explain/define this "shaming" you discuss.

Do you know what shame means? It's what other people think of you when you have done wrong. And there seems to be more speculation about the New Heavens and New Earth, and not so much what happens if you don't join the New Covenant. Joining the new covenant is kinda like being adopted by a very wealthy King. If you don't want to be adopted, you can stay in the street with the rest of the beggars and street urchins. At least that's one example. Another example is an animal sanctuary that wants to take in some stray cats, but feral cats can't be taken in. Because you can't keep a wild animal as a pet. Likewise, Unerversalism would not work, because not all humans want to be in God's presence, And God would certainly know better than try to force them to be saved. It would be like trying to have a feral cat as an indoor pet. Of course babies can be saved, just like feral kittens can be tamed.

[tabibito]

I got a condescending nickname!

Mine seems to be a little more creative than the one you got. But I think I just scotched his hopes for me on the other thread.

[Gary]

You don't get it.

These are apologists that have read intricate defenses of what they believe. You can't just come on here and call them irrational and bash their religion, and offer no insight they haven't run across before. It would be like a Christian offering Pascals Wager on an atheist forum and expecting a civil response - it's just not going to be in the cards.

I'll be back later to give you an idea of what you're up against, so sit tight.

Here's the thing: I DID NOT COME HERE ON MY OWN INITIATIVE. I was invited to come here for a debate regarding the Resurrection. I debated using MY method. I'm sorry you didn't like it. I stayed to defend my position and my debate method in the comment thread. I did NOT just jump on this site and start attacking.

[Gary]

Do you know what shame means? It's what other people think of you when you have done wrong. And there seems to be more speculation about the New Heavens and New Earth, and not so much what happens if you don't join the New Covenant. Joining the new covenant is kinda like being adopted by a very wealthy King. If you don't want to be adopted, you can stay in the street with the rest of the beggars and street urchins. At least that's one example. Another example is an animal sanctuary that wants to take in some stray cats, but feral cats can't be taken in. Because you can't keep a wild animal as a pet. Likewise, Unerversalism would not work, because not all humans want to be in God's presence, And God would certainly know better than try to force them to be saved. It would be like trying to have a feral cat as an indoor pet. Of course babies can be saved, just like feral kittens can be tamed.

Interesting theology, I would call it: Grab bag, or Smorgasborg, theology: Take what you like and leave the rest.

As long as your god let's me roam the streets without setting the streets on fire or unleashing a worldwide flood, I'll be just fine not being invited to your victory party.

[Christianbookworm]

Interesting theology, I would call it: Grab bag, or Smorgasborg, theology: Take what you like and leave the rest.

As long as your god let's me roam the streets without setting the streets on fire or unleashing a worldwide flood, I'll be just fine not being invited to your victory party.

Umm... you can't even enter the city. I don't know what you would be living in.

[psstein]

I'm away from my computer and can't respond in much detail, so I'll have to be brief.

1. Denying miracles based on uniform experience means you have to deny scientific advance on the same grounds.

2. Before using the overquoted Carl Sagan remark, realize that it in itself is an extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary evidence.

3. Science and religion are not in conflict. I don't care what Hawking/Dawkins/Atkins/Coyne say. Read what historians of science say.

4. The Bible does not require a 6 day creation. When I'm able to respnd in more detail, I'll spell out precisely why. This is why you can't rely on translations. You need to read the text in the original language before you can commentate. Something both Christians and atheists need to learn.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I'm away from my computer and can't respond in much detail, so I'll have to be brief.

1. Denying miracles based on uniform experience means you have to deny scientific advance on the same grounds.

2. Before using the overquoted Carl Sagan remark, realize that it in itself is an extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary evidence.

Yes. This is why John Earman wrote a book calling Hume's argument an Abject Failure.

Oh yes.

That's the agnostic John Earman.

[Sea of red]

Here's the thing: I DID NOT COME HERE ON MY OWN INITIATIVE. I was invited to come here for a debate regarding the Resurrection. I debated using MY method. I'm sorry you didn't like it. I stayed to defend my position and my debate method in the comment thread. I did NOT just jump on this site and start attacking.

Nobody forced you man.

This site is an apologetic site that is kind of a sanctuary for Christians that typically get trolled on the internet. Anti-theistic trolls that do nothing but insult people on a personal basis and push people to their breaking point, are far to common on the internet. These kind of ant-theists are no different than an evangelist in many ways. They enjoy teasing, taunting, mocking, and taking things to an often unacceptably personal level. All they do is repeat stuff they heard elsewhere and advocate a kind of approach that boarders on dogmatism - if not being so already.

These guys have eaten a lot of $ and the anti-theist movement has left a bad taste in their mouth, so when you come along and just go "the supernatural is ridiculous!" you're not accomplishing anything. They won't take kindly to those manners, so you'll get a better reception if you drop that part of your approach. You've got to get your hands in their philosophy and learn why they believe the things they believe. Anti-theist talk points are familiar to these guys, so if you don't have anything to offer beyond that then you'd be best to leave this forum, and fine a forum like FREEratio. If it convinces you that's fine, and I'd probably agree with the core principle you've got underneath your rhetoric. But don't expect any of the theists here to change their views

[Christianbookworm]

Right! I wouldn't bother posting on an atheist forum, but if I did, I at least wouldn't be claiming that ALL atheists were bigoted morons that use chronological snobbery.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Nobody forced you man.

This site is an apologetic site that is kind of a sanctuary for Christians that typically get trolled on the internet. Anti-theistic trolls that do nothing but insult people on a personal basis and push people to their breaking point, are far to common on the internet. These kind of ant-theists are no different than an evangelist in many ways. They enjoy teasing, taunting, mocking, and taking things to an often unacceptably personal level. All they do is repeat stuff they heard elsewhere and advocate a kind of approach that boarders on dogmatism - if not being so already.

These guys have eaten a lot of $ and the anti-theist movement has left a bad taste in their mouth, so when you come along and just go "the supernatural is ridiculous!" you're not accomplishing anything. They won't take kindly to those manners, so you'll get a better reception if you drop that part of your approach. You've got to get your hands in their philosophy and learn why they believe the things they believe. Anti-theist talk points are familiar to these guys, so if you don't have anything to offer beyond that then you'd be best to leave this forum, and fine a forum like FREEratio. If it convinces you that's fine, and I'd probably agree with the core principle you've got underneath your rhetoric. But don't expect any of the theists here to change their views

I agree wholeheartedly with this. In fact, my own rule of thumb is that if you want to be able to argue against a position, you'd better know the best arguments for that position and be able to argue them persuasively. In fact, at a church I attended, there was a member there in college who had to do a project on a social issue. He chose abortion and he wanted his special project to involve recording a live debate. The pro-life side was all set for the debate but the pro-abortion side unfortunately was a college student who had been partying too much and was too busy throwing up to attend. Someone called me and asked if I would argue the pro-abortion side. So I go to a church as a Christian and I have to present the pro-abortion side.

What do I do?

I make the best darn case for abortion that I can, a practice I do consider a great evil. I can also say I could do it.

Why did I do that?

Because I want people to make their minds up on the best possible case that they can. It's easy to make any worldview look ridiculous. We can make Christianity look ridiculous. We can make atheism look ridiculous, but people who hold these positions seriously many times have thought through their positions for years and frankly, if you don't know your stuff, they not only know the arguments for their position, but they know the arguments against and they can argue them better than their critics do. That's why when a new Bart Ehrman book comes out, I want to get my hands on it as soon as I can.

If you do not do your homework, you look ridiculous to those who do.