These Atheists Don't Know Anything
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-04-2010, 09:11 AM
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(13-04-2010 09:02 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  As far as I know, Martin is the only theist posting on this forum at the moment.

I'm secretly a Scientologist.

>_>

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2010, 09:15 AM
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(13-04-2010 09:11 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(13-04-2010 09:02 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  As far as I know, Martin is the only theist posting on this forum at the moment.

I'm secretly a Scientologist.

>_>

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2010, 09:25 AM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(13-04-2010 09:15 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(13-04-2010 09:11 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(13-04-2010 09:02 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  As far as I know, Martin is the only theist posting on this forum at the moment.

I'm secretly a Scientologist.

>_>

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

On my first post, "Complex World vs. Simple Faiths" both 'Stan Brock' and 'Fabian Kress' replied with hysteric, poorly-spelled and incoherent responses, and I believe there was one other--until today, in fact, I was wondering whether the theists outnumbered the atheists on this site!
Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2010, 09:32 AM
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
Really? I must have missed that.

*wanders off to reread*
Hm. You must be getting us confused with another site, because that thread doesn't have any replies here.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2010, 09:35 AM
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
Don't see any responses to that thread. Are you sure you're not confusing this forum with another? (It may be me who's confused though. It doesn't take much! LOL)

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2010, 09:46 AM
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(13-04-2010 08:25 AM)xperdunn Wrote:  
(13-04-2010 12:40 AM)Green Wrote:  That made for an interesting read... I'm also curious if you wrote that yourself. It's well written but I'm much too tired to be analyzing and picking things apart... Although I'm not a big fan of the term "reality"...

What the hell is this? Do people normally ask if posts have been plagiarized? Two doubters in a row--I suppose I ought to be flattered that my writing is 'too good to be true'(!?)

And what's the problem with 'reality' as a word? That it's misused a great deal? Sure, 'reality' is slippery and begs for a 'syntax-based' argument in which nothing is decided except that two people use the same word in different ways.

In my post the term is used as a counterpart to 'subjective' or 'perceptual'.

Sorry bro, didn't mean any offence. As you said in the first paragraph of your OP the internet and digital reproduction removes a whole ton of authenticity. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone copy and paste something good from somewhere else. You can never be too safe. Since you seem so passionate about it I'll take your word for it Smile

Also, thanks for giving the definition of reality that you used, it was pretty obvious what you were going for given the context of your argument but it's always nice to see the author understands what they're saying as well.

Hm... These sound like smartass remarks to me... No offence is intended in either of those bits, they're compliments! Really! Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2010, 12:24 PM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(13-04-2010 09:35 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Don't see any responses to that thread. Are you sure you're not confusing this forum with another? (It may be me who's confused though. It doesn't take much! LOL)

Perhaps It has been deleted. It was back in January, but I can't find it either, just my more recent "Part 2".

But, don't worry, I save Text File back-ups of every e-conversation I debate in, just for safety. Below you may see the entire thread: (which I have cut and pasted!-JK!)


Chris Dunn
Complex World vs. Simple FaithsBack to The Thinking Atheist
Discussion BoardTopic ViewStart New TopicTopic: Complex World vs. Simple FaithsReply to Topic
Displaying all 15 posts.
Post #1You wroteon January 21, 2010 at 11:20am
I can't imagine how anyone can acknowledge the complex physics of the universe; the complex biology of the human animal; the giant ball of string that is history and philosophy; and still think that the answers to our ongoing search for meaning can be squeezed into a tiny-minded set of superstitions offered by any of the world's major religions.
It isn't much different than thinking the bank teller you're standing on line for is in charge of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Post #2Fabian Kress wroteon January 23, 2010 at 3:34am
I can imagine very well! By reading your post above..
They way you compare science and religion sounds exactly like your own bank teller example: tiny-minded.
Did u ever think of the possibilty, that your topic should be named: Simple World vs Complex Faiths?
Life (simple and/or complex) just happens, doesnt matter if we understand it or not. But the moment 2 people clash with their believes (science or religion or whatever), it starts getting complex.Report
Post #3You wroteon January 23, 2010 at 6:01am
Doesn't matter if we understand it or not? You miss my point. This little smudge of life on one little pebble in space likes to think 'God' created the whole thing for them. That is far more simplistic and parochial than even the orbital mechanics Bruno was burned at the stake for studying.
The only complexity in faiths comes from the various schisms and sects that any faith will spawn, showing individual preferences of various leaders.Delete Post
Post #4You wroteon January 23, 2010 at 7:37am
Allow me to try again: Very few have an understanding of leading-edge astronomy or particle physics, very few have an inkling of how the human brain creates consciousness and thought. Within such fields, all those very few experts will freely admit that they have still more questions, prompted by their lastest answers. All scientists face the fact that their research is always just another step towards understanding our existence.

Now, let us imagine a being with enough knowledge and power to create a universe. Would humans have the capacity to understand such a being? I know that I wouldn't and I suspect anyone who claims they can would simply be declaring their ignorance of the depths of that mystery.

One thing that does seem unlikely is that this being would come over to the Milky Way galaxy, search the edge of the spiral arm that holds our solar system, descend to the one ball of dirt called Earth, pick a species as deluded and self-involved as humanity, and gift them with an unprovable, unquestionable reason for existing (with the caveat that they must not examine their world too closely).

I won't even start on the idea of an 'afterlife' full of the disembodied souls of every human that ever lived.Delete Post
Post #5Fabian Kress wroteon January 27, 2010 at 8:10am
Sure, i can follow ur thoughts. Sounds really silly that the overbeing should elect us lil ********** to have a reason for existence. And that all scientists r humble researchers on a quest for the holy grail, which they wanna find only with best intentions and actions... Comon, think less black n white, ok?
Anyway, if someone needs a reason to exist... why not? As long as they keep it for themselves? Sure, creationits for ex. are pretty much agressive in advertising their truth. But... same thing you do here.
I have a pantheistic view of life, so its pretty easy for me to merge science with faith. Thats why for me your text just sounds like a lil boy that want to starts a fight... And i know you aren't a lil boy ^^
The moment where you trivialize the "need" for a explanation for the time (or being) before Big Bang, u start getting holier-than-thou. And in this very moment all the fun (and good reasons as well!) in your text turns out be nothing than old farts, discussed over and over again.
Need more examples? So back to your intro: you said, u cant understand. i said i can understand. And yet u r not a single bit interested in getting this "knowledge" outta me. You just want to feed me up with your reasonings. This isnt a discussion, that sounds more like a fight. Since fighting leads to destruction, and decoposition is allready a natural progress, i don't have to use my own energy to fasten this process.
So... tell me when u r ready to start a discussion. Or.. perhaps i get the idea from this forum wrong, and its just a platform to diss some creationists?
Report
Post #6You wroteon January 27, 2010 at 9:09am
bunch of passive-agressive syllogising--I think that's why this religious stuff gets taken more seriously today than it was a hundred years ago--whenever one of you guys start speaking in tongues of doubletalk and pseudo-logic, we simply don't know which of your many ludicrous opinions to demolish first. Especially because you always come back with still more tripe about pantheistic spirituality. Get back to me when you have a single piece of honest-to-god godliness that isn't some sham or fairytale.
The only good thing about religions is their calming effect on stupid folks. And that's the only reason they're still around.

O, about that scientists aren't idealists--yeah, I get that. I was speaking of the scientific method, not the actual assholes that dilute it with the same kind of narcissism pederast priests have toward their flocks. I am not thinking in black and white, I am debating an issue--you're the one who wants it to be a more antagonistic argument.Delete Post
Post #7Fabian Kress wroteon January 28, 2010 at 4:17am
Oh yes, debatating xD Oh my, you sure are frustrated...
"I think that's why this religious stuff gets taken more seriously today than it was a hundred years ago" -> Especially by guys like you haha

"whenever you guys starts speaking in doubletongues etc..."
"come allways back with some more tripe"
"your many ludicrous opinions to demolish"
"sham of fairytale"
"calming effect on stupid folks"

I am no absolute friend of religions, but... u should try it. Remember the calming effect on stupid folks! Otherwise go to the army. There you will (be) serve(d) as well.


Post #8You wroteon January 28, 2010 at 8:19am

Calm down--your posts are full of the kind of typos that slip by an overexcited writer. And you even misread my responses in your rush to deny my ideas (for ex. 'sham of fairytale' was actually 'sham OR fairytale'). And you have proven my point by never actually addressing my points, only continuing the rant you began with. It is a waste of time talking to brick walls, especially those inside a person's head.
I'm only responding from now on because, this one time, I am refusing to let an idiot have the last word. All my life I've broken off these ludicruous exchanges, telling myself the world is too full of jerks for me to bother trying to reach them--but not this time.
A moments consideration will enable you to imagine primitive people making up magical explanations for the wonders of nature and of life. A passing familiarity with history will allow the idea that all the religions of today are simply the development of those primitive beginnings (see Frazer's "Golden Bough").
I put it to you that the onus is on today's religions to refute the anthropology that traces them back to the same impulse that produced Zeus, Thor, and all the other discarded faiths of civilization.
And, hey, where'd the 'Army' come from? What the hell kinda person enters into a debate simply to attack the other side? Do you have anything to say other than that I'm wrong? Get a life


Post #9Stan Brock wrote23 hours ago
The only real PROOF of God,should be your own common sensce,in that if it were not true ,there would be no need for the resiistance of it to exist.You do not resist something that does not exist!Every word you hear,every sentance you speak,every dog that barks,every song you sing,every e-mail you read,and every packet of info that zings across the internet,is proof of God.Information and language,originate in a MIND.

Post #10Stan Brock wrote22 hours ago
It is not that complex.And may God bless you for your criticism.Report


Post #11You wrote15 hours ago

Hi Stan thanx 4 joining the thread.

You speak of three things: God, existence, and proof--where 2 begin?
Perhaps you'd understand me better if I rephrase:

Who- or What-ever created existence, the universe, and life on Earth, that being is farther beyond our lights than we are far from bacteria. It isn't a case of not believing--it's a matter of knowing that That being is far, far beyond our ken.
Have you ever tried to explain geometry to newborn? It can't be done. Sure, some Thing made creation--but you will never convince me that we humans can have any contact with such a creature--or know its mind or understand what it is and what it does.
If we are meant to interact with such a Being, I'd suggest waiting for It to manifest itself to our minds and hear what it has to say.


Post #12Stan Brock wrote12 hours ago

It has manifested in my mind,and these posts are what it had to say.You know,you can hear too .I can show you how.You want to try?Ask God to reveale himmself to you and expect it to happen,which is faith.Ask him a question.Pay attention and be alert.Your answer will be the first instinct you get,that is in relation to your question.Obey and what I am trying to turn you on to will manafest to you.Your answer may come in a thought,something someone says to you,something you hear on tv or radio could posibly be in something you are reading.You will get an answer if you will be aleret.Report

Post #13Stan Brock wrote12 hours ago

Also you will know when you have the answer,but be careful.If it has anything unrightous about it.It is not of God but the Devil trying to confuse,confusion is of the devil.Thats is how you desern between the two.Report


Post #14You wrote15 minutes ago

Thanks for the advice, Stan.

However, I was not raised an Atheist as my children were, I was raised to believe in a Christian God.

I forsook that faith at the age of ten--that is how old I was when I first realized that religion is a bunch of make-believe.

I lost most of my friends and siblings to the Born-Again fad of the Seventies--their various 'gurus' told them to shun the non-believer (yours truly). Most of them are all back on planet Earth now, and resumed their friendship with me once the fanaticism wore off.

I have learned the Catechism, received the sacrament, made confession, and was confirmed as a soldier in the army of God. I have searched through my local church services (Methodist, Episcopal, Unitarian, Quaker, Catholic, etc.) for the voice of reason (or faith) and found it not.

I have read the Old Testament, the New Testament, the gospels of the Library at Nag Hadami and the deciphered, publicized writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I have studied the history of religion(s) in Western Civilization, especially the progress of what is now called the Good Book, from its several scattered sources, through conclaves and congresses of church leaders, to the reformation, and onto the embrace of pluralism by the early colonial Americans--who started out as religious refugees and ended up realizing that to condemn another's faith is to endanger your own.

For awhile afterwards I described myself as an agnostic--it was not until I grew into adulthood that I dropped the conditional 'maybe' of agnosticism and embraced the truth of Atheism.

So, you see, Stan, I need no instruction from anyone in the mysticism of the "still, small voice inside", the conscience. In all likelihood, I know more about your faith than you do--I simply don't believe it.


#15You wrote2 seconds ago
Surely there is something you don't believe in, something that simply can't be as others say (for example, UFOs or ESP). Just imagine that feeling in me on the issue of 'God' and we will understand each other perfectly.

Assuming your effort to 'turn me on' to religion is a wholly charitable one, I thank you for trying. But I am well-aware of the bliss of surrender to a higher power--I lost it at the age of ten and have missed it terribly. You'd have better luck if you tried to reclaim my lost belief in Santa.
-chris dunn [end of thread]Sleepy
Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2010, 01:27 PM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(12-04-2010 03:42 PM)xperdunn Wrote:  In olden times, if you wanted to be wise, you only had to know that you didn't know anything. In the digital present, that is a given: you can fake a record, a photo, even Hi-Def movies.

These one-time proofs were only trusted in the days of analog tech because the techniques themselves left their mark--do you remember that old, B&W, detective-genre movie--they actually proved someone used a particular typewriter by matching the characters on a note with the faces of typewriter keys! Even the old classic, fingerprints, has had to deal with forgeries and plants only recently made possible by advances in materials technology, laser scans, et.al.

Authenticity is obsolete. Sure, some disciplines may still be able to discern truth from CGI but that number is shrinking and will continue to shrink. There is a three-dimensional printer now available to laboratories who have the budget for it--it takes a three-dimensional scan and lays down layer after layer of some kind of vinyl or something, until the shape is ready to be removed from the 'printer'. I believe there's a scene in Juraisic Park III wherein such a device is shown creating part of a raptor's skull.

So, now we revise 'know that you don't know anything' to 'no one CAN know anything', always remembering, of course, that I don't know any of this (ha ha).

In addition, since 'not knowing anything' is relative to the times in which it is said, we must also allow for an immense increase in detail of our conception of existence--we used to think the solar system was All, then we thought the galaxy was All, and now we infer that the Universe is made up of countless galaxies, all immensely distant from each other, and that our Milky Way is just one of those galaxies. And when I slip in a term like 'countless', I'm not kidding; scientists and mathematicians agree that a 'google' is ten to the tenth power (a one with ten zeros) and that a google-plex (a google to the google-th power) is the largest numerical value of any significance to us, since it is so large that we can't really understand it (If written out 1,000,000... , the number would take up about a gazillion yards of paper) and, therefore, anything bigger is just 'bigger'.

So, now we further revise 'no one CAN know anything' to include 'nor even count the number of things we don't know, which grows exponentially with every scientific discovery'.

Beyond that, we have the religion issue--these people are cheaters; they say they know something for sure, an absolute certainty, because they have faith. That's all well and good but we atheists would appreciate it if you believers out there would stop confusing 'knowing' with 'having faith'. I would never deny you your faith--why would you want to mess with my knowledge? (Or lack thereof, to return to the subject at hand.)

We have our senses and we use them. But our senses were never meant to help us perceive reality--we evolved them to perceive life; whether it's prey or a predator or a mate or a rival; the need to ingest and its opposite; whether it's too cold or too warm. We perceive not reality but relativity--our place in the circle of life, how to nurture and keep life, how to make new life, and how to take life and, sometimes, consume it.

But reality is different--did you know that reality does not include color? It's true--our eyes evolved to differentiate wavelengths of visible light (which is, in turn, only a small section in the electromagnetic spectrum) as different colors--the reason we see green all around us is that we developed our eyesight to find food which, in the case of early hominids, was vegetation. This most sought-after material became the mid-point of visible lights' colors--they go higher until they reach infra-red and lower until they reach ultra-violet--what mankind most wants to see is, in a nutshell, lunch. Dogs, too--but dogs can smell their lunch from a distance, which is why they can get by with only black-and-white vision (dogs are color-blind).

Further, what we think of as an object's 'color' isn't something it gives off--it just sits there--the color of it only represents what parts of sunlight are absorbed and what parts of its wavelength bounce off and reach our eye. We could therefore think of 'something-absorbing-all-non-pink-light' (which is a 'pink-something', for you color-purists out there).

And reality is also almost completely devoid of substance! Think of the Science Channel telling you about an atom: it is a tiny nucleus with tinier electron(s) spinning 'round it. It resembles in some way the solar system--particles dancing with a lot of nothing in between them. And if Einstein's famous equation is true (Energy equals Matter times a Constant Speed), then sub-atomic particles are simply 'knots' of energy. As they dance around the outer limit of atoms, they form the solid-seeming matter we take for granted: tables, chairs, oceans, ourselves.... yet these 'objects' are only knots of energy spinning crazily within the voids that are the most-part of their atoms!

I figure that makes sense because the whole universe is supposed to have been contained in a very tiny singularity just prior to the Big Bang
--but who knows?

"Not I", said the duck.
"Nor me either", say the wise folk.Huh

Let's try this with you, hasn't worked so good with the others.

You said "Beyond that, we have the religion issue--these people are cheaters; they say they know something for sure, an absolute certainty, because they have faith. That's all well and good but we atheists would appreciate it if you believers out there would stop confusing 'knowing' with 'having faith'."

This is what the Bible says about faith Hebrews 11:1. This verse says, "FAITH is the ASURANCE of things HOPED for, the CONVICTION of things not seen." We see the words "hope,assurance, conviction--that is, confidence. Now, what gives us confidence?

If you are playing poker and you need a certain card to win a hand, You HOPE you get it, do you have any ASSURANCE that you will? No. So you raise the bet based on your FAITH in the evidence that is presented, maybe the odds, maybe the way your opponent is sweating etc. What if you could see the next card with your x-ray vision, and what if it was the card you needed? You would no longer HOPE to win you would have ASSURANCE you'd win. You'd have ASSURANCE of the thing you HOPED for and you would bet with CONVICTION.

That is why Christians are concerned with evidence, you can't have ASSURANCE of something you don't know you are going to get.

That is why the resurrection is so important to Christians. 1 Corinthians "14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. " So the Bible says that if it didn't happen then "we are to be pitied more than all men"

We will disagree on the evidence for it I am sure, but to the Christian it is not blind faith we operate on.
Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2010, 03:17 PM
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
(17-04-2010 01:27 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Let's try this with you, hasn't worked so good with the others.

Hm, I wonder why.

Quote:If you are playing poker and you need a certain card to win a hand, You HOPE you get it, do you have any ASSURANCE that you will? No. So you raise the bet based on your FAITH in the evidence that is presented, maybe the odds, maybe the way your opponent is sweating etc. What if you could see the next card with your x-ray vision, and what if it was the card you needed? You would no longer HOPE to win you would have ASSURANCE you'd win. You'd have ASSURANCE of the thing you HOPED for and you would bet with CONVICTION.

That is why Christians are concerned with evidence, you can't have ASSURANCE of something you don't know you are going to get.

And yet you act as if you do, when in reality you do not know that you are going to get anything.

Quote:That is why the resurrection is so important to Christians. 1 Corinthians "14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. " So the Bible says that if it didn't happen then "we are to be pitied more than all men"

We will disagree on the evidence for it I am sure, but to the Christian it is not blind faith we operate on.

Exactly. We disagree on the evidence. The atheist thinks that there is no evidence for the resurrection (and there isn't). The Christian asserts that there is evidence for it, but is strangely unable to present any when pressed - yet acts as if they have it secreted away somewhere.
You may not call it blind faith, but that's what it is. Faith without evidence.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2010, 03:17 PM
 
RE: These Atheists Don't Know Anything
Let's try this with you, hasn't worked so good with the others.

You said "Beyond that, we have the religion issue--these people are cheaters; they say they know something for sure, an absolute certainty, because they have faith. That's all well and good but we atheists would appreciate it if you believers out there would stop confusing 'knowing' with 'having faith'."

This is what the Bible says about faith Hebrews 11:1. This verse says, "FAITH is the ASURANCE of things HOPED for, the CONVICTION of things not seen." We see the words "hope,assurance, conviction--that is, confidence. Now, what gives us confidence?

If you are playing poker and you need a certain card to win a hand, You HOPE you get it, do you have any ASSURANCE that you will? No. So you raise the bet based on your FAITH in the evidence that is presented, maybe the odds, maybe the way your opponent is sweating etc. What if you could see the next card with your x-ray vision, and what if it was the card you needed? You would no longer HOPE to win you would have ASSURANCE you'd win. You'd have ASSURANCE of the thing you HOPED for and you would bet with CONVICTION.

That is why Christians are concerned with evidence, you can't have ASSURANCE of something you don't know you are going to get.

That is why the resurrection is so important to Christians. 1 Corinthians "14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. " So the Bible says that if it didn't happen then "we are to be pitied more than all men"

We will disagree on the evidence for it I am sure, but to the Christian it is not blind faith we operate on.
[/quote]

You must be 'martin'--hello Martin.
As I read your reply, I couldn't help wondering if you had read the rather lengthy cut-and-paste of my January thread 'Complex World vs. Simple Faith'. Further, I wondered what part of it might have led you to think I wanted more apologist reasoning (though I'll grant you , you're a whole 'nother level up from those clowns who harangued me in January!) and if you really believe you're own rationale.
Before we go on, I think you should read C.S.Lewis's tremendous apologist essays and perhaps even his "Surprised By Joy". To date--and believe me when I tell you that I've developed a very discerning palate over the years of debating theism with others--and even debating within myself--I've found C.S. Lewis to be the premiere apologist for Christianity. He should do all your talking for you--no one comes half as close to identifying with the apostate as he, and no one goes about it so open-mindedly.

I would recommend also his sci-fi trilogy, 'tho not as Sci-Fi, but as a beautiful roman-a-clef about faith and conviction--not unlike his more childish septet, The Chronicles of Narnia. Also, for a wonderfully modern take on the issue (albeit from a mormon POV) do read Ender's Game and the seven (or is it eight now?) sequels and prequels by F.Scott Card, although his later stuff is even more morality-laden--but not half so good.

I should warn you (regarding Mormonism or LDS) however, that a great deal was made of one of the twelve lost tribes of Israel possibly ending their particular diaspora upon the American continent--in early American archaeology the great mounds that popped up throughout the Americas were believed to be the work of former Jewish slaves (of the Pharoah) who brought the craft of pyramid-building across to the New World in the distant past. Now, you don't hear much about this nowadays. That's because more modern examinations of these mounds concluded that they were uniquer earthworks found ONLY in the Americas and, therefore, of Native American origin.
So, nowadays, the CoLDS no longer refer to their one-time 'proof' of a christian, or monotheist thread into the past of their new land. It was, however, a big part of recruitment back in the founding days of the nienteenth century! Talk about a foundation built upon sand...

But, back to the battle before us: I have been thinking a great deal of the chronology of 'Faith'--I mean, sure, PEOPLE didn't know about the Earth being round, the Sun being the center we pivot around, or even Atomic Energy; but, surely GOD knew, right? So, why would god tell us that the sun was stopped in the sky when he knew the actual physics of our solar system? Why would he tell us that Christ 'ascended' to heaven when he KNEW that heaven wasn't up in the sky where a plane or a missile could reach it, but (if existant at all) had to be on a different plane of existence, NOT merely a higher altitude?
Why wouldn't he warn us, while making a big deal about that damn apple, that we shouldn't create a nuclear explosion over two Japanese cities? And what about the Japanese? Why were those poor schmucks left out of the big party? Sure, People had a hard time getting there from western Europe in those days, but God wouldn't have any trouble with the trip--why were they excluded by God? huh?
(ha,ha, NOW I've got you! hee-hee-hee)
Excuse the giggling, Martin--but I so enjoy debating theism--I've been known to invite Jehovah's Witnesses into my living room on Saturday morning--they've stopped coming the last few years. I hope it wasn't something I said.

You know, at first, they were 'come as you are' --brought their kids with'em 'n all. But after this one visit, when one of the kids started 'hmm'-ing a little too much at my questions, only old people started coming--and I think some of them got scared because I'm so casual about my Atheism--I presume they're more used to Atheists either slamming the door on them or getting all defensive about being part of such a questionable minority.

Of course, I live in the suburbs of the dreaded Big Apple--most small town and rural communities have little else in the way of community beyond sunday church and so forth, so if I lived out there, I'd probably keep my lack of faith to myself--that's one of the advantages--I believe what I believe but I'll lie about it if a bunch of rednecks start getting in my face--it's always a surprise to me; the level of hostility that emanates from the adherents of the Prince of Peace whenever something exotic challenges their comfortable laissez faire.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: