51. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #271955 by Shrommer on October 26, 2008 at 8:03 pm

Responding to comment #271051 by GBile. I didn't start enjoying life when I believed God exists. I was taught from tiny on up that God exists, and life was mostly one big bummer. I see no reason to add all the "I believe" words in there. If you think all that is necessary when I am sharing my own story, let's try this:

"I was taught, I believe my recollection is true, from tiny on up that God exists, and life (I believe life exists) was mostly one big bummer, I believe."

You can confuse worrying with planning. Wisdom and planning are good things, like getting good counsel, thinking things through, etc. Lots of times someone who is planning will be told "Quit worrying about it." But you are also correct that I am not 100% immune to worrying; I still catch myself doing it on occasion.

On the "fear" issue, likewise, I still do not throw myself off tall buildings out of fearlessness. I believe that God put certain fears into us as a survival instinct to protect us and which we should respect.

Guilt about something I've misdone, and fear of punishment from God ... those are what I've been freed from! My punishment is already past history - I died with Christ. There is no punishment left for a dead man, and the me who was the sinner is dead according to God's lawbooks. No double jeopardy, especially not after the death penalty. The record God looks at when He looks up my record is the record of Jesus of Nazareth. Our files got switched. God put Jesus' life story where mine should have been, and my life story where Jesus' should have been. This was an act of grace and His sovereign choice. It doesn't matter what different doctrines or practices different churches or religions have, or who's right or wrong in the human debates.

Next you tell me that there is probably no god, so I should keep worrying about my health. That doesn't make any sense. Why should I worry about my health if there is no god? If there is no god, my health doesn't matter any more than the health of the leaf that loses its chlorophyl in the autumn, or the e-mail that goes into the trash bin on my computer. It's all meaningless.

Anyway, with your long list of "keep worrying", it sounds like you don't agree with this bus campaign. The campaign says that there probably is no God, and then they tell you to stop worrying. You say there probably is no god, so we should keep worrying about the most trivial and temporary things - like our planet which is going to undergo disaster once our sun burns out - and only stop worrying about what myths dictate.

When I started trusting Jesus, I dropped the myths too. The more I study the historical record, the more apparent it is that his resurrection was no myth. There are lots of religious myths I've dropped in the meantime, though.

My point is that the campaign is logical when it says "There probably is no God", but there is no way to logically follow that up with "Now stop worrying and start enjoying life." The first part has nothing to do with the second, and you can reject or accept either clause completely independently of the other. In my case, to desert God would be the end of the enjoyment and guilt-free life I have found only in Him.

52. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #270861 by Shrommer on October 24, 2008 at 7:48 pm

We don't know that God doesn't exist, so that is not really news, only a theory.

I don't think anybody feels guilty and frightened because they "need" to be. I think it just happens on the inside.

There are plenty of examples of people who do not believe in God, yet still feel guilty and frightened.

I don't feel worthless at all. Think of the value of a dollar. Now of a chestful of gold. Now a nation's wealth. The wealth and glory of all of planet earth. The majesty and worth of the solar system, of the Milky Way Galaxy, or the universe, and the energy of an atom!

The worth of the Creator of all this is far greater than the wealth of all of the Creation. That is the price that God paid for me, and that is how much God thinks I'm worth - as much as He is worth, so that He even gave His own life to purchase me!

This is an awesome love story, and you expect me to feel worthless? You've got to be kidding.

53. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #270856 by Shrommer on October 24, 2008 at 7:43 pm

If God doesn't exist, then there is no reasonable explanation for the observed life of Christ and the observed resurrection and resurrected Christ. It's easy enough to take away the religion, but very hard to dismiss the facts.

54. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #270854 by Shrommer on October 24, 2008 at 7:37 pm

If you are not after being saved from your worries, then the part of the slogan that says: "Now stop worrying" doesn't apply to you. That is one of the problems I have with the slogan, much more than any problems over the term "probably."

It's not whether God exists or not; intelligent minds differ on that. It's whether the belief that there is no God can actually save you in any way - like saving you from your worries. Historically, plenty of atheists have had worries and did not enjoy their lives. If there is no God, why does anyone really care about worries anyway? Sooner or later the person will die and the worries will cease to exist, or the joy will cease to exist, so it really all amounts to nothing anyway.

If you want salvation from worries, neither belief in God's existence, nor disbelief in God's existence will get you there. No religion can do that. Only the Spirit of God on the inside can do that, and bring true lasting joy. Or, of course, if there is nothing beyond this life on earth, then physical death should bring you salvation from worries.

55. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #270852 by Shrommer on October 24, 2008 at 7:24 pm

What about a slogan like, "There is probably no God. So you might as well commit suicide. Who cares?" That is just as likely a response to atheism as the philosophy that one could be worry-free and enjoy life with no God.

Or how about "There is probably no God. Now there is nobody to save you from hell and the grave."

Or how about "There is probably no God. When Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, he was applying quantum physics in a way that was far advanced for his time."

56. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #270851 by Shrommer on October 24, 2008 at 7:18 pm

I look at it as mercy instead of as bribery. He made a way of escape from the consequences of the choices we made. He took responsibility for what we did, and gives a worry-free life that we can enjoy forever, in exchange for all the junk that we throw His way.

A bribe is to try and get us to act or think a certain way, He rewards us for acting or thinking that way. The good news is that there is no way we can earn our salvation - no way of acting or thinking that we can ever do to save ourselves. He decided to save us of His own free will, and accomplished everything in our place.

But what is this slogan on the busses about? That sounds like bribery too, if you don't try to argue the way out of it. Some slogan writer is implying that if you don't believe in God, it will free you of worries and allow you to enjoy life. They are trying to hold out some kind of rewards for thinking a certain way - like the behaviorist thought police.

I'll tell you that when I had a religious mindset, I was stuck in guilt and fear, but when I heard and believed the good news, I was set free from worries and started enjoying my life. For me to stop trusting God now would take me back to despair and frustration away from my joy and safety. So for me, when I'm already in heaven in a spiritual sense, don't try and bribe me with talk of stopping worrying and starting enjoying. That's one of Jesus' key points - to stop worrying, and one of Paul's key points - to enjoy!

57. All aboard the atheist bus campaign

Comment #270841 by Shrommer on October 24, 2008 at 7:00 pm

The article says that the Alpha Course teaches "failing to believe in Jesus will condemn you to hell", while never mentioning the flip side of the coin: They teach that when you trust Jesus to save you, he really does do the saving, you have nothing to worry about, and you can start enjoying life!

You don't need to stop believing in God to start enjoying life, and just because you stop believing in God doesn't mean your life will have any more joy or any less worries.

58. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #270836 by Shrommer on October 24, 2008 at 6:45 pm

It is one thing to say "There is probably no God", which is more the conclusion of a logical person than a reasonable one, but the part that follows does not make any sense as a consequence of the first statement. "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Wouldn't it make more sense to write, "There is probably no God. Now start worrying; your life is a waste."

I stopped worrying and started enjoying life when I placed my trust in God and in Jesus Christ as my Savior. That's when I was relieved of all guilt and fear, and freed to be who I was made to be - victorious over Satan and the grave!

If you believe in God and don't know the good news, then I can see how life is no fun and all worries, but when someone comes to believe in God in the sense of really relying on Him and casting your cares over onto Him, experiencing His love and forgiveness, then the slogan on the bus makes no sense.

On the other hand, just as there are people who doubt God's existence and live a carefree life, there are people who doubt God's existence and are miserable and full of cares and worries - people who commit suicide, etc.

The worrying and enjoyment can fall on either side of the theist-atheist line.

Once someone posits that belief in no God will lead to enjoyment and will take away worries, that person is creating their own religion in a sense. Like someone's supposed to supernaturally start enjoying life once belief in God goes away? For me to stop believing in God would be a return to despair and frustration - bye-bye joy, and welcome back worries.

59. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #254474 by Shrommer on September 25, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Comment 230415 is a very good one. I've just looked at the "flea" page, and it also disturbs me that so much more energy is put into labeling "fleas" and so much less energy is put into acutally demonstrating an understanding of the "fleas" arguments and addressing them.

I applaud Dawkin's effort to oppose violence and ignorance and intolerance and delusional thinking, but I never can figure out why Dawkins cannot accept that a man was seen risen from the dead, or that people choose to believe that their sins against a Creator-God have been forgiven thanks to that God's actions in this world. What is so terrible about love?

60. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #254470 by Shrommer on September 25, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Hmm, Dawkins stating the case for reason and science ... it sounds like he is promoting true Christianity here, instead of the religious hogwash that tries to pass for Christianity.

A favorite of mine is Clark Pinnock's book Reason Enough.

61. McCain's VP Wants Creationism Taught in School

Comment #239981 by Shrommer on August 30, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Nicky Clayton and her team at Cambridge have found what they believe "is the first example of future planning in animals other than humans."

http://www.physorg.com/news91286409.html

http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/231/1/

http://www.science.org.au/sats2007/clayton.htm

When did this discovery come about? In the 21st Century!

This particular kind of intelligence was ruled out as an impossibility during 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century science. It was thought that birds like the scrub jays only did their caching based on instinct.

Intelligent Design Theory includes the idea that DNA may do its own type of future planning when it mutates, instead of DNA simply being an information tank like a page that only has words on it but doesn't think. If we only devised experiments to test for this kind of intelligence in scrub jays in the 21st Century, - centuries after the first scientific studies of these birds - it is reasonable that there would be no tests devised to discover future planning in DNA molecules for another several centuries, since DNA (unlike scrub jays) was only first observed and labeled in the 20th Century.

How could DNA be intelligent when it doesn't have a neural system? Well, that is kind of like asking how we can create energy without chemical reactions / combustion. We never dreamed that a hydrogen atom could store more energy than a barn full of coal, and today it is hard to dream that a DNA molecule could be more intelligent than an animal brain. And that is even in a day and age where we have seen computer chips that perform processes that our brains can't match, and those computer chips are smaller than a pinhead!

There are many different ways that we can have energy, or flight (think lighter than air, rocket propulsion, airplane wings, bird wings, insect wings, helicopters, ... all so different.) You don't need feathers to fly, so maybe you don't need a neural system to have intelligence.

How are the school children of today going to be prepared for that kind of research into Intelligent Design hypotheses tomorrow, if they are taught that it is all religious junk science based on the supernatural?

ID need not be anti-evolution, and may fall squarely within the realm of natural science. All ID is saying is that certain natural observations are better explained when we consider intelligent causes than when we consider only random causes.

It is a shame that the Dover school district made the ID label synonymous with creationist coercion, and another shame that Judge Jones did not recognize how ID can be a natural science based purely on observation and reason.

62. Religion's Real Child Abuse

Comment #239518 by Shrommer on August 29, 2008 at 9:01 pm

I was a Roman Catholic for 13 years, and I don't regret being taught about hell. What I think was terrible is that I wasn't told the good news from anyone in the Catholic Church, and had to wait for an Evangelical group to tell me how we can know we have eternal life in Christ.

Using teaching about hell as a behavior modification technique is both deplorable and deceitful, just the kind of thing the devil would do. Using teaching about hell to show us how much God loves us to save us from that is the best favor you can do anyone on earth.

63. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #228301 by Shrommer on August 11, 2008 at 7:21 pm

I've just read through the first page and a half of comments, and I can't believe how much people want to talk about God and religion in connection with this program! Yes, Darwin was a genius, and he was very bold, but next to an Einstein or a Sir Isaac Newton, I don't consider Darwin to be the top of the heap.

"Children are religiously indoctrinated from infancy but get only a few hours of school lessons about Darwin, despite the critical importance of his work in understanding humanity's links to the animal kingdom.

… Dawkins sets out to show how evolution is very firmly based in fact."

The article might as well have said that children are taught about reading and writing from infancy, but only get a few hours of lessons about Darwin.

Evolution is very firmly based in fact, which is to say that species change over time from common ancestors - some becoming extinct, others becoming new species - following the laws of natural selection and genetic variation. This is true regardless of how old anyone thinks the earth is, and regardless of their posture regarding the existence and nature of God.

It explains why we see such great diversity among human beings even if we all came from only Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago - why some Native Americans died when the European common cold was introduced, as opposed to the resistance that Europeans had developed long before. Darwin provides the key for understanding how Noah could have taken one of every kind of animal on the ark, and yet we end up with millions of different species in today's world.

Without some good lessons in Darwin, Christians would have a hard time understanding these accounts, and Christian schools (full time or just Sunday schools) should be thankful that God put Darwin on the planet to work out these basic evolutionary principles. It is one way of learning about "God's world", if you are a theist.

Darwin's work is not critical in understanding humanity's links to the animal kingdom. It is possible that humans evolved from other animals, and it is possible that humans have a different common ancestor (or set of common ancestors) other than the common ancestors that some other animals have. From evolution, we cannot tell for sure how many living species originally emerged from primordial ooze, or whatever the origin was.

From Darwin's evolution, we cannot tell how behaviors formed in animals or humans, even if we can grasp developments in anatomy and physiology. Religion speaks a lot to our behaviors.

Humanity's links to the animal kingdom are seen in many ways, simply through the similarities: DNA (this understanding we do not owe to Darwin), humans and animals are both categories of creatures which evolve (this understanding we do owe to Darwin), we share many similarities in anatomy and physiology (this understanding we do not owe to Darwin), etc.

Anyway, evolution is a fact, but it is a fact that anyone with a decent scientific brain can take on board whether someone believes in a young earth or an old earth, in a God or in no God, in Adam and Eve, or in common descent from a single single-celled organism. There is every reason to applaud the good science that Darwin brought to light, and every reason to leave God and religion off the table when we aim to appreciate Darwin in a pluralistic society. To applaud Darwin is not to belittle religion or God.

64. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #199498 by Shrommer on June 25, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Dawkins' column talks out of two sides of the mouth. He starts off by saying that a good start would be to read the books of your opponent in a debate, but he ends by saying that you don't need to read the works of an opponent in order to conclude that what they're saying is false.

The same argument works both ways. I don't have to read theology before I can start disbelieving in God, and I don't have to read atheist works before I can start disbelieving in atheism.

The idea of there being no intelligent ancestor prior to an intelligent one is just so far out I had might as well believe in leprechauns.

Dawkins is trying to say that we shouldn't reason through the issues; we should simply accept what he says at face value with no study and no deep thinking to bear on the issues. I think we should study these things out in order to see what is true.

65. The Courtier's Reply

Comment #199475 by Shrommer on June 25, 2008 at 8:11 pm

I am still waiting for a better explanation of how Christ rose from the dead on the third day, other than "God did it." The Jews accused him of being a magician and of being sent from Satan, but they never tried to imagine that the evidence of the miracles did not exist.

66. Proving ID is Creationism

Comment #183273 by Shrommer on May 21, 2008 at 5:27 pm

"Proving Of Pandas and People is Creationism" is what the title of the thread should read. No serious ID person claims that species appearing intact is a key intelligent design idea, yet the book Of Pandas and People made it THE key definition. Dr. Behe believes in common descent with a very gradual evolution from a single or several few ancestors.

Imagine a textbook that came out and said that "Evolution means that all species went through an algae-covered blender powered by lightning and oil in exactly the year 3,040,678 BCE." I suppose that we would all be fighting a battle to get evolution out of our schools and calling evolution junk science, based on that one book's definition.

67. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131817 by Shrommer on February 23, 2008 at 11:31 am

I'm not talking about hundreds of eyewitness testimonies in agreement with Christianity. I am talking about hundreds of eyewitnesses in agreement that Jesus rose from the dead. There is a big difference. One is a religion; the other is a sensory experience.

None of the eyewitnesses are alive today, just as none of the eyewitnesses of most historical events are no longer alive today. You may choose to discount all historical evidence as no evidence at all, and only believe things that are repeatably verifiable in the present. That is what most atheists do when they make the scientific method their God.

68. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131815 by Shrommer on February 23, 2008 at 11:26 am

Double Bass atheist writes, "so it says in the Bible". Please show me where in the Bible it talks about people dying for their testimony of having witnessed the resurrected Jesus. I can't think of any right now. I am referring to historical accounts outside of the Bible (extra-biblical).

69. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131813 by Shrommer on February 23, 2008 at 11:20 am

I literally just finished laughing out loud!

Goldy is trying to tell me that the Westboro Baptists follow a homophobic god, and that if my God is not homophobic, then I am not really a Christian.

What a load of codswallop!

Homosexuality can be a sexual orientation - a sexual preference, if you will - or it can refer to specific homosexual acts. The first is a temptation, the second is a sin. The Bible says that Jesus was tempted in all the same ways we are, yet was without sin. It is very probable that Jesus experienced sexual desires for other men in his fleshly body, yet he never succumbed to lust or immorality. Every heterosexual also knows what it is like to be tempted to sin sexually, yet there are ways to resist those tempations.

Sex in God's way is for married couples - male with female, female with male.

Sex outside of marriage is sinful for the homosexual and for the heterosexual. God does not discriminate, and he does not hate or fear anyone because of the particular nature of their temptations, whether they are tempted sexually, or to drink to much alcohol, or to lie, or to be violent, or to gossip and slander, etc. He paid the price for the sins of the whole world, not just for one kind of sinner. He loves the whole world, even while we are still sinners. He makes no distinction in this.

70. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131808 by Shrommer on February 23, 2008 at 11:13 am

One of the problems with the history of Christianity in the west is that it exclusively focuses on the Greco-Roman world and then the Roman Catholic Church. I find it much more fascinating to read of the history of Christianity from the first few centuries in India, in Egypt, in Syria, etc. I recommend studying the history of Christianity "East of the Euphrates" which has little or nothing to do with Paul (Saul of Tarsus), nothing to do with Roman Catholicism, and little or nothing to do with the New Testament.

71. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131807 by Shrommer on February 23, 2008 at 11:10 am

I edited the Goldy comment I wrote to read "he". Sorry. I thought I was being gender-neutral, but I slipped.

72. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131804 by Shrommer on February 23, 2008 at 11:04 am

Three things about Islam's origins:

1 - Only one person claimed to have the revelation found in the Koran. They were not hundreds of eyewitness testimonies all in agreement. His revelation was not to a culture or a nation; just to one man. (The same is true of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.)

2 - Belief in the Koran as a divine revelation was spread through use of the sword. Many people had the options of either dying by the sword, or assenting to a religious belief in the Koran and in Mohammed as a prophet. This is in stark contrast to how belief in Jesus' resurrection spread. With the resurrection, people had the options of either dying by the sword, or renouncing their belief in the resurrection they had witnessed. When people decided NOT to save their lives at the expense of their testimony, more people saw that and freely decided that their testimony must be true.

Mohammed said "Believe or die", and they chose to live. Persecuters of "The Way" said "Believe or live", and they chose to die.

3 - Converts to Islam were moving from animism and idolatry to monotheism, moving from a falsehood to a truth. It is much easier to get someone to move from a falsehood to a truth than it is to get people to move from a truth to a falsehood. Most believers in Christ (Jews) had to move from monotheism (an established truth) to the belief in a God-man co-existing, co-equal, and co-eternal with God the Father. This is a much more difficult jump in beliefs, especially since they still remained monotheists. It is much harder to take on a belief in something that makes less sense than it is to take on a belief in something that makes more sense. They didn't change beliefs because belief in Christ made more sense to them; they simply believed because it was true (the resurrection being the paramount evidence).

73. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131640 by Shrommer on February 22, 2008 at 8:46 pm

Luke 13, NIV

This is Jesus talking to a culture that disdained homosexuality.

1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on themâ€"do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

6 Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

8 " 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.' "

74. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131639 by Shrommer on February 22, 2008 at 8:42 pm

God is not discriminating against people when our destruction of His benign order of things ends up coming right back and destroying us. (answering post 237). It is only by His mercy that we are not all likewise consumed.

75. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131637 by Shrommer on February 22, 2008 at 8:33 pm

Steve writes in post 216:

"We see it as the opposite, because we are understanding the mechanisms. Those mechanisms require no creator. ... The laws have no need for being ordained and enforced. Much physical law is based on simple mathematical principles like symmetry. No need for God to concentrate really hard all the time to keep them working."

That proves my point exactly from post 213:

"Atheists see it exactly the opposite. It's very subjective."

To say that those mechanisms and laws require no Creator is a belief statement, a "religious" or "philosophical" statement, if you will. It is not the kind of statement that you can prove scientifically, but is entirely subjective and based on the individual observer's private conclusions. One person thinks that they prove a God behind it all, another thinks that it disproves God.

By the way, I don't portray God as one who has to "concentrate really hard all the time" to keep them working, any more than we have to concentrate really hard all the time to keep our hearts beating or our cells multiplying. Our brain keeps those bodily systems running, and God keeps the universe running.

One person sees our heart beating and says, "See, it beats. That proves there is no brain making it work. It follow a very regular and predicatble, quantifiable pattern, and we understand how it works." Another person sees the heart beating and says, "See, it keeps on beating like that. There must be a brain somewhere that keeps it going and makes it follow this quantifiable and understandable pattern."

76. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131636 by Shrommer on February 22, 2008 at 8:25 pm

I just wanted to make another comment on the main topic of this thread: the "That's not my religion" argument.

Edmund Standing takes aim at the Nicene Creed, and yes, that is a Christian Creed, and yes, the Archbishop Rowan Williams believe that Creed.

So, when the Archbishop wrote that he did not recognize his religion in the "new atheists'" writings, he was not referring to their criticisms of the Nicene Creed or the basic tenets of faith of Christianity. That pretty much renders the whole of Standing's article to be moot.

Standing mentions God inciting "brutality, war crimes, genocide, and rape". Those are items that do not reflect Christianity in the least. The Nicene Creed does not attribute these horrors to God, and neither does Jesus or the Church.

While it is very true that these crimes have been committed in God's name, in the name of Christianity, or the Church, etc., and by people claiming to be Christians, THESE are the types of things that true Christians are coming out and saying, "That's not my Christianity" or "That's not the Jesus I know". (Point must be made, not everyone who says this is a true Christian just be virtue of making that distancing statement; on the other hand, many true Christians are speaking out and making that statement, and that's what I'm talking about.}

77. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131635 by Shrommer on February 22, 2008 at 8:15 pm

Steve posted in 216:

"You see, there have been many myths of resurrection; Dionysis, Mithras, Jesus. Why stop at just one?"

Why believe any of the myths? I don't think we should. We should be able to weigh the evidence to distinguish between myths and historical fact. Jesus' resurrection is historically verifiable with multitudes of witnesses who preferred to die for the truth of the record of what they had seen and heard; the myths are mere inventions of people's imaginations.

The inventor of the tale of Dionysis was not willing to die to prove the "truth" of the tale, and even if he/she were, the tale would have died with that one person. The resurrection of Christ was based on a multitude of eyewitnesses, and no, not as in the Edmund Standing article where he says that "only believers" saw Jesus resurrected. The Roman guards who were at the tomb were not believers, and yet they saw and heard what happened.

You've also got at least 8,000 Jewish non-believers becoming believers within a week or two of the ascension (about 50 days after the resurrection, and about 10 days after the last people saw the risen Christ), and that just doesn't happen based on human nature. That's not the way myths get started or spread.

If you think it's really that easy, try to find 500 eyewitnesses of the Flying Spaghuetti Monster to choose death over a change in their testimony, and then try to get 8,000 people's entire belief system changed and even contradicting conventional science just based on the testimony of those 500. It's not so easy as the atheists make it sound. In fact, without an actual true event, it's totally impossible.

This is what was meant when Christopher Hitchens quoted the "impossibility argument" in the Four Horsemen video. The belief was not because the resurrection was ridiculous, but because it was so impossible that for 8,500 people to believe in it a mere fifty days after the event, it had to be true!

78. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131634 by Shrommer on February 22, 2008 at 8:01 pm

Steve wrote in post 219:

"The resurrection does not add to science - it would destroy it."

I am thinking of science defined as our knowledge and understanding of the universe and the laws that govern it. The resurrection gives us one more piece of evidence to account for when we seek to understand the laws that govern the universe. Besides understanding the laws that we know from repeatable experiments, we learn a new law that there can be exceptions to the regular laws of nature. When we learn that, we are gaining knowledge and becoming better scientists.

There are two alternatives: we could find a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection of Christ, or we could refuse to believe our sensory observations if they point to the resurrection (i.e. dismiss the evidence as irrational based on it not fitting our pre-existing paradigm).

79. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131633 by Shrommer on February 22, 2008 at 7:55 pm

In post 216 Steve wrote:

"I mentioned the milk-drinking statues for two reasons. First, because it shows how people can misinterpret simple physical phenomena for the miraculous, and second because it contradicts your religion. If you assume that this was miraculous, then you are going to have to assume that there are either other gods at work, or your god is playing tricks."

I believe that it could be a good demonstration of how people misinterpret natural phenomena for the miraculous. I would assume that for a miracle to be a miracle it would need to be a physical phenomenon, so it's not a matter of mistaking a physical phenomenon for a miracle, but rather a natural phenomenon for a supernatural one.

I also agree that it could be the work of other "gods" in the sense of other supernatural beings. Supernatural occurrences apart from God do not contradict my religion. I believe that there are supernatural beings at work in our world other than God, mainly Satan and his demons. When Jesus cast the demons out of the man and they went into the pigs, and then the pigs ran off the cliff, the pigs running off the cliff was a supernatural event caused by demons, not by God. Demons can be responsible for milk-drinking statues, appearances of Mary or of angels, etc.

What is illogical about your statements, Steve, is that you write about the milk-drinking statues as if it were BOTH evidence of a simple natural phenomena AND evidence that other gods are causing it AT THE SAME TIME.

If it's evidence of how people mistake simple things for supernatural things, then it doesn't run any challenge to Christianity at all. Christianity is not about being gullible and stupid, but requires healthy and intelligent/critical analysis and evaluation. Any good Christian is very aware of people making mistakes and jumping to wrong conclusions.

If it's evidence that other powers are at work besides God, then I follow your point, but you can't say that this example shows both things at the same time. It's not both an example of other powers at work AND an example of other powerful beings besides God. At any rate, if it is another powerful being besides God, that does not contradict my religion anyway.

80. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131631 by Shrommer on February 22, 2008 at 7:39 pm

In post 210 I stated my position about two things that are sinful:

1 - homosexual acts
2 - homophobic discrimination

Goldy in post 222 really confuses me when he says that my calling homophobic discrimination a sin makes me sound like a homophobe. I don't get it, but it's probably just that Goldy didn't get it.

My view of why homophobia is sinful is not because I don't like it, it's because God loves and accepts homosexuals and does not discriminate against anyone.

For God there are only two types of people: those whose names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life (who have been forgiven when they placed their trust in Jehovah), and those who are still damned because they are rejecting God's pardon.

Nobody is any more or any less of a sinner in the big scheme of things. It's like building a ladder from here to the next galaxy (from our behavior to God's perfect standard) and comparing a ladder 1" tall on the earth's surface with a ladder 1.1" tall on the earth's surface. The difference between one person's sin and another's is negligible when the goal is to be holy as God is holy. Both ladders fall far short of reaching the next galaxy.

Homophobic discrimination is completely contrary to God's nature, as He shows no partiality.

In post 212 Steve asked for proof of (1) being sinful, and I pointed out how odd it is that nobody asked for proof of (2) being sinful as well. If either of the two are sinful it is either based on God's self-revelation, or else just based on people's opinions and tastes.

As far as my actual answer, the definition of sin, as far as I am concerned, is our falling short of God's standard and receiving eternal death (hell) as a result. God's view of sin is the only valid view of what constitutes sin. The Bible states that in one man Adam we all sinned.

There is no way, then, for me to show that something is sin based on my own logic. I have to appeal to what God has revealed.

81. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #128600 by Shrommer on February 17, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Funny how nobody is asking me for evidence why homophobic discrimination is sinful other than because God said so.

God is impartial to sinners, and impartial to saints. Sinners have no hope apart from Christ, and all saints are made into saints because of what Christ did. If it were only up to us, we'd all burn in hell as sinners. Praise God for His amazing grace!

82. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #128592 by Shrommer on February 17, 2008 at 12:33 pm

By no means do I want to overturn all of science since Galileo, nor even any science. Science stands as it stands, and I am glad for it. The resurrection adds to our science, and is one more thing that we know about scientifically in addition to everything else we know about our universe. Everything that people can physically observe and reach rational conclusions about is science.

83. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #128586 by Shrommer on February 17, 2008 at 12:28 pm

History is not just about old books. Oral tradition plays a large part also. Any long history of resurrection myths is understood to be just that - mythological accounts. Myths are different from historical and factual testimony.

You could take the New Testament away from the equation, and still have the truth of the resurrection of Jesus sustained by the testimonies passed on from eyewitnesses to others down through the ages. The written record only makes it easier to believe, based on the dating of the accounts.

84. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #128584 by Shrommer on February 17, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Steve Zara,

I went back to your post 199 again, and I read the milk-drinking statues webpage again. I am not sure why you are so interested in that account.

Some people have seen statues drinking milk and then they filmed it to have a scientific record of it. So what? There is no conclusive explanation for it yet. Maybe one day there will be. I don't understand why it is on a website about supernatural occurrences - hasn't this occurred in nature? It's very odd to be sure, and not what we are used to, but does that alone qualify it as supernatural? We have only recently figured out what makes geckos stick, or the real explanation for the aurora borealis, so does that mean that up until the 21st century these phenomena were supernatural?

Along with most theists, I believe that the regularity and predictability of observable phenomena is a greater evidence for the existence of God than the unexpected surprises we find in nature. Atheists see it exactly the opposite. It's very subjective.

For me the whole scientific adventure has purpose because God commissioned it, and has results because God sustains the universe by natural laws that He ordained and enforces.

85. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #128567 by Shrommer on February 17, 2008 at 11:58 am

I'd like to comment on the "It's not my religion you're criticizing" concept. I believe that God has criticized his Jewish and Christian religions very pointedly, and that Hitchens and the new atheists are echoing many of those same criticisms. The pope (is not my "pope") already has Jesus criticizing him , and the pope takes no notice, so I don't see why he should take notice of me, who's not even a Roman Catholic. I was saved by Jesus out of Roman Catholicism, and I am so glad!

Homosexual acts ARE sinful, but so is homophobic discrimination, and the one type of sin is no worse or better than the other.

Adam and Eve and the flood story are far from demonstrably false. They are extremely plausible, and fit in with much of the evidence. Other evidence seems to conflict with the stories. Nobody is going to have perfect evidence for everything, so you have to decide for yourself what to believe and what not to. Are you willing to believe one version of human origins and deal with its set of conflicting evidence, or would you rather believe in another version of human origins and deal with its set of conflicting evidence? If all the evidence only pointed to one story, then we would all believe the same thing.

86. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #128565 by Shrommer on February 17, 2008 at 11:52 am

What we "know" about physics and biology must be wrong when we have direct observations of the opposite to deal with. We can't create our own facts to fit the science. We must make a science that accounts for the observable facts.

87. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #128556 by Shrommer on February 17, 2008 at 11:35 am

I am not trying to build a case for the historicity of Jesus. The case has already been built. Some people find it convincing, others do not. Some think there is sufficient evidence, others call it insufficient. It is a matter of weighing the evidence and each person coming to their own conclusions.

What I am calling a lie is when the new atheists say that Christians believe without evidence or want others to believe without evidence.

As many have already posted on here, we know nothing with 100% certainty, especially when it comes to the future. Our decisions need to be based on what we consider to be sufficient evidence, and not on absolute certainty.

We can never buy a new car with absolute certainty that it will run. But it would be foolish to criticize someone buying a reputable model from a reputable dealer for believing the car would be a good one with no evidence. When thousands of people are already driving that model with no problems, and you've done your test drive, and it comes with "guarantees", most people conclude that there is sufficient evidence to convince them it is safe to buy one.

How much evidence is enough? Different people need different degrees and types of evidence to be convinced. Just because people are convinced by different types and degrees of evidence does not give us the right to say that everyone whose criteria differs from ours is buying "with no evidence".

There is a thousand times less historical evidence for the account in Matthew of the graves opening up than there is for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Christianity is not built on how true the New Testament is. There were thousands of Christians long before the New Testament was written, and there were tens of thousands of Christians east of the Euphrates who probably never even heard of our four gospels that are found in the Bible. They heard firsthand from witnesses of the resurrected Jesus as those people traveled to tell the news to others.

Having some things down in writing helps to keep the story from undergoing changes along the way, but the story does not depend on the written accounts for its truth. It depends on the observations of material witnesses and what they told their families and communities.

The Matthew account of the graves was a one-day occurrence. Nobody is reported to have eaten with the ghosts they saw. Nobody knows who those dead people were by name, and it is hard to say if any of them were even recognizable. I personally know of no record of those sightings other than a verse or two in the book of Matthew.

The record of the resurrection of Jesus is entirely different.

Again, I am not trying to prove to you that he rose. Just don't be so intolerant and narrow-minded as to say that I believe in Jesus' resurrection without evidence.

88. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #128550 by Shrommer on February 17, 2008 at 11:12 am

Is Dawkins properly introduced as a scientist?

I don't know much about Dawkins' record, if he is currently publishing anything in peer-reviewed scientific journals, for instance, but if he is, no talk show seems to be interested. They are never asking him questions of a scientific nature, and Dawkins is never presenting things within the realm of science on these programs. Introducing him as a scientist is merely a parenthetical biographical detail about the man, like if he were a horseback-rider or if he liked Chinese food, but it does tell you that he's probably a pretty rational and bright fellow.

The things Dawkins says about science are not within the realm of science, but are metascience - above science. He talks about science as something within his philosophy, and basically presents us a philosophy of science: namely that the only truths worth discussing or that we can claim knowledge of are scientific truths. If something can not be repeatedly verified by any and every living observer willing and able to recreate the same set of conditions, it is relegated to the realm of fiction. The only important things to know are things of a scientific nature.

Having said that, Dawkins goes way beyond this simple philosophy, and in opposition to his own philosoply, he makes philosophical statements about reality which cannot be scientifically verified. Examples of this are that Dawkins wants everyone to have an appreciation of human culture and achievement, and that we should all be awed by the amazing universe we live in and treat the unknowable things as a god. Even better and more concrete examples of this are that Dawkins believes it is good for living species to survive and to procreate, especially the human species. He thinks the earth is worth caring about, and knowledge is worth finding out about.

There is no scientific experiment one can do to find out the worth of knowledge or the value of life. There is no scientific experiment we can do to conclude that it is good for a person to survive or to procreate, or that it is good for any life to survive or procreate. Not every objective observer can see the evidence of our universe and conclude that it would be bad for mankind to be wiped out, or for all life to cease to exist.

Dawkins is much more of a philosopher (author, atheist) than a scientist when he goes on the talk shows, or when he is doing anything to speak against religion or to further atheism. He is going into the "shoulds" and "should nots" of human behavior and thinking. This is the realm of morality, and is completely subjective, mere opinion. Nothing about science can ever prove what we should or should not do, how we should or should not think, etc.

Without morality, we are left with only "what is". Science is limited to what is, and cannot inform us about what should be. "What is", all by itself, is of interest to nearly nobody.

When we talk about "avoiding the real arguments", we could say that Dawkins is avoiding the real arguments by not sticking to science, or we could call the real arguments arguments about atheism. I think Dawkins is making the real arguments about atheism. He is not always open to hearing the real arguments about historical evidence or other types of evidence which science cannot prove.

89. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #128542 by Shrommer on February 17, 2008 at 10:51 am

jac12358:

I have no idea why you think I might be trolling. I am posting on topic, not avoiding any questions, ... and just what is the "our point" that you think you are making?

I went back to your post #109. The overall topic question is "Are the new atheists avoiding the real arguments?" Within that topic you post several questions:

Is Dawkins properly introduced as a scientist when he appears on talk shows? Is it biased of Dawkins to give so much attention to Christianity when there are so many religions in the world?

I will come back and give you some of my thoughts on this, but I want to make sure that my posts are working, first. I tried to answer all this last night, and it got lost somewhere in cyberspace.

90. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124637 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 11:10 pm

How would you get 8,000 people to vote for someone who doesn't exist, then have that person take office for three years and supposedly have visited hundreds of cities in 5 counties, performed many miracles during those three years, made thousands of great speeches, and have 8,000 confirm it after those three years, with millions talking about this as a historical event a few hundred years later, when the person never really existed or did any of those things? Especially in an age when everybody knew everybody else in their towns, and they all got their information by word of mouth without television or news media?

Everybody would be saying, "He never came here. We never saw him." "Neither did we." "Do you really believe he did or said THAT?"

91. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124628 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 11:00 pm

You won't have a million people believing that Spiderman is real during the hundred years since the comic was created. That's because people know he is fiction. We lived in all the big cities in America during the 20th Century and nobody ever saw the real Spiderman do anything amazing.

So how do you think that a million people came to believe in the resurrected Jesus during the first century without anything special happening and without any eyewitnesses telling the news to others?

You never would have had people believing in a public three-year event over a whole region of the earth like Palestine, if the event were merely somebody's fictional comic book story. (I don't mean that the believers were all over Palestine. I mean that the event was all over Palestine. It was not in a tiny time or a tiny space.)

92. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124623 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 10:54 pm

"There is no historical evidence outside of Scripture."

Hmm, when it was written it was not written as Holy Scripture and was not written as part of a Bible. It was simply written as historical accounts.

And then we take the four best historical accounts and put them together into one book (and there are other historical accounts, but none as thorough or accurate as these four) - oops! Big mistake! We should have only included one as Scripture, because then the other three would count as historical accounts apart from Scripture.

By putting the four together, Christianity lost the chance to have any lengthy "outside" corraborative sources.

How in the world could you get 8,000 Jews to believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God like what happened in the first few years after the resurrection, unless there really was a resurrection? These are the people who earlier had him crucified for blasphemy!

93. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124617 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 10:48 pm

John was most certainly an eyewitness.

94. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124615 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 10:45 pm

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John are four separate books. The discrepancies among the books show that there was not collusion. The similarities show that there is a core truth. These are the best sources, but yes, there are others, also. I've mentioned some before.

Anybody can write a book, but these four are significant because of when they were written. The people described were still around to say that the account was true or false, and if they weren't, their kids and others could either say that it was so or that it wasn't. It was a whole region of Palestine that witnessed these things, not just believers, and not just a few people.

The four books were only included into one collection a few hundred years after they were written.

If those four weren't enough, there are about another score in the New Testament, and then we also have the history of what is not written about in the Bible at all, like an eyewitness who traveled to India and the appearance of believers all in different parts east of Palestine who are never even addressed in the Western Church writings.

95. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124610 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 10:36 pm

Sharon, I think we've hit the nail on the head!

This is the "real argument" that the new atheists are avoiding, and that is exactly what this forum topic is all about.

What the new atheists need to address with Christians is why they think that historical evidence is really no evidence at all. What they have been addressing is the question of religious people who believe with no evidence. Most of us Christians do not identify with that "believing without evidence" quality that so many religious people seem to have, and we believe in science and reason. The difference is that we consider history to be reasonable, and atheists do not.

96. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124604 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 10:28 pm

See comment 110 again, too.

Historical evidence does not convince some people, but others of us are convinced by it. When historical evidence is not convincing, it's because people can always say that what is recorded in history may not be true at all anyway, or that it doesn't really have any effect on today.

97. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124602 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 10:25 pm

I gave supply in comment 133 and you already said it doesn't convince you.

98. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124597 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 10:18 pm

My purpose is the topic of this thread. The evidence I'm talking about is what Martin Luther King Jr. believed, compared to Hitchens' charge that organized religion brings on bigotry and hatred.

Yes, you can say that MLK was not part of organized religion, but that is a very good point - most or all true Christians are not on the side of organized religion, but stand with Hitchens against it, and we view Jesus as one who also stood with Hitchens against it.

That's my purpose, Sharon. Not to convince you of what I believe, but to point out why Rowan Williams and many of us Christians do not recognize the religion that the new atheists are talking about as our own.

The testimony I want you to hear is what many Christians are saying now, then compare it to what the new atheists are saying. The proof is that we say what we say, and that the new atheists say what they say. Read Hitchens' book for yourself if you don't believe me that he wrote it, and read the words of many of us Christians for yourself if you don't believe that we don't recognize our faith when we read the way he describes it.

For the last time tonight, Hitchens and any of you is perfectly in the right to say "That type if evidence does not convince me, and I would need this type of evidence to convince me." That kind of statement is valid and reasonable.

What the new atheists are saying, however, is that Christians do not have any evidence or that we believe the opposite of what the evidence tells us. That kind of statement is unreasonable and inappropriate.

99. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124591 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 10:07 pm

The title here is "Are the 'New Atheists' Avoiding the Real Arguments?"

That is what I am going on about, not about whether God exists or not, or whether Christianity or the Bible are true or not.

The religion that Hitchens says is poisonous and we shouldn't believe in is already the religion that we are standing against.

Now, on your subjects, I'll just say this, then yes, I must sign off:

Jesus was told that he should perform some miracles for his contemporaries on different occasions, in order to prove that he was the Son of God. He told them he would give them one: his resurrection. That's what he did; someone came back from the dead and told us about it, (Chispita).

If you don't want stuff out of the Bible, ask God for your miracle, not me, (Diakanu). He's big enough to take care of Himself on that end. I'll pray with you for a miracle in your life, and if you're missing a limb or a hand or foot, yes, in Jesus' name we'll grow it back, but not to prove something to you, just out of compassion so you can have a blessing in your life, because God loves you and he wants you whole!

Even people who have experienced and seen miracles have not decided to repent and place their trust in Christ. It's still a heart issue, not a matter of sensory evidence.

100. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #124588 by Shrommer on February 9, 2008 at 9:57 pm

If you have time, here are some more writers who also think that Hitchens' accusations against religion are much more the way Jesus and true Christians see things.



http://www.crosswalk.com/books/11540028/


http://www.christianitytoday.com/books/features/bookwk/070430.html


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10890


Hitchens' take on Christianity is that we are out there committing these crimes and acting all religious. He thinks that all of Christianity is "organized religion".

Really, Christianity stands with Hitchens in confronting and rebuking the crimes and stupidity. Real Christians are not religious, but stand with Jesus in upsetting religious people. We point to faith in Jehovah, who is much better than what we could ever imagine or attain to. "God is love, and the one who dwells in love, dwells in God, and God in him," wrote St. John. (The word love here is a special type of love called "agape" in the Greek, not the kinds of loves that Cartomancer wrote about earlier.)