David Mathews

Hello Steven,

I wrote that to a specific atheist, an individual who was well known for his bold advocacy of atheism. I delivered it to him directly, face to face.

I was not writing about you or anyone else on this bulletin board.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Echo

I'm not really sure that a person who believes in God could provide scientific proof of that claim, since science deals with discovering facts about the natural world; God, presumably, is somehow outside of or apart from the natural world and thus cannot be picked up on science's radar screen.

But would you at least say that a person who believes in the existence of a god and is attempting to persuade another party that this claim is true is obligated to provide some arguments in support of that claim? Otherwise, what reasons would the other person have for thinking your claim to be true?

Steven Carr

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/adhx2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/adhx2.htm</a> if people want to see what you wrote and who your intended audience was.

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]</p>

Steven Carr

Why then did you preface the page 'Part 12: Addressed to Atheists'

David Mathews

Hello Echo,

I don't believe that a person who believes in a god is obligated to do anything, much less prove the claim. I also don't believe that anyone is obligated to believe that claim is true.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Stephen,

The documents that you are reading originally were printed on paper and hand delivered to those people to whom it was given. That occurred long before the documents were posted on my home page.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

madmax2976

Yes, I agree. There is no such "obligation". It would be strange to provide "scientific proof" for a belief in any case. I for one don't believe in any God, but I wouldn't even consider providing anyone with scientific proof that this is the case. They can believe me or not, its up to them.

Having been an ardent believer in the biblical God once, I have no problem accepting as fact that others do believe it exists. I just don't happen to agree that such belief is warranted.

If those who believe in a God wish to leave it there and just agree to disagree, thats just fine with me. However, if they instead insist that I should believe as they do, if they instead insist that it is unreasonable to hold the position I do, or if they otherwise attempt to convince me that their belief is more likely to be true, then I will demand evidence and arguments to support such claims. Mere assertions will not do.

Now it just so happens that the scientific method has demonstrated itself to be the most reliable methodology for discerning truth from non-truth. Its tremendous success testifies to that fact, regardless of whatever failings it does have. If a believer starts off by lowering the standard of evidence, thats going to send off some immediate warning signals, particularly if their claims are extraordinary ones.

I personally think this is where many theisms suffer the most. They make extraordinary claims, but offer only the most modest of evidences and arguments. I think many of them could improve the rationality of their position greatly by being less adamant regarding their claims. There simply isn't sufficient evidence to warrant the dogmatic belief in deities that some hold. They should "mellow out" so to speak.

This is why I can respect the Deist position. There's no insistence that others should believe in the deity as well. No threats of eternal torture are implied. No bungling of evolutionary theory is attempted in order to protect the value of any holy writings. No befuddling theological concepts like the Trinity need to be conceived or defended. No inconsistencies need to be hand waved over with twisted logics. Its far more reasonable than a great many other types of theisms, if not all others. Of course it still lacks convincing evidence, but as it doesn't seek to convince me, thats okay.

Steven Carr

Especially as atheists can just use Mathews reasoning in

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/islam.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/islam.htm</a>

and just declare miracle stories false, legend and invented by a creative imagination.

Mathews writes about Muslim stories :-
'Needless to say, the legend is false, and the gospel is filled with similar absurd stories about Jesus which were all invented by a particularly creative imagination'

yet he has the cheek to say that atheists deny miracles out of pure dogma, and for no other reason.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/adh9.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/adh9.htm</a>

He writes 'Too many times atheist exclude the possibility of miracles and deny the Bible's history because they have dogmatically accepted the proposition that God does not exist. If you deny God's existence, you must deny the possibility of miracles. Once you deny the possibility of miracles, it does not matter how much evidence is presented, you will still not believe it.'

Why does he think that atheists lack the ability to apply the same reasoning skills to the Bible that he applies to the Quran and the apocryphal Gospels?

Why does he declare that atheists are closed-minded when he himself just dismisses miracle stories from other religions simply because they are not in the Bible?

David Mathews

Hello Stephen,

I am fully aware of the reasons why atheists might reject Biblical miracles. I am aware of the many historical and textual criticisms of the Bible which are known to scholars.

You have to make decisions based upon evidence which matter to you. In my view, you have every right to conclude whatever you wish about the existence of God or gods.

If the reasons why I reject the Qur'an as inspired are sufficient to convince you that the Bible is also not inspired, you are allowed (in my view) to reach that conclusion.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

David: To begin with, I am well aware that Peter lied. Peter's character flaws are evident in the gospels, in the book of Acts and also in Paul's letter to the Galatians.

Secondarily, I found your article on miracles very interesting. Parallels between Old and New Testament are not necessarily plagiarisms. Historians and authors often draw parallels between present events and historical events. That's a common custom even today.

Sincerely,

David Mathews