Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Atticus_Finch · 06-12-2002, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sidewinder:


I'm guessing that many non-theists on this board (perhaps not all)would concede your point that it's possible that a god exists, and I count myself among those who allow for the possibility that a god exists. I think the major disagreement is over the assertion that the Christian God is the god of the universe. I agree with you that it comes down to how one evaluates the evidence for the Christian religion. My question to you is why is it necessary to prove a theory of how the universe came to exist? It's possible humans may never be able to plainly know how the universe came to exist. Does this mean that in the absence of this knowledge, we should all believe in the Christian God? Finally, you've said that you've examined the evidence for Christianity and you believe it's the absolute truth. Have you fully examined the evidence for Islam and concluded that it's not the absolute truth?

No I do not think that the absence of evidence regarding the creation of the universe should lead you to Christianity. I only think that it should lead you to consider the existence of God and Christianity. I have always found the question of first cause to be the necessary starting point for discussion with an atheist.

While I have examined Islam and found it wanting, I do not think that I need to examine every faith in order to conclude that Christianity is correct. Christianity claims to be the exclusive means by which one can commune with God. Therefore, if it is true and exclusive, then no further inquiry is necessary. Now before a chorus of complaints about closedmindedness erupts, I personally enjoy the challenge of critcally examining Christianity and comparing it to other religions and will continue to do so.

Regards,

Finch

Atticus_Finch · 06-12-2002, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiahjones:


I'm puzzled as to why so many Christians perceive requests for evidence and/or clarification of misleading analogies as "arrogance."

Especially puzzling, for obvious reasons, is that an attorney would consider a request for evidence "arrogance." Evidence, as to the scientist, is your meat and potatoes, no?

The arrogance of which I speak is not in the request for evidence but rather in the conclusion that since we interpret the evidence differently that I must be irrational. I am an attorney and am very interested in evidence.

Regards,

Finch

hezekiah jones · 06-12-2002, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:
The arrogance of which I speak is not in the request for evidence but rather in the conclusion that since we interpret the evidence differently that I must be irrational.

I see the word "irrational" mentioned once previously in this thread, by Stephen, with a view to suggesting that there may or should be a line of demarcation between the rational and the irrational. I'm not sure he concluded that you were irrational.

Would you not agree that numerous Christian conclusions are based on facially irrational assumptions? Or is your own Christianity and all that it subsumes thoroughly rational?

RufusAtticus · 06-12-2002, 11:51 AM

Finch,

Faith is belief in something without evidence or in spite of evidence.

You appear to be entertaining a radical notion of faith, while not changing the basic nature of your faith. You appear to be envious of evidence and logic and desire to apply that ex post facto to your faith. That's the same reasons why Creationists assert that their "biblically-based" creation mythology is scientificly sound.

You have faith in God and you tell yourself that there is evidence to justify that faith. You are wrong to claim that there is evidence to support your faith, because it wouldn't be faith anymore.

I noticed that you didn't respond to my claims about Romulus. Can I take it that you agree with me about his divinity? After all, there is just as much evidence if not more for Romulus than there is for Jesus.

~~RvFvS~~

Atticus_Finch · 06-12-2002, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
Finch,

Faith is belief in something without evidence or in spite of evidence.

You appear to be entertaining a radical notion of faith, while not changing the basic nature of your faith. You appear to be envious of evidence and logic and desire to apply that ex post facto to your faith. That's the same reasons why Creationists assert that their "biblically-based" creation mythology is scientificly sound.

You have faith in God and you tell yourself that there is evidence to justify that faith. You are wrong to claim that there is evidence to support your faith, because it wouldn't be faith anymore.

I noticed that you didn't respond to my claims about Romulus. Can I take it that you agree with me about his divinity? After all, there is just as much evidence if not more for Romulus than there is for Jesus.

~~RvFvS~~

I did respond to your claims about Romulus. You failed to identify any eyewitness account of his ascension as I recall.

You define "faith" differently than I do. I believe I clearly articulated my understanding of the Christian faith in my original post. I am no more envious of evidence and reason than any of you are. Christianity has always been based on claims which are historically verifiable. I believe that is one aspect which makes it unique among the major religions.

Regards,

Finch

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Atticus_Finch ]

Nat · 06-12-2002, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Christianity has always been based on claims which are historically verifiable. I believe that is one aspect which makes it unique among the major religions.

Actually there were far more witnesses to the life of Mohammed than Jesus - and far more historical documentation - much of it written during his lifetime, unlike Jesus.

But I don't really even see what the validity of Christianity has to do with a creationism/evolution debate.

Cheers

sidewinder · 06-12-2002, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:


No I do not think that the absence of evidence regarding the creation of the universe should lead you to Christianity. I only think that it should lead you to consider the existence of God and Christianity. I have always found the question of first cause to be the necessary starting point for discussion with an atheist.

Ok, I've admitted that I think it's possible for a god to exist. However, I have yet to see one shred of evidence that any god exists. I cannot accept the Bible as evidence of the Christian God because the Bible is filled with errors and contradictions. It's not possible that an all-perfect god could inspire this kind of book.

Quote:

While I have examined Islam and found it wanting, I do not think that I need to examine every faith in order to conclude that Christianity is correct. Christianity claims to be the exclusive means by which one can commune with God. Therefore, if it is true and exclusive, then no further inquiry is necessary. Now before a chorus of complaints about closedmindedness erupts, I personally enjoy the challenge of critcally examining Christianity and comparing it to other religions and will continue to do so.

Regards,

Finch

If you're interested in knowing the absolute truth then you should examine all claims to absolute truth to determine which one is correct. If you don't do this, then you are not interested in knowing the absolute truth.

RufusAtticus · 06-12-2002, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus_Finch:
I did respond to your claims about Romulus. You failed to identify any eyewitness account of his ascension as I recall.

Read my second post where I refer to eyewitness accounts, and reply to the evidence.

~~RvFvS~~

06-12-2002, 12:44 PM

Atticus: you seem to think that because you have come to a particular conclusion based on your evaluation of certain evidence that faith has nothing to do with it.But from what frame of mind did you start your evaluation? I think it very unlikely that you did not start from a position of xian belief.

I have never been a signed up member of any religion. When I started to look seriously at various religious beliefs in my mid teens, I really didn't know where I would end up. I was merely a seeker. But in the end I found nothing to convince me.

You say:

Quote:

Until you have a proven theory of how the universe came into being, or that it has always existed, you must accept the possibility that God exists.

Certainly, most people who call themselves atheists will accept such a possibility, but we don't necessarily assign it a meaningful probability. As I and others have pointed out, we don't desperately need a proven theory of how the universe came into being. In the absence of one, we are not obliged to accept the truth of the existence of any god, let alone the xian one. It's merely a possibility that floating around out there with lots of other possibilities like my giant farting titan.

Sidewinder spoke for me when he said:

Quote:

I think the major disagreement is over the assertion that the Christian God is the god of the universe

To many of us it seems an enormous and almost unbridgeable gap between acceptance of the bare possibility of an intelligent creator and all the baggage associated with the tribal god of the OT.

You also claim:

Quote:

Christianity has always been based on claims which are historically verifiable. I believe that is one aspect which makes it unique among the major religions

I'm really not sure what you mean by this bold statement. Do you also mean that the claims are falsifiable?

In any case, what do you make of this well-known claim by Ernest Renan about islam?

Quote:

"The birth of Islam is ... a unique and invaluable fact. ...In place of the mystery under which the other religions have covered their origins this one was born in the full light of history; its roots are on the surface. The life of its founder is as well known to us as that of any sixteenth-century reformer. We can follow year by year the fluctuations of his thought, his contradictions, his weaknesses. Elsewhere, the origins of religions are lost in dreams; the effort of the sharpest criticism is hardly enough to distinguish the real from under the misleading appearance of myths and legends. Islam, by contrast, born in the midst of advanced reflection, entirely lacks the supernatural. Muhammad, 'Umar, and 'Ali are neither seers, visionaries nor miracle workers. Each one knows very well what he is doing; none of them is fooling himself."

I am not saying that I agree with this either, but you really need to explain about this amazing evidence that the rest of us have missed.

RufusAtticus · 06-12-2002, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nat:
But I don't really even see what the validity of Christianity has to do with a creationism/evolution debate.

It really doesn't, so I'm going to finally move this to MRD.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-12-2002, 11:51 AM	#34
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Finch, Faith is belief in something without evidence or in spite of evidence. You appear to be entertaining a radical notion of faith, while not changing the basic nature of your faith. You appear to be envious of evidence and logic and desire to apply that ex post facto to your faith. That's the same reasons why Creationists assert that their "biblically-based" creation mythology is scientificly sound. You have faith in God and you tell yourself that there is evidence to justify that faith. You are wrong to claim that there is evidence to support your faith, because it wouldn't be faith anymore. I noticed that you didn't respond to my claims about Romulus. Can I take it that you agree with me about his divinity? After all, there is just as much evidence if not more for Romulus than there is for Jesus. ~~RvFvS~~

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.