Jamie_L

Dr S - I like this way of explaining things. It hits at the heart of the matter in a way that many debates miss.

Jamie

Dr S

(Jamie L) It hits at the heart of the matter in a way that many debates miss.

Thank you. The debates miss it for good reason. Xians turn away from this point instantly.
Vanderzyden isn't about to touch it. He is trying to twist around (Yes, and perhaps you'll agree that it is also possible for someone to desire to affirm their presuppositions, preferring comfort to truth. And in light of that possibility, it is also possible that people are "dishonestly mistaken") this same argument that was used in the Santa Clause thread.

One thing that I find humorous is what I call the "Throwing Out the Baby Jesus with the Bath Water" defense. When backed into a corner Xians will change their definitions of god. That just happened above when it was pointed out that the universe does not reflect the presence of a benevolent super-being. Suddenly "benevolence" has an obscure meaning.

It all has to do with the morality of being honest. It simply isn't possible to be evangelical and moral at the same time. Which is probably why they want you to think that they invented morality to begin with--so that you won't call they out their on obvious lies.

Vanderzyden

This response is characteristic of several others
Let's presume for a moment that clear physical pointers to God were indeed visible to human eyes: perhaps a neon sign in the heavens, pointing to the "Home of God". Furthermore, suppose that clear descriptions of God were listed in detail on the walls of Yosemite Valley (in the Hebrew, of course!). Two questions:

-- Would that be enough?
-- Would it still be possible that free agents (e.g. humans) could reject Him?

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

Thanks for a reply that is considerably more intelligible, Dr. S. I appreciate that you are willing to engage in clear, respectful dialogue!

Now, let me ask you: Have you ever told a true story? Tell me, what made it true, and what made it believable?

Perhaps you realize that the Bible is a historical set of documents. In addition to its spiritual value, it is used by some for purely secular historical research and corroboration. In fact, it is the most reliable ancient text by many orders of magnitude. Why, then, do you refer to it as a "magic book"?

Additional questions:

If you answer that parts of it true, and others not, then can you tell me what biblical text is acceptable?

If, in turn, part of your answer to the previous question is that miracles are impossible, then may I ask on what authority you make this claim?

Yet one more: If you have no authority upon which to rest, then why should we seriously consider your opinion?

Vanderzyden

Vibr8gKiwi

If there were clear evidence for a god, then very few would doubt his existence just like very few people doubt the existence of the Sun and Moon. Some might still reject reality, just like some might reject the existence of the Sun, however these would generally be whack-jobs, and those tend to have bigger problems (like dealing with being tied up in funny jackets).

When you consider how few question the reality of the Sun, and in fact how silly that thought even is, you'll see how far short the theists claims for a God existing fall.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]</p>

Vibr8gKiwi

Uh, perhaps because it contains magical, miraculous and mythical portions?

Which portions of the Homer's Odyssey are "acceptable?"

I'd ask the same of you only again referring to The Odyssey or other non-Christian work that portrays miracles as fact. Can we assume you only accept miraculous claims when they come from the Bible? Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to why you reject miraculous claims from thousands of other ancient (and even modern) writings?

Again I'm seeing that double standard at work here. We are not to be taken seriously when we doubt the miracle claims of thousands of old books, yet Vanderzyden himself doubts nearly as many (just one less).

At least the atheist is being consistant. It seems to me the burden here would be for Vanderzyden to explain why he makes the single exception.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]</p>

Dr S

(V) Dr. S. I appreciate that you are willing to engage in clear, respectful dialogue!
(S) My respect is purely conditional. If you present the ridiculous I reserve the right to ridicule it.

(V) Now, let me ask you: Have you ever told a true story? Tell me, what made it true, and what made it believable?
(S) What class of a game is this? Are you honestly saying that you don't know what truth is?

(V) Perhaps you realize that the Bible is a historical set of documents. In addition to its spiritual value, it is used by some for purely secular historical research and corroboration. In fact, it is the most reliable ancient text by many orders of magnitude. Why, then, do you refer to it as a "magic book"?
(S) Because it is basically a rehashing of the story of the Demi-god Mithra combined with incidents of the life of Dionysus cobbled onto a bastardized version of Judaism. Because there are no historic records of Jesus and his Apostles nor anyone who might be mistaken for them. How can you call it the most reliable ancient text when you can't demonstrate the historicity of the main characters?

(V) If you answer that parts of it true, and others not, then can you tell me what biblical text is acceptable?
(S) Acceptable as what? As myth a great deal is acceptable. As history it's laughable.

(V) If, in turn, part of your answer to the previous question is that miracles are impossible, then may I ask on what authority you make this claim?
(S) Authority? My own, Penn Gillette, Teller, James Randi, Harry Houdini and Eugenie Scott.

(V) If you have no authority upon which to rest, then why should we seriously consider your opinion?
(S) Why are you claiming miracles in the same section you are saying not to call the bible a magic book? Do you think there is a difference?

Vanderzyden

Dr. S,

Now we are back to silliness. So, let me be simple and explicit:

Have you ever told a true story?

The manner in which you answer will signal to me if you genuinely desire to participate or if you refuse to address what appear to be difficult questions for you. All indications are that we are wasting precious time--yours and mine.

Vanderzyden

HRG

It would come pretty close.

My personal example of a convincing proof would be the first 1 million decimal digits of pi - at the beginning of the text of Genesis.

Of course, if they oppose his character, his ideas of morality, of justice etc.

To reject an entity, you must first be convinced of its existence. This is not a volitional, but a cognitive act - just like the realization that the Earth is not flat, or that the Pythagorean theorem holds, are not volitional, but cognitive acts.

Regards,
HRG.

Jamie_L

Answered by others already, but since you asked me:
Question 1:
I don't know if your specific examples would be enough. However, I believe that there is a level of evidence that would be sufficient.

Question 2:
There are multiple definitions of "reject" in this sense. Would there be people who believe, but choose to turn their back? Probably. Would there be people who would not believe? Probably.

Jamie