Christians are more brainwashed than atheists

[skepticbud]

Do you know any atheists who:

Gathering in groups once a week for the purpose of singing praises to invisible persons (Psalms); ?

Listen to an atheist speaker religiously once ot twice a week or more, encouraging them to continue resisting the evils of Christian thought, (Hebrews 10:25)?

Proclaiming a single atheist book as having all the answers to life (Hebrews 4:12) or at least what is necessary to avoid the coming cosmic war?

Studying this atheist book daily with the reverent attitude that more reading means more alignment with "truth", and encourage others to mediate upon it’s precepts daily so they will not depart from it’s instruction (Psalms)?

Telling each other to not be conformed to Christianity, but rather be transformed by the renewing of their mind (Romans 12:2)?

Telling each other that the atheist who doubts is like a wave of the sea, tossed here and there with every wind of doctrine, let no atheist who doubts think that he recieve anything from smarter atheists (James 1:6)?

Say they should let no man take them captive through vain religion which is according to the tradition of theism and not according to atheisim(Colossians 2:8)?

Telling each other to take every thought captive to the obedience of atheism and that their local atheist leaders are ready to punish all disobedience (2nd Corinthians 10:5-6)?

Telling each other daily to put on the whole armor of atheism, that they may be able to stand against the wiles of Christianity, having the breastplate of situation ethics, girding our loins with truth, our feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of atheism, above all the shield of faith, to quench the fiery darts of Christian apologists, donning the helmet of knowledge, wielding the sword of deductive arguments, with all meditation at all times (Ephesians 6:11-18)?

Exhorting inconsistent atheists in their weekly groups to either confess and repent of their error of entertaining non-atheist thoughts, or else be excommunicated from the congregation, knowing that a little bit of leaven leaveneth the whole lump (one inconsistent atheist can infect the rest of the group he fellowships in, 1st Corinthians 5:6)?

View all non-christian thoughts and arguments automatically as tares sown by an invisible person whose single purpose of existence is to steal, kill and destroy atheism (John 10:10-11)?

Listen seriously to atheist leaders who scream “if any man teaches you any form of thought different than the one that *I* am preaching to you, let him be eternally cursed!” (Galations 1:6-9)?

And Believing seriously any new atheist who insists that he came to accept atheism after a flash of light knock him off his horse and was so intrusive that the men who were there heard a voice, but didn’t see anything, and which blinding flash of visionary knowledge caused him physical blindness for three days, but who was attended by another atheist friend later, who, through ESP knew that this phenomena had taken place (Acts 26:12-14, 9:10-19)?

…THEN the Christian will have sufficient basis for claiming that atheists have the same degree of bias against opposing views that Christians do. But until that day, atheists have complete freedom in their world view to be objective and consider seriously any arguments against their beliefs, while bible believing Christians are hopelessly lost in full prejudice and bias against all non-biblical thought, so much so, that even trigger-phrases and buzz words are already in place to squelch doubts that first appear to the Christian somewhat justified.

Of course this doesn’t prove that atheists are right and Christians are wrong.

But it sure does shut the mouths of bible-believing Christians who insist they obey the New Testament and yet are still as equally as objective as atheists in evaluating contrary evidence.

Yet the bible believers would assert the laughably absurd position that, in spite of all the above biblical demands I listed above, which they attempt to obey 24 hours a day (ya dont' wanna be a hypocrite, do ya?), nevertheless, they are NOT so biased that they cannot evaluate evidence against them objectively.

Now I’m gonna have to get going, my atheist congregation is holding a meditation vigil and a “skeptic’s annotated bible” study, and I don’t wanna miss this chance to gather in Farrell Till’s name and praise him for his mighty knowledge that has saved untold numbers of Christians from certain intellectual death. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘atheism is wrong’.” (2nd Delusions 6:66, SIKO version)

Sure we all have biases.

But atheists dont' gather every Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday, to hold hands and sing praises to the sacred cow of science, believing against hope that in stupidity is science's strength made perfect.

But Christians do the same on those days: just change "atheist" to Christians, "sacred cow of science" to "god" and change

"stupidity is science's strength made perfect" to

"My strength is made perfect in weakness..."

The Christian who objects to this hypothesis of mine must first marshal evidences that atheists do things in their lives that are equal to the kind of brainwashing tactics Christians perform on themselves and others as described in the above bible verses, or you lose.

Yeah that's right, you Christians just come up with an invisible man that us atheists believe in, who lives in our hearts, and who also was once a real human, and this whole argument of mine will crash and burn thereby. Until that day, sweet dreams.:poke:

[Defenestrator]

skepticbud:

Do you know any atheists who:

Gathering in groups once a week for the purpose of singing praises to invisible persons (Psalms); ?

No.


Listen to an atheist speaker religiously once ot twice a week or more, encouraging them to continue resisting the evils of Christian thought, (Hebrews 10:25)?

No.



Proclaiming a single atheist book as having all the answers to life (Hebrews 4:12) or at least what is necessary to avoid the coming cosmic war?

No.



Studying this atheist book daily with the reverent attitude that more reading means more alignment with "truth", and encourage others to mediate upon it’s precepts daily so they will not depart from it’s instruction (Psalms)?

No.



Telling each other to not be conformed to Christianity, but rather be transformed by the renewing of their mind (Romans 12:2)?

No.


Telling each other that the atheist who doubts is like a wave of the sea, tossed here and there with every wind of doctrine, let no atheist who doubts think that he recieve anything from smarter atheists (James 1:6)?

No.


Say they should let no man take them captive through vain religion which is according to the tradition of theism and not according to atheisim(Colossians 2:8)?

No.


Telling each other to take every thought captive to the obedience of atheism and that their local atheist leaders are ready to punish all disobedience (2nd Corinthians 10:5-6)?

No.


Telling each other daily to put on the whole armor of atheism, that they may be able to stand against the wiles of Christianity, having the breastplate of situation ethics, girding our loins with truth, our feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of atheism, above all the shield of faith, to quench the fiery darts of Christian apologists, donning the helmet of knowledge, wielding the sword of deductive arguments, with all meditation at all times (Ephesians 6:11-18)?

No.


Exhorting inconsistent atheists in their weekly groups to either confess and repent of their error of entertaining non-atheist thoughts, or else be excommunicated from the congregation, knowing that a little bit of leaven leaveneth the whole lump (one inconsistent atheist can infect the rest of the group he fellowships in, 1st Corinthians 5:6)?

No.


View all non-christian thoughts and arguments automatically as tares sown by an invisible person whose single purpose of existence is to steal, kill and destroy atheism (John 10:10-11)?

No.


Listen seriously to atheist leaders who scream “if any man teaches you any form of thought different than the one that *I* am preaching to you, let him be eternally cursed!” (Galations 1:6-9)?

No.


And Believing seriously any new atheist who insists that he came to accept atheism after a flash of light knock him off his horse and was so intrusive that the men who were there heard a voice, but didn’t see anything, and which blinding flash of visionary knowledge caused him physical blindness for three days, but who was attended by another atheist friend later, who, through ESP knew that this phenomena had taken place (Acts 26:12-14, 9:10-19)?

No.


What was the question again? Oh yes... brainwashing. I'm failing to make the connection.



…THEN the Christian will have sufficient basis for claiming that atheists have the same degree of bias against opposing views that Christians do. But until that day, atheists have complete freedom in their world view to be objective and consider seriously any arguments against their beliefs, while bible believing Christians are hopelessly lost in full prejudice and bias against all non-biblical thought, so much so, that even trigger-phrases and buzz words are already in place to squelch doubts that first appear to the Christian somewhat justified.

Biased in the right direction is actually a good thing. Christians have a leg up.

But don't let that fool you. Christians can doubt with the best of them.



Of course this doesn’t prove that atheists are right and Christians are wrong.

Of course not.


But it sure does shut the mouths of bible-believing Christians who insist they obey the New Testament and yet are still as equally as objective as atheists in evaluating contrary evidence.

I'm more concerned with truth than being "unbiased."


Yet the bible believers would assert the laughably absurd position that, in spite of all the above biblical demands I listed above, which they attempt to obey 24 hours a day (ya dont' wanna be a hypocrite, do ya?), nevertheless, they are NOT so biased that they cannot evaluate evidence against them objectively.

Try me. Give me all the evidence you have for atheism.


Now I’m gonna have to get going, my atheist congregation is holding a meditation vigil and a “skeptic’s annotated bible” study, and I don’t wanna miss this chance to gather in Farrell Till’s name and praise him for his mighty knowledge that has saved untold numbers of Christians from certain intellectual death. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘atheism is wrong’.” (2nd Delusions 6:66, SIKO version)

Sure we all have biases.

Some biases are just more correct than others. :wink:



But atheists dont' gather every Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday, to hold hands and sing praises to the sacred cow of science, believing against hope that in stupidity is science's strength made perfect.

Why would they?



But Christians do the same on those days: just change "atheist" to Christians, "sacred cow of science" to "god" and change

"stupidity is science's strength made perfect" to

"My strength is made perfect in weakness..."

Done. Now what?


The Christian who objects to this hypothesis of mine must first marshal evidences that atheists do things in their lives that are equal to the kind of brainwashing tactics Christians perform on themselves and others as described in the above bible verses, or you lose.

I'm still not making the connection between your list of questions and brainwashing.

But the offer is still open for your list of objective evidence for atheism.

[spl_cadet]

You think that's brainwashing? Dude, ignorance is unbecoming of you.

If you want to talk about brainwashing, why don't you go check up on the success rate of communist brainwashing attempts on American POW's?

[jimbo]

Another point to ponder:

Atheists do not live every day of their lives believing that each and every thought they have is being monitored by a "supernatural" being who is going to toss them into a lake of fire if they have the wrong thoughts.

Jimbo

[greyphilosophy]

At Central Washington University, as I suspect at many universities across the nation, there is a group of students who consider themselves atheists. One of them is buddhist, sure, but he doesn't believe Buddha is a deity. They gathered together every weekday between 11:00 and 12:00. During this gathering times they would of course talk about many things, but one thing they did consistantly was mock religion. I imagine with all the different religions around them it was a defence mechanism. Speaking with them individualy they had no problem with individual Christians. As a group however they believed I imagine much like you do. They saw Christianity as being an occultic cult, full of irrational people who were trying to make other people do the very irrational thing of becomming Christian.

I don't believe that you can be brainwashed into believing a rational idea. I also believe that Christianity is a more rational belief that atheism. I would also like to say that in spite of anything that has been done, or is being done in the name of "Christianity", that the core of Christianity, Jesus Christ, still remains uncorruptable.

~Grey

[The Laughing Man]

Yesterday @ 11:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88635#post88635)
skepticbud:

Do you know any atheists who:

Gathering in groups once a week for the purpose of singing praises to invisible persons (Psalms); ?

How does this (and everything else) figure into your accusation of "brainwashing?"


Listen to an atheist speaker religiously once ot twice a week or more, encouraging them to continue resisting the evils of Christian thought, (Hebrews 10:25)?

Madalyn Murray O'Hair was quite popular as an atheist speaker whom atheists listened to "once or twice a week or more" and who "encouraged them to continue resisting the evils of Christian thought." Even today, there are plenty of atheist-run radio shows which people listen to - dare I say it? - religiously. Then there's the atheist websites with their almost daily sermons about "the evils of Christian thought."


Proclaiming a single atheist book as having all the answers to life (Hebrews 4:12) or at least what is necessary to avoid the coming cosmic war?

To imply (or even outright say) that the Bible is a "single book" is really a misnomer. Aside from that, there are plenty of books which make up the standard atheist repetoire. And, again, there are the atheist websites and their continuous writings.


Studying this atheist book daily with the reverent attitude that more reading means more alignment with "truth", and encourage others to mediate upon it’s precepts daily so they will not depart from it’s instruction (Psalms)?

Okay, every atheist who has a favorite atheist website which they check daily please raise your hand.


Telling each other to not be conformed to Christianity, but rather be transformed by the renewing of their mind (Romans 12:2)?

Pretty commonplace among them, yes.


Telling each other that the atheist who doubts is like a wave of the sea, tossed here and there with every wind of doctrine, let no atheist who doubts think that he recieve anything from smarter atheists (James 1:6)?

Not in so many (poetic) words, but yes.


Say they should let no man take them captive through vain religion which is according to the tradition of theism and not according to atheisim(Colossians 2:8)?

One word: freethought. Another word: infidel.


Telling each other to take every thought captive to the obedience of atheism and that their local atheist leaders are ready to punish all disobedience (2nd Corinthians 10:5-6)?

Atheists aren't organized enough for the latter to really occur (though tongue-lashings are common enough), but I can see the former happening after a fashion.


Telling each other daily to put on the whole armor of atheism, that they may be able to stand against the wiles of Christianity, having the breastplate of situation ethics, girding our loins with truth, our feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of atheism, above all the shield of faith, to quench the fiery darts of Christian apologists, donning the helmet of knowledge, wielding the sword of deductive arguments, with all meditation at all times (Ephesians 6:11-18)?

Again, not in so many words, but yes.


Exhorting inconsistent atheists in their weekly groups to either confess and repent of their error of entertaining non-atheist thoughts, or else be excommunicated from the congregation, knowing that a little bit of leaven leaveneth the whole lump (one inconsistent atheist can infect the rest of the group he fellowships in, 1st Corinthians 5:6)?

Happens quite a bit in online atheist forums.


View all non-christian thoughts and arguments automatically as tares sown by an invisible person whose single purpose of existence is to steal, kill and destroy atheism (John 10:10-11)?

Did you mean "non-atheist thoughts?" In any case, the latter part is true, though it's not an "invisible person," but Christians who are doing so.


Listen seriously to atheist leaders who scream “if any man teaches you any form of thought different than the one that *I* am preaching to you, let him be eternally cursed!” (Galations 1:6-9)?

Yep, though "eternally cursed" would be reduced to "shunned and ridiculed until the day we assume you enter into oblivion after death."


And Believing seriously any new atheist who insists that he came to accept atheism after a flash of light knock him off his horse and was so intrusive that the men who were there heard a voice, but didn’t see anything, and which blinding flash of visionary knowledge caused him physical blindness for three days, but who was attended by another atheist friend later, who, through ESP knew that this phenomena had taken place (Acts 26:12-14, 9:10-19)?

I thought that it would be "but who was attended by another atheist friend later, who, through ESP, knew that this phenomena HADN'T taken place."


…THEN the Christian will have sufficient basis for claiming that atheists have the same degree of bias against opposing views that Christians do.

Of course, because we all know that you are the sole owner of the truth behind what constitutes bias for atheists.


But until that day, atheists have complete freedom in their world view to be objective and consider seriously any arguments against their beliefs,

They have complete freedom to do so in any case, but that doesn't mean that they use it. Much like you, many don't.


while bible believing Christians are hopelessly lost in full prejudice and bias against all non-biblical thought, so much so, that even trigger-phrases and buzz words are already in place to squelch doubts that first appear to the Christian somewhat justified.

Translation: "Pot calling kettle. Pot calling kettle. Do you read me? You're black. Over."


Of course this doesn’t prove that atheists are right and Christians are wrong.

Yeah, leave that for other things like people's taglines.


But it sure does shut the mouths of bible-believing Christians who insist they obey the New Testament and yet are still as equally as objective as atheists in evaluating contrary evidence.

Nah, Christians aren't equally as objective as atheists. Atheists are much less objective. Nothing you've stated here or elsewhere denies that (and it actually proves it).


Yet the bible believers would assert the laughably absurd position that, in spite of all the above biblical demands I listed above, which they attempt to obey 24 hours a day (ya dont' wanna be a hypocrite, do ya?), nevertheless, they are NOT so biased that they cannot evaluate evidence against them objectively.

You've proven time and time again that you are anything but objective. Your scorn and contempt for Christians and Christianity ooze from each and every one of your posts.


Now I’m gonna have to get going, my atheist congregation is holding a meditation vigil and a “skeptic’s annotated bible” study, and I don’t wanna miss this chance to gather in Farrell Till’s name and praise him for his mighty knowledge that has saved untold numbers of Christians from certain intellectual death. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘atheism is wrong’.” (2nd Delusions 6:66, SIKO version)

"atheist congregation" = online atheist buddies

"meditation vigil" = rap session on an atheist forum

"'skeptic’s annotated bible' study" = laugh about all those alleged "atrocities, errors and contradictions" in the Bible

"gather in Farrell Till's name" = read Till's latest ramblings

"praise him for his mighty knowledge that has saved untold numbers of Christians from certain intellectual death" = mindlessly ridicule JPH's trashings of Till's latest ramblings (and making sure to use JPH's real name as something akin to a vile curse)


Sure we all have biases.

Skeptics have them in spades.


But atheists dont' gather every Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday, to hold hands and sing praises to the sacred cow of science, believing against hope that in stupidity is science's strength made perfect.

Are you sure? The first part of that paragraph is irrelevant, but isn't science's strength said to be in that it is inherently "weak?" What's "true" and "a fact" in science today might not be so tomorrow. Is not its weakness in this regard its greatest strength?


But Christians do the same on those days: just change "atheist" to Christians, "sacred cow of science" to "god" and change "stupidity is science's strength made perfect" to "My strength is made perfect in weakness..."

This just goes to show that you have no clue what that means.


The Christian who objects to this hypothesis of mine must first marshal evidences that atheists do things in their lives that are equal to the kind of brainwashing tactics Christians perform on themselves and others as described in the above bible verses, or you lose.

You aren't even close to proving that anything you've pointed out is "brainwashing." Instead of your typical bashing session that we see here, let's see some comparisons between real, documented methods of brainwashing and what is stated in the Bible.


Yeah that's right, you Christians just come up with an invisible man that us atheists believe in, who lives in our hearts, and who also was once a real human, and this whole argument of mine will crash and burn thereby. Until that day, sweet dreams.:poke:

*yawn* And Snooty thinks *I* am hateful and arrogant? :rofl:

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 12:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88690#post88690)
jimbo:

Another point to ponder:

Atheists do not live every day of their lives believing that each and every thought they have is being monitored by a "supernatural" being who is going to toss them into a lake of fire if they have the wrong thoughts.

Point pondered and dismissed as a straw man. God doesn't "toss people into a lake of fire" for having "wrong thoughts." Bone up on your Christian theology and come back when you are better informed.

[jimbo]

Jinx,

I think you need to do yourself a favor and crack open a Bible, my friend:

"He who believes and who is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Jesus-Mark 16:16

"The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."

Jesus-Matthew 13:49

Jesus died for your sins 2000 years ago, according that ever-reliable book called the Bible. Are you now going to deny Jesus' words after all he has done for you? You really should show a little more respect for the only son of God.

Jimbo.

[prgmrdave]

Today @ 11:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88699#post88699)
jimbo:

Christians are taught that their thoughts are monitored at all times by God and that if they question or doubt Christianity they will be tortured forever for their skepticism.

Wake up folks-it's con game.

Jimbo.

We are? Whom do you know that teaches that?

[skepticbud]

Today @ 05:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88637#post88637)
Defenestrator:

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

Wow! So do you agree that people who believe in invisible persons are more brainwashed than those who don't?

[QUOTE]
“And Believing seriously any new atheist who insists that he came to accept atheism after a flash of light knock him off his horse and was so intrusive that the men who were there heard a voice, but didn’t see anything, and which blinding flash of visionary knowledge caused him physical blindness for three days, but who was attended by another atheist friend later, who, through ESP knew that this phenomena had taken place (Acts 26:12-14, 9:10-19)? ”

No.
What was the question again? Oh yes... brainwashing. I'm failing to make the connection.


You fail to see that the way bible believers conduct themselves in worship, fellowship, pray and reverent bible study and believing in invisible people (Jesus) demonstrates brainwashing? if i told you I strongly believed in the existence of an invisible person, would you think I was brainwashed? of course not, you believe in an invisible man, and you aren't brainwashed, right?



"THEN the Christian will have sufficient basis for claiming that atheists have the same degree of bias against opposing views that Christians do. But until that day, atheists have complete freedom in their world view to be objective and consider seriously any arguments against their beliefs, while bible believing Christians are hopelessly lost in full prejudice and bias against all non-biblical thought, so much so, that even trigger-phrases and buzz words are already in place to squelch doubts that first appear to the Christian somewhat justified. ”

Biased in the right direction is actually a good thing. Christians have a leg up.


But that which is the "right" direction doesn't require brainwashing, does it?



“But it sure does shut the mouths of bible-believing Christians who insist they obey the New Testament and yet are still as equally as objective as atheists in evaluating contrary evidence. ”

I'm more concerned with truth than being "unbiased."


Atheists could say the same thing, but you wouldn't believe them. Or, do you actually believe some atheists are concerned with truth? hasn't the fool said in his heart, "there is no god". Thank god for JP Holding, I can just call Psalm 14:1 a case of semitic exaggeration and rhetoric.



But atheists dont' gather every Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday, to hold hands and sing praises to the sacred cow of science, believing against hope that in stupidity is science's strength made perfect. ”

Why would they?


It's not about "why they don't", it's "the fact that they don't" makes them less brainwashed than Christians.



The Christian who objects to this hypothesis of mine must first marshal evidences that atheists do things in their lives that are equal to the kind of brainwashing tactics Christians perform on themselves and others as described in the above bible verses, or you lose. ”

I'm still not making the connection between your list of questions and brainwashing.


I don't believe you. You are just kidding.:poke:

[skepticbud]

Today @ 05:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88639#post88639)
spl_cadet:

You think that's brainwashing? Dude, ignorance is unbecoming of you.


Then you must think every book on brainwashing was written by an idiot, go read any book you can find on religious indoctrination NOT written by a Christian. They all describe things that are part and parcel of daily Christian life.

If you want to talk about brainwashing, why don't you go check up on the success rate of communist brainwashing attempts on American POW's? [/QUOTE]

Because that doesn't have anything to do with whether Christians who obey the bible are brainwashed, or whether the bible teaches brainwashing.

[Sheepdog]

for the purposes of this thread, i will use the American Heratage Dictionary Definition of "brainwash" via dictionary.com:

1. Intensive, forcible indoctrination
2. The application of a concentrated means of persuasion

read the key terms in each of these definitions, because they will be importand as we go through your questions: Intensive, forcible, concentrated.

for convenience, SkepticBud's oringinal work is in italics.

Do you know any atheists who:

Gathering in groups once a week for the purpose of singing praises to invisible persons (Psalms); ?

You have not shown that this is a case of (1) Intensive, forcible indoctrination, or (2) The application of a concentrated means of persuasion.

Listen to an atheist speaker religiously once ot twice a week or more, encouraging them to continue resisting the evils of Christian thought, (Hebrews 10:25)?

You have not shown that this is a case of (1) Intensive, forcible indoctrination, or (2) The application of a concentrated means of persuasion.

Proclaiming a single atheist book as having all the answers to life (Hebrews 4:12) or at least what is necessary to avoid the coming cosmic war?

You have not shown that this is a case of (1) Intensive, forcible indoctrination, or (2) The application of a concentrated means of persuasion.

Studying this atheist book daily with the reverent attitude that more reading means more alignment with "truth", and encourage others to mediate upon it’s precepts daily so they will not depart from it’s instruction (Psalms)?

You have not shown that this is a case of (1) Intensive, forcible indoctrination, or (2) The application of a concentrated means of persuasion.

Telling each other to not be conformed to Christianity, but rather be transformed by the renewing of their mind (Romans 12:2)?

You have not shown that this is a case of (1) Intensive, forcible indoctrination, or (2) The application of a concentrated means of persuasion.

Telling each other that the atheist who doubts is like a wave of the sea, tossed here and there with every wind of doctrine, let no atheist who doubts think that he recieve anything from smarter atheists (James 1:6)?

You have not shown that this is a case of (1) Intensive, forcible indoctrination, or (2) The application of a concentrated means of persuasion.

Say they should let no man take them captive through vain religion which is according to the tradition of theism and not according to atheisim(Colossians 2:8)?

You have not shown that this is a case of (1) Intensive, forcible indoctrination, or (2) The application of a concentrated means of persuasion.

Telling each other to take every thought captive to the obedience of atheism and that their local atheist leaders are ready to punish all disobedience (2nd Corinthians 10:5-6)?

You have not shown that this is a case of (1) Intensive, forcible indoctrination, or (2) The application of a concentrated means of persuasion.

Telling each other daily to put on the whole armor of atheism, that they may be able to stand against the wiles of Christianity, having the breastplate of situation ethics, girding our loins with truth, our feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of atheism, above all the shield of faith, to quench the fiery darts of Christian apologists, donning the helmet of knowledge, wielding the sword of deductive arguments, with all meditation at all times (Ephesians 6:11-18)?

You have not shown that this is a case of (1) Intensive, forcible indoctrination, or (2) The application of a concentrated means of persuasion.

Exhorting inconsistent atheists in their weekly groups to either confess and repent of their error of entertaining non-atheist thoughts, or else be excommunicated from the congregation, knowing that a little bit of leaven leaveneth the whole lump (one inconsistent atheist can infect the rest of the group he fellowships in, 1st Corinthians 5:6)?

You have not shown that this is a case of (1) Intensive, forcible indoctrination, or (2) The application of a concentrated means of persuasion.

View all non-christian thoughts and arguments automatically as tares sown by an invisible person whose single purpose of existence is to steal, kill and destroy atheism (John 10:10-11)?

You have not shown that this is a case of (1) Intensive, forcible indoctrination, or (2) The application of a concentrated means of persuasion.

Listen seriously to atheist leaders who scream “if any man teaches you any form of thought different than the one that *I* am preaching to you, let him be eternally cursed!” (Galations 1:6-9)?

You have not shown that this is a case of (1) Intensive, forcible indoctrination, or (2) The application of a concentrated means of persuasion.

And Believing seriously any new atheist who insists that he came to accept atheism after a flash of light knock him off his horse and was so intrusive that the men who were there heard a voice, but didn’t see anything, and which blinding flash of visionary knowledge caused him physical blindness for three days, but who was attended by another atheist friend later, who, through ESP knew that this phenomena had taken place (Acts 26:12-14, 9:10-19)?

You have not shown that this is a case of (1) Intensive, forcible indoctrination, or (2) The application of a concentrated means of persuasion.

you have shown use many aspects of Christianity that has been willingly taken on, without use of force or concentrated persuasion. while i'll concede that Christianity is persuasive, it is certainly none more than the indoctrination of evolutionary-theory/abiogenesis. we have no need for indoctrination or concentrated persuasion, because people are drawn by God and come freely.

…THEN the Christian will have sufficient basis for claiming that atheists have the same degree of bias against opposing views that Christians do.

oh please. what a sweeping circumstantial ad hominem. bias is irrelavent to all theist/nontheist debate, unless you can prove that bias is a valid reason to discredit theists. since i grant the nontheist the benefit of the doubt in terms of bias, i expect nothing less from nontheists.

But until that day, atheists have complete freedom in their world view to be objective and consider seriously any arguments against their beliefs, ...

and yet, i have not yet met a skeptic who can rightfully be considered objective. interesting. some have come close, but as the saying goes, "so close, yet so far away."

while bible believing Christians are hopelessly lost in full prejudice and bias against all non-biblical thought, so much so, that even trigger-phrases and buzz words are already in place to squelch doubts that first appear to the Christian somewhat justified.

spare us the rhetoric and the hasty generalization. i might as well come up with my own questions for you nontheists and then generalize all of you as "hopelessly lost in full prejudice and bias" against anything supernatural. if you have anything to produce that is not based on some sort of wishful thinking or other logical fallacy, please present it.

Of course this doesn’t prove that atheists are right and Christians are wrong.

it really doesn't prove anything else useful, either.

But it sure does shut the mouths of bible-believing Christians who insist they obey the New Testament and yet are still as equally as objective as atheists in evaluating contrary evidence.

it sure does shut our mouths. we are speechless as to how someone can tack together such hack work and expect to be taken seriously. you have not shown that (1) there is brainwash involved, and (2) one cannot be objective despite biases. (2) must be rejected out of hand or else no one can possibly be objective. and thus, your whole "argumentation" (:lol:) falls flat.

Yet the bible believers would assert the laughably absurd position that, in spite of all the above biblical demands I listed above, which they attempt to obey 24 hours a day (ya dont' wanna be a hypocrite, do ya?), nevertheless, they are NOT so biased that they cannot evaluate evidence against them objectively.

you have not shown that someone cannot be objective despite biases. you cannot and will not, otherwise we may dismiss all your arguments because you cannot be objective either, by such reasoning.

[snip]

Sure we all have biases.

yup. now, why should we expect you to be objective, since you admit to having biases?

But atheists dont' gather every Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday, to hold hands and sing praises to the sacred cow of science, believing against hope that in stupidity is science's strength made perfect.

no? you do have atheistic, anti-religion websites you go to, correct? do you hang out with other skeptics online? i posit that you likewise have been indoctrinated* to an extent-- it is just a bit more subtle.

*(i am using this term very loosely)

The Christian who objects to this hypothesis of mine must first marshal evidences that atheists do things in their lives that are equal to the kind of brainwashing tactics Christians perform on themselves and others as described in the above bible verses, or you lose.

actually, the first step is for you to actually show that brainwashing is happening in the first place, then that one cannot be objective while biased.

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 02:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88699#post88699)
jimbo:

I think you need to do yourself a favor and crack open a Bible, my friend:

"He who believes and who is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."
Jesus-Mark 16:16

Mark 16:9-20 does not show up in the earliest manuscripts, so it likely doesn't belong in Scripture.


"The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."
Jesus-Matthew 13:49

you are out of social context. read John 15:1-8. those who have faith will produce works, necessarily. by extension, those who have faith are the righteous, and those who are unrighteous have no faith.


Jesus died for your sins 2000 years ago, according that ever-reliable book called the Bible. Are you now going to deny Jesus' words after all he has done for you? You really should show a little more respect for the only son of God.


Jinx isn't denying him: he is denying your nonsense.

[Woman]

On behalf of skeptics may I say, I'm embarrassed.

[Socrates]

How pathetic the lastest :rant: from SkepticButt is. The persecution of Christians and demolition of churches in officially atheist Communist regimes last century is without parallel. And why are modern atheists so determined to censor out any challenge to evolution from goo to you via the zoo?

And why oh why would anyone waste time arguing against something they profess not to believe in? We don't find people like SkepticButt spending every waking hour on an Internet forum arguing against the non-existence of pink unicorns.

[Unknown Banana]

However, imagine how frustrating it would be for all these people to say there's a pink unicorn there, right in front of you, but you can't see it. Would you want to argue it? Or just sit back and ignore? Anyway, I find these debates interesting, and I do not discount the bible as an incredibly interesting book.

So, as for the original post... I like it. It isn't trying to say that christians are brainwashed, at least not by the definition of the word. I believe the point was that christians are less likely to even consider alternate evidence than atheists. Besides the fact that they are constantly under the impression that only a 'fool' would do so, they also do indoctrinate themselves with scripture and belief. Personally, my life does not involve a single bit of religion, except when I'm with religious friends. (and when I decide to read up on forums and the like. I read both sides of the argument though, and I don't have any atheist website I visit except for one forum)

So, good post I say - at least, it concurs with my line of thinking. (No offense intended to any christians here! I wouldn't dream of accusing anyone I respect of being brainwashed, however when christians accuse me of being close minded or 'brainwashed', then I have this as an argument)

[jimbo]

Woman,


On behalf of skeptics may I say, I'm embarrassed.

Why?

Billy

[jimbo]

I have written previously that Christians are taught that to doubt or to question the truth of Christianity is a very bad thing to do, so bad that it may lead to eternal torture in hell. Christians are also taught that God can monitor their thoughts are every moment of the day.

Now, regardless of whether Christianity is true or false, it is absolutely undeniable that these teachings represent a very powerful form of brainwashing. Any Christian who attempts to deny is not being honest with the facts.

"Truly, truly I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."

Jesus, John 6:47

"...but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come."

Jesus, Matthew 12:32


"He who believes and who is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Jesus, Mark 16:16


"The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."

Jesus, Matthew 13:49

"...he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

Jesus, John 3:18

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the son shall not see life, but the wrath of god rests upon him."

Jesus, John 3:36


"If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned."


Jesus, John 15:6


Jimbo

[Solly]

Today @ 10:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88765#post88765)
jimbo:

I have written previously that Christians are taught that to doubt or to question the truth of Christianity is a very bad thing to do, so bad that it may lead to eternal torture in hell. Christians are also taught that God can monitor their thoughts are every moment of the day.

Now, regardless of whether Christianity is true or false, it is absolutely undeniable that these teachings represent a very powerful form of brainwashing. Any Christian who attempts to deny is not being honest with the facts.


Ahh, so my conviction is your brainwashing.


]Any Christian who attempts to deny is not being honest with the facts.


That's a clear unbiassed statement if ever I heard or read one.
Opinion paraded as the assured results of scientific research no less :rofl:

Strangely, there is/was a country that teaches it is a very bad thing to question their chosen form of government, and that to do so is unpatriotic. Now, was that the Soviet Union or is it America? And there are a group of scientists who mock at any that question the assured results of scientific research regarding evolution, so brainwashed are they that they can't handle criticism and questions.

Please describe what the mechanics are of a a very powerful form of brainwashing - presumably something along the lines of the Patty Hearst case, instead of using a word for sensational reasons. Either it means something specifically, or it is a bogeyman set up by sceptics to explain what they don't understand.

Question. Who brainwashed me?

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 10:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88767#post88767)
Solly:
Question. Who brainwashed me?

Brainwashing isn't a particularly good term (and it's probably too offensive to be helpful), but certainly, conversions do seem to usually be the result of heavy indoctrination, and denying the convertee access to all available information.

Usually, this indoctrination is a product of upbringing and social environment. Parents are mostly to blame (or to thank, depending on your viewpoint).

Paul

[spl_cadet]

Excuse me snooty, but how do we deny them access to all the info? Last I checked, all of our converts were still allowed to go to the library, go to bookstores, and surf the web.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 02:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88833#post88833)
spl_cadet:

Excuse me snooty, but how do we deny them access to all the info? Last I checked, all of our converts were still allowed to go to the library, go to bookstores, and surf the web.

Yes, but young children are usually told that the bible is true, and that's that.

Also, someone attempting to convert an adult is hardly going to convince them to read any Ingersoll or Dawkins.

Paul

[The Laughing Man]

Anyone else notice Jimbo's subtle "bait'n'switch" tactic? :wink: First, he starts with Christians being "tossed" into Hell for having "bad thoughts," and then (essentially) switches to non-Christians being "tossed" into Hell for not believing.

[johnransom]

Today @ 08:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88846#post88846)
Jinx72:

Anyone else notice Jimbo's subtle "bait'n'switch" tactic? :wink: First, he starts with Christians being "tossed" into Hell for having "bad thoughts," and then (essentially) switches to non-Christians being "tossed" into Hell for not believing.
I was going to make a flippant post asking how come I still get dirty thoughts when I've been so thoroughly brainwashed, but lo, I get to the end of thread and find the point is actually valid to the argument.

Notwithstanding Jimbo's obvious deception tactic (hmm, wonder where that's come up before, eh?), how about it, o possessor of all names under heaven: if we're so brainwashed, how come we can have evil thoughts?

[The Laughing Man]

Sorry. My Mountain Dew hasn't kicked in yet. Are you addressing me or Jimbo?

[Defenestrator]

Two things:

1) Lots of the fallacy of division going on here. Christianity has these characteristics, therefore all Christians have these characteristics. You are dealing with individual people here, so act like you are. If you think I might be "brainwashed" ask me some questions to find out. Don't assume I am because you have some weird idea in your head that all Christians are "brainwashed."

2) There is no such thing is "brainwashing." Seriously, check the psychology journals. You won't find a thing. The closest thing you will find is something called "social influence." And it is pretty much held to that everybody is affected by social influencing in some way or another. The funny thing is, though, that usually it is Christians who argue that "brainwashing" is a real phenomena in order to show how bad cults are. Check the studies people, there is no such thing as "brainwashing."

[johnransom]

Today @ 09:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88862#post88862)
Jinx72:

Sorry. My Mountain Dew hasn't kicked in yet. Are you addressing me or Jimbo?
Better, quit the caffeine altogether.:jade:

I was, as context should indicate, addressing His Rantship.

[DBoone]

Hold on folks. Bud may have a point here, even if we don't like his terminology. Ephesians talks about brainwashing:

Ephesians 4:
[17] Now this I affirm and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds;
[18] they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart;
[19] they have become callous and have given themselves up to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of uncleanness.
[20] You did not so learn Christ! --
[21] assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus.
[22] Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts,
[23] and be renewed in the spirit of your minds,
[24] and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

In this passage Paul says for the believer to 'be renewed'. In the original language this was the same as saying 'be cleansed' so the Bible does say that the believer is 'brainwashed'. Let's face it, that's what the Bible says.

Now I still wouldn't say that the believer is any more brainwashed than the unbeliever, but since the choice is mine, I choose to be brainwashed by the purity of God's Word than the filthiness of the secular humanist mentality. So yeah, call me brainwashed. I don't mind. I'm gettin' cleaned up.

I'm on my way to heaven shoutin' victory,
I'm on my way to heaven shoutin' victory,
I'm on my way to heaven shoutin' victory,
Singin' Glory Hallelujah! Jesus set me free!

http://www.swordofthespirit.org/transcripts/121000a.shtml

"Let's stop there for just a second. How many of you think the standard's pretty high? Wisdom is crying in the streets, but it didn't say it's free. To obtain it will cost you everything. To obtain the wisdom is the same thing that it takes to obtain the pearl of great price: You have to absolutely dissolve all of self that you might obtain. There has to become a total reliance upon the wisdom of God for our sole being, our strength, our knowledge, our wisdom, our power, our prosperity, and our health. You'll see all of those come in line here in the next chapter. The Word of God will bring you length of days. It'll bring you physical prosperity. It will bring you divine health. Doing this Word is our life. Now, do we believe that? Are we living that? Is it what our children are having put into their understanding, to the place where—of course Ephesians tells us it's to the point—the Greek word really means "to place into the mind" or a modern rendering of that would be "to brainwash." Our children have got to be brainwashed. You get that into the secular thought, and they would be horrified to think that our children are not being given a chance to make their own decisions! How horrible that we would brainwash them with the Bible and the lordship of Jesus Christ! It scares them, and they think it's criminal, as they're brainwashing their children with existential thought, brainwashing their children that there are no absolutes in life, brainwashing their children that they themselves are gods."

See the link for full context.

[jimbo]

Hi,

Christians are taught that they will get to live forever in heaven with God and Jesus Christ. What do they have to do to get this great prize, you ask? Well, they are taught that to get this prize, they have to believe, to have faith, that Jesus Christ died for their sins. That is the carrot. What is the stick? Eternal torture in hell. Christians are told in one way or another that if they doubt Christianity, they will go to hell. Of course, it is not as politically correct in most churches today to talk about this openly, but it is still taught in one way or another. And of course, Christians are told that their thoughts are monitored by God at all times. Now you can try and deny that this represents a form of coercion, but it is quite obvious that whether Christianity is true or whether Christianity is false, these teachings are, in fact, coercive. (I am purposely using a term that is more diplomatic than "brainwashing")

It amazes me that there are Christians here who cannot even ackowledge what is so obvious. Regardless of whether you accept that Christianity is true or false, this is obviously a form of manipulation, coercion, whatever you want to call it.

I used to be a Christian and I used to believe that God could monitor my thoughts and actions at all times of the day. I know how coercive this is and I know that this is how Christians live their lives.

I have a question for the Christians here: If you have such trouble acknowledging manipulation in your own religion, can you admit that believers in other religions are the victims of thought control or coercion? For example, Muslim men are taught that they will get dozens of young maidens to wait on them hand and foot when they die. You and I know this is BS, but can you admit that this represents a form of manipulation, perhaps similiar in a way to what the Bible teaches? Muslims are also taught, like Christians are taught, that unbelievers will go to hell. Are you going to pretend that that is not manipulative?

Jimmy

[Defenestrator]

jimbo:[/i]

Christians are taught that they will get to live forever in heaven with God and Jesus Christ. What do they have to do to get this great prize, you ask? Well, they are taught that to get this prize, they have to believe, to have faith, that Jesus Christ died for their sins. That is the carrot. What is the stick? Eternal torture in hell. Christians are told in one way or another that if they doubt Christianity, they will go to hell. Of course, it is not as politically correct in most churches today to talk about this openly, but it is still taught in one way or another. And of course, Christians are told that their thoughts are monitored by God at all times. Now you can try and deny that this represents a form of coercion, but it is quite obvious that whether Christianity is true or whether Christianity is false, these teachings are, in fact, coercive. (I am purposely using a term that is more diplomatic than "brainwashing")

And this proves my point about using the fallacy of division. Even if it is true that "Christians are told in one way or another that if they doubt Christianity, they will go to hell" (which it isn't), that doesn't mean I have been told that. Why don't you ask me if I've been told that rather than telling me that I've been told that? Oh, yeah, that would ruin your argument.


It amazes me that there are Christians here who cannot even ackowledge what is so obvious. Regardless of whether you accept that Christianity is true or false, this is obviously a form of manipulation, coercion, whatever you want to call it.

Why don't you ask me if the stuff you said applies to me, then we can talk about manipulation.


I used to be a Christian and I used to believe that God could monitor my thoughts and actions at all times of the day. I know how coercive this is and I know that this is how Christians live their lives.

And your experience applies to me how, exactly?


I have a question for the Christians here: If you have such trouble acknowledging manipulation in your own religion, can you admit that believers in other religions are the victims of thought control or coercion?

No. How come you only asked about religions? Why not atheists, too? Of course my answer would still be no in that case, too.


For example, Muslim men are taught that they will get dozens of young maidens to wait on them hand and foot when they die. You and I know this is BS, but can you admit that this represents a form of manipulation, perhaps similiar in a way to what the Bible teaches?

I admit it could be a form of manipulation, but there is no way I can tell unless I could talk to that specific Muslim man. I refuse to make generalizations like you are doing.


Muslims are also taught, like Christians are taught, that unbelievers will go to hell. Are you going to pretend that that is not manipulative?

No need to pretend. It isn't.

[jimbo]

Defensterator,

Okay, fine. You tell me exactly what it is you believe as a Christian. Tell me whether you think you will go to heaven or hell and why. Tell me whether you believe that God can monitor your thoughts at all times.

Jimbo

[FirstSunday33ad]

Today @ 02:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88699#post88699)
jimbo:

Jinx,

I think you need to do yourself a favor and crack open a Bible, my friend:

"He who believes and who is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

Jesus-Mark 16:16

"The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth."

Jesus-Matthew 13:49

Jesus died for your sins 2000 years ago, according that ever-reliable book called the Bible. Are you now going to deny Jesus' words after all he has done for you? You really should show a little more respect for the only son of God.

Jimbo.

You still have failed to point out where it says God sends you to the "Lake of Fire" for thinking "wrong thoughts".

How can you skeptics expect anyone to believe you have it correctly figured out when you can't even back up what you say? :shrug:

[FirstSunday33ad]

Today @ 11:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88916#post88916)
jimbo:


I have a question for the Christians here: If you have such trouble acknowledging manipulation in your own religion, can you admit that believers in other religions are the victims of thought control or coercion? For example, Muslim men are taught that they will get dozens of young maidens to wait on them hand and foot when they die. You and I know this is BS, but can you admit that this represents a form of manipulation, perhaps similiar in a way to what the Bible teaches? Muslims are also taught, like Christians are taught, that unbelievers will go to hell. Are you going to pretend that that is not manipulative?

Jimmy

My parents told me to look both ways before crossing the street or I might be hit by a car and killed - were they being "manipulative" or trying to protect me?

It's manipulative if you want someone to do something for you and are willing to tell them anything to get them to do it.

It is not manipulative to give someone fair warning and then let them decide for themselves whether to believe you or not.

[Defenestrator]

jimbo:

Defensterator,

Okay, fine. You tell me exactly what it is you believe as a Christian. Tell me whether you think you will go to heaven or hell and why. Tell me whether you believe that God can monitor your thoughts at all times.

Jimbo

Wait a minute. Is this about beliefs or the way we arrive at those believes? You are trying to make the case that Christians are "manipulated" or whatever word you want to use. How can you tell how I arrived at my beliefs by what those beliefs are?

[Evangel]

these atheists dont deserve the time of day nor the benefit of the doubt. skepticbutt lives and breathes ignorance and stupidity. i am sure its heart has long been cool and his mind long gone. any logical thought left in his mind just ran away screaming.

[Nowhere357]

free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.

Chris·tian 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b

Freethought can embrace Christianity - or anything else - to the extent that xianity - or anything else - can verify their claims.

Christianity CANNOT embrace freethought, because xianity relies on unsupportable claims.

This makes freethought the superior position.

[Defenestrator]

Nowhere357:

free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.

Okay.



Chris·tian 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b

Okay.



Freethought can embrace Christianity - or anything else - to the extent that xianity - or anything else - can verify their claims.

Christianity CANNOT embrace freethought, because xianity relies on unsupportable claims.

This makes freethought the superior position.

Please explain. I don't see how this follows. Somehow you have to relate "embracibility" with "superiority," which I don't think you can do.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Today @ 01:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88975#post88975)
Nowhere357:

free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.

Chris·tian 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b

Freethought can embrace Christianity - or anything else - to the extent that xianity - or anything else - can verify their claims.

Christianity CANNOT embrace freethought, because xianity relies on unsupportable claims.

This makes freethought the superior position.

Ummm...........

If a "freethinker" examines Christianity and discovers that it can verify its claims and so becomes a Christian, does that mean he ceases to be a "freethinker"? :huh:

Oh.....and yes I have stopped beating my wife thank you.

:whack:

[Sheepdog]

Freethought can embrace Christianity - or anything else - to the extent that xianity - or anything else - can verify their claims.

Christianity CANNOT embrace freethought, because xianity relies on unsupportable claims.

This makes freethought the superior position.

Please explain. I don't see how this follows. Somehow you have to relate "embracibility" with "superiority," which I don't think you can do.

agreed. i don't think such a conclusion can be drawn, because it reaks of the Consequences of Belief fallacy.

btw, how's it going Def? interesting to see yet another carmite on TWeb. were takin over!

hmm. since i came to the conclusion that Christianity is true base on reason, "independently of tradition, authority, or established belief;" doesn't that make me a Christian freethinker?

[Nowhere357]

Defenestrator:[/i]

Please explain. I don't see how this follows. Somehow you have to relate "embracibility" with "superiority," which I don't think you can do.

Good point.

First let me say that I disagree somewhat with the definition of "freethought" that I gave. IMO freethought is concerned with understanding reality, and religion is a part of reality.

Also let me say that I believe faith is valid. I define faith as "intuitive belief" and sometimes our intuition is more valuable then our rationality.

One more point I wish to make clear - I meant that reason is superior to faith in explaining physical reality. Faith is superior to reason in explaining spiritual reality. IMO.

Anyway, why I claim "embracibility" relates to "superiority:

Thought experiment:
Imagine we are all in a house, and wish to know the truth about the outside world.

One person looks out the front window, and claims "the world is a street with other houses".

Another person looks out the side window and say "the world is a tree and some grass".

Finally, someone looks out of an upstairs window and says "the world is both a street with houses, and trees and grass."

A view that embraces other views is "superior". I guess this experiment is just a rework of the blind men and the elephant.

[Defenestrator]

Sheepdog:

agreed. i don't think such a conclusion can be drawn, because it reaks of the Consequences of Belief fallacy.

How about this one: Atheists, by definition, can't embrace God. Christians can embrace God. Therefore, Christianity is the superior position. :smile:



btw, how's it going Def? interesting to see yet another carmite on TWeb. were takin over!

Yeah, I was suprised to see a bunch of you here.


hmm. since i came to the conclusion that Christianity is true base on reason, "independently of tradition, authority, or established belief;" doesn't that make me a Christian freethinker?

Wait, I don't think you can, because "Christianity CANNOT embrace freethought, because xianity relies on unsupportable claims." Hmm, I learn something new every day.

[Nowhere357]

FirstSunday33ad:[/i]

If a "freethinker" examines Christianity and discovers that it can verify its claims and so becomes a Christian, does that mean he ceases to be a "freethinker"?

IMO no. We all decide for ouselves the level or degree of certainty we require to form our opinions and beliefs.

Freethought means we come to our own conclusions, as opposed to believing what we are told to believe.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Today @ 01:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89008#post89008)
Nowhere357:


Freethought means we come to our own conclusions, as opposed to believing what we are told to believe.

Then your premise that Christianity cannot embrace freethought is - by your admission - erroneous. It can and it does. In fact, Christianity DEMANDS free thought, it rejects the follower who believes simply because he/she was told to.

[Defenestrator]

Nowhere357:

Good point.

First let me say that I disagree somewhat with the definition of "freethought" that I gave. IMO freethought is concerned with understanding reality, and religion is a part of reality.

Also let me say that I believe faith is valid. I define faith as "intuitive belief" and sometimes our intuition is more valuable then our rationality.

One more point I wish to make clear - I meant that reason is superior to faith in explaining physical reality. Faith is superior to reason in explaining spiritual reality. IMO.

I don't take faith and reason to be quite so seperate as you seem to. IOW, faith and reason both affect every thing I have come to believe.


Anyway, why I claim "embracibility" relates to "superiority:

Thought experiment:
Imagine we are all in a house, and wish to know the truth about the outside world.

One person looks out the front window, and claims "the world is a street with other houses".

Another person looks out the side window and say "the world is a tree and some grass".

Finally, someone looks out of an upstairs window and says "the world is both a street with houses, and trees and grass."

A view that embraces other true views is "superior". I guess this experiment is just a rework of the blind men and the elephant.

I can agree if I am allowed to add the word "true" as I did. I think the views that one embraces must correspond to reality in some way. What I don't see is how that pits freethought (using your definition in this post) against Christianity?

[johnransom]

Today @ 12:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88975#post88975)
Nowhere357:

free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.

Chris·tian 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b

Freethought can embrace Christianity - or anything else - to the extent that xianity - or anything else - can verify their claims.

Christianity CANNOT embrace freethought, because xianity relies on unsupportable claims.

This makes freethought the superior position.
Several more flaws exist in this pathetic argument:

First, it assumes the unsupportability of Christian claims. That is an assertion requiring proof. Nobrain is merely trying to stack the deck.

Second, freethinkers supposedly reject authority as a basis for belief. But this is in fact an impossibility. The perfect answer to the bumper sticker command "Question Authority" is the question "Says Who?"and it applies just as well here. The person who rejects authority merely sets himself up as the authority.

Third, appending the sentence "Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists" to the definition of freethinker is a faulty mixing of terms. The term "freethinker" as applied to this group is merely a title, not a description. There is nothing in the definition that excludes theists from being freethinkers. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that atheists are far from rational. "Freethought" as applied to atheists is more appropriately "free-of-thought". The use of the title is merely an attempt to grab the intellectual high ground.

Fourth, it assumes that all religious matters are subject to rational inquiry, which is not necessarily true. Truth and reasonableness are not synonyms.

Fifth, the term "freethinker" is also used of deists, who are by definition theists (since they believe in a god, albeit a rather irrational one).

Sixth, as we all know, and is obvious from the carelessly undeleted "b" at the end, the definition of "Christian" is woefully inadequate, and deliberately edited in order to highlight only that part of the definition that implies adherence to a dogmatic authority. More deck-stacking from Nobrain.

And Nobrain has obviously never heard of the triad "notitia (scientia), fiducia, assentia".

[DBoone]

How does all this work with God? Could we accuse God of not being free-thinking? Not at all. God knows everything. God gives us the freedom to be free-thinkers. God gives us a world to experience and to draw free-thinking conclusions about. God also tells us in his Word that down the road of SOME of our free-thinking are very destructive consequences. Christianity recognizes all these things. Atheism does not. Christianity is superior to atheism.

[Nowhere357]

Sheepdog:[/i]

agreed. i don't think such a conclusion can be drawn, because it reaks of the Consequences of Belief fallacy.


This fallacy is not in my list of logical fallacies. Please explain?


since i came to the conclusion that Christianity is true base on reason, "independently of tradition, authority, or established belief;" doesn't that make me a Christian freethinker?
Yes. All that can be questioned is your ability to use reason effectively. But if you are a Christian freethinker, then you CAN be reasoned with. :)

[Nowhere357]

Defenestrator:[/i]

How about this one: Atheists, by definition, can't embrace God. Christians can embrace God. Therefore, Christianity is the superior position. :smile:

Good one! Now try this: UFO-ologists can embrace UFO's. People who don't believe in UFO's cannot. Therefore UFO-ologists have the superior position.

Clearly you are missing the point.

BTW it is not true that atheists can't embrace god. I don't believe in Atlantis, but if Atlantis is true, once I realize that, then of course I can embrace Atlantis! In the same way, atheists can embrace god, if he is true.


Wait, I don't think you can, because "Christianity CANNOT embrace freethought, because xianity relies on unsupportable claims." Hmm, I learn something new every day.
If you consider supernatural entities to be a scientific fact, then I question your reasoning and judgement. In any case, I question your ability to consider other viewpoints. I also question your ability to use sarcasm effectively.

[Nowhere357]

FirstSunday33ad:[/i]

Then your premise that Christianity cannot embrace freethought is - by your admission - erroneous. It can and it does. In fact, Christianity DEMANDS free thought, it rejects the follower who believes simply because he/she was told to.

My understanding is that Christianity requires that I believe in Jesus, or I will be punished. I have never heard that xianity DEMANDS that we not believe in supernatural deities without verification, and I've never heard that xianity has no interest in followers who believe because the bible told them to.

Now I have, I guess. Provide support, please?

[jimbo]

Defensterator,

Let's try this again. Tell me exactly what it is you believe as a Christian. Tell me whether you think you will go to heaven or hell and why. Tell me whether you believe that God can monitor your thoughts at all times.

Thanks.

Jimbo

[Defenestrator]

jimbo:

Defensterator,

Let's try this again. Tell me exactly what it is you believe as a Christian. Tell me whether you think you will go to heaven or hell and why. Tell me whether you believe that God can monitor your thoughts at all times.


Fine.

I think I'm going to heaven. I think God is omniscient. This better be going somewhere.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Today @ 02:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89043#post89043)
Nowhere357:



My understanding is that Christianity requires that I believe in Jesus, or I will be punished. I have never heard that xianity DEMANDS that we not believe in supernatural deities without verification, and I've never heard that xianity has no interest in followers who believe because the bible told them to.

Now I have, I guess. Provide support, please?

I see your problem, you are starting from a false premise, so its no wonder you reach a false conclusion.

First, Christianity does not require you believe in Jesus (and by that I am assuming you mean as Son of God) or you will be punished. Demons know that Jesus is the Son of God and they still will be punished. To be Christian means not only to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but also the Saviour, the only means to salvation and to accept Him as such. This means surrendering your life to Him.

Secondly, you are twisting the meaning of what you wrote when you defined a free thinker. To restate; you defined this as coming “to our own conclusions, as opposed to believing what we are told to believe”. The assumption naturally followed that “being told what to believe”, meant being told by someone as opposed to researching, reading and concluding after investigation that the Bible was telling the truth as opposed to the Koran (for example). As to a person who happens to pick up the Bible, reads it and simply believes because – “well that’s what it says to do” – I seriously doubt such human being exists and if they did they must also believe in Peter Pan and Wicca. There are plenty of books that say, “believe this”.

The person I was referring to was the person who claims to be Christian simply because it is the faith of their culture or society. Such a faith is built on sand and has no strength. It crumbles at the first challenge – as many a skeptic proves. Many of them started from “Christian” homes as “believers” because that was the faith of their fathers. As soon as they encountered that first troubling moment though, their faith went out the window. That is what I meant when I said Christianity DEMANDS free thought. If you believe simply because you were told to believe, then you believe in nothing.

[Nowhere357]

johnransom:[/i]

Your use of invective is indicative of your lack of maturity and your lack of a supportable position. It also indicates a lack of wisdom.

Life is too short and peace is to valuable for me to waste my time talking with unpleasant people.


First, it assumes the unsupportability of Christian claims. That is an assertion requiring proof.
Do you claim that supernatural entities are a scientific fact? Or do you claim that xianity does not require belief in supernatural entities? In either case, your first objection is refuted.


Second, freethinkers supposedly reject authority as a basis for belief. But this is in fact an impossibility. The perfect answer to the bumper sticker command "Question Authority" is the question "Says Who?"and it applies just as well here. The person who rejects authority merely sets himself up as the authority.
We are responsible for reaching our own conclusions. Things are true (or not) because they are true (or not), and NOT because someone says so. This is a fact of reality, and it refutes your second objection.


Third, appending the sentence "Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists" to the definition of freethinker is a faulty mixing of terms. The term "freethinker" as applied to this group is merely a title, not a description. There is nothing in the definition that excludes theists from being freethinkers. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that atheists are far from rational.
The first statement in incorrect. Although you have the right to redefine terms all you want, communication requires common definitions.

The second statement is silly. We can say the same about xians, but it is not helpful.

The third statement is correct. Imagine that!

So is the fourth statement. Again, we can say the same about xians, but why bother?

So your third objection is sort of mixed, but I'll score it as refuted.


Fourth, it assumes that all religious matters are subject to rational inquiry, which is not necessarily true. Truth and reasonableness are not synonyms.

Actually, it assumes reality is subject to rational inquiry. Which IS necessarily true. If something affects reality or exists in reality then we can detect it.

So your fourth objection is refuted.


Fifth, the term "freethinker" is also used of deists, who are by definition theists.

Freethinkers are people. Imagine that!


Sixth, as we all know, and is obvious from the carelessly undeleted "b" at the end, the definition of "Christian" is woefully inadequate, and deliberately edited in order to highlight only that part of the definition that implies adherence to a dogmatic authority. More deck-stacking from Nobrain.
If I was interested in hiding something, maybe I should have removed the "1 a" part, whaddya think?

You insult xians by implying they don't use dictionaries, you insult freethinkers by implying they need to play tricks, and you insult me by saying I stacked the deck. You are just an all-around insulting kind of person! In all three cases, you are wrong, and this refutes your sixth objection.

Keep it up. You are a great champion for the cause of freethought!

[Nowhere357]

Defenestrator:[/i]

I don't take faith and reason to be quite so seperate as you seem to. IOW, faith and reason both affect every thing I have come to believe.

I completely agree with this conclusion.

I included the apparent contradiction in my post in order to stimulate conversation in a direction I'm interested in. IMO the findings of science require at least a speck of faith; and the findings of religion require ar least a speck of reason. Meanwhile, everything else that we know or think we know requires both faith and reason to some extent.

See my avatar for a picture of this relationship. :smile:


I said: "A view that embraces other true views is "superior". I guess this experiment is just a rework of the blind men and the elephant."

I can agree if I am allowed to add the word "true" as I did. I think the views that one embraces must correspond to reality in some way. What I don't see is how that pits freethought (using your definition in this post) against Christianity?
I think freethought is "against" Christianity when Christianity tries to make claims about physical reality. Religion is the incorrect tool for investigating matter/energy and space/time. By insisting on unsupportable claims (such as "the sun goes around the earth", or "all humans come from Adam and Eve") IMO Christianity makes it harder for people to accept the Bible as containing spiritual truth.

In terms of the OP on this thread, Christianity is often seen as demanding "believe this - or else!". This can be seen as a sort of brain-washing, and freethought is naturally opposed to such an idea.

[Nowhere357]

DBoone:[/i]

How does all this work with God? Could we accuse God of not being free-thinking? Not at all. God knows everything. God gives us the freedom to be free-thinkers. God gives us a world to experience and to draw free-thinking conclusions about. God also tells us in his Word that down the road of SOME of our free-thinking are very destructive consequences. Christianity recognizes all these things. Atheism does not. Christianity is superior to atheism.
DB, the problem is that your opinions are based on the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired. You'll hear from me on that subject in the other thread.

For this thread, let me say that atheism is able to examine ALL the religious texts, avoiding fixation on any one book. This gives a more expansive view, can access all available viewpoints, is more likely to be exposed to truth, is less likely to accept unsupportable claims.

This makes atheism superior. :)

[Nowhere357]

FirstSunday33ad:

I see your problem, you are starting from a false premise, so its no wonder you reach a false conclusion.

Yes, that'll do it every time!


First, Christianity does not require you believe in Jesus (and by that I am assuming you mean as Son of God) or you will be punished. Demons know that Jesus is the Son of God and they still will be punished. To be Christian means not only to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but also the Saviour, the only means to salvation and to accept Him as such. This means surrendering your life to Him.
I am unable to reduce this to anything but :"believe it or else!".

Not one word about morals, behaviors and intentions.


Secondly, you are twisting the meaning of what you wrote when you defined a free thinker. To restate; you defined this as coming “to our own conclusions, as opposed to believing what we are told to believe”. The assumption naturally followed that “being told what to believe”, meant being told by someone as opposed to researching, reading and concluding after investigation that the Bible was telling the truth as opposed to the Koran (for example). As to a person who happens to pick up the Bible, reads it and simply believes because – “well that’s what it says to do” – I seriously doubt such human being exists and if they did they must also believe in Peter Pan and Wicca. There are plenty of books that say, “believe this”.
You seem to say here that we should believe the Bible, and not the other religious books. That's off thread, I guess.

Here, please understand that the skeptic fails to accept the book as above all others. God made all of us - muslims and buddhists also. It is morally repugnant that god would punish people for where they happened to be born.


The person I was referring to was the person who claims to be Christian simply because it is the faith of their culture or society. Such a faith is built on sand and has no strength. It crumbles at the first challenge – as many a skeptic proves. Many of them started from “Christian” homes as “believers” because that was the faith of their fathers. As soon as they encountered that first troubling moment though, their faith went out the window. That is what I meant when I said Christianity DEMANDS free thought. If you believe simply because you were told to believe, then you believe in nothing.
Thank you, I now have a better understanding of what you meant.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 07:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88697#post88697)
Jinx72:

Do you know any atheists who:

Gathering in groups once a week for the purpose of singing praises to invisible persons (Psalms); ? ”

How does this (and everything else) figure into your accusation of "brainwashing?"


Constant affirmation that what you believe is true, singing songs to invisible men...? I understand completely why you who believe and do such things don't see the conncetion. Playing dumb can also get thee out of a traffic ticket, if done right.




“ Listen to an atheist speaker religiously once ot twice a week or more, encouraging them to continue resisting the evils of Christian thought, (Hebrews 10:25)? ”

Madalyn Murray O'Hair was quite popular as an atheist speaker whom atheists listened to "once or twice a week or more" and who "encouraged them to continue resisting the evils of Christian thought."


Not ALL atheists. There is nothing in atheist thought that commands us to "not forsake the gathering of ourselves together", but Christians are commanded to do this, and certainly do it more so than any atheist who gathers with atheist friends.



Even today, there are plenty of atheist-run radio shows which people listen to - dare I say it? - religiously.


is that the same thing as going to church twice a week, in a room filled with likeminded people, listending reverently to the pastor as if a great than human intelligence were moving through him? Beginning and ending it all with the singing of songs to this invisible person? Oh yeah, sure is difficult to see how atheists have any less indoctrination than Christians. We listen to radio shows, obviously we are hopelessly biased!



Then there's the atheist websites with their almost daily sermons about "the evils of Christian thought."


None of those sermons attempt to make the atheist feel guilty about his imperfections though.



“ Proclaiming a single atheist book as having all the answers to life (Hebrews 4:12) or at least what is necessary to avoid the coming cosmic war? ”

To imply (or even outright say) that the Bible is a "single book" is really a misnomer.


yeah, my fault, I should have realize that there is no such thing as "the" bible, unless you think evangelical Protestantism is the only form of christianity that ever existed.



Aside from that, there are plenty of books which make up the standard atheist repetoire. And, again, there are the atheist websites and their continuous writings.


Ah, so atheists mouse clicking and reading an article on some website is equivilent to the Christian belief that the bible is the word of an invisible man. But I am the one alleging you are brainwashed, so I guess I should have only expected such hair-brained answers from you.

[/QUOTE]
“Studying this atheist book daily with the reverent attitude that more reading means more alignment with "truth", and encourage others to mediate upon it’s precepts daily so they will not depart from it’s instruction (Psalms)? ”

Okay, every atheist who has a favorite atheist website which they check daily please raise your hand.
[/QUOTE]

Does "favorite" and "check daily" equate to "this source of info has the answers to all of life for everybody, and to study the same exact source, which doesn't change it's words ever, bring you into a closer relationship with an invisible man..."?



“ Telling each other to not be conformed to Christianity, but rather be transformed by the renewing of their mind (Romans 12:2)? ”

Pretty commonplace among them, yes.


No, I know of no atheist who talks like that. My own stance is that if it works for you, so be it, but don't hit people over the head with it. JP Holding does this all the time. And my presence here was the result of my challenge to an article of his. I am not typically zealous to defend atheism and challenge Christians unless they first challenge me, and that's exactly what Holding "chicken challenge' is all about.



“ Telling each other that the atheist who doubts is like a wave of the sea, tossed here and there with every wind of doctrine, let no atheist who doubts think that he recieve anything from smarter atheists (James 1:6)? ”

Not in so many (poetic) words, but yes.


Source? Please come up with an atheist leader who tells atheists that any among them who doubt atheism are unstable in all their ways, and don't deserve further atheist enlightenment.



“Say they should let no man take them captive through vain religion which is according to the tradition of theism and not according to atheisim(Colossians 2:8)? ”

One word: freethought. Another word: infidel.


But do we say our freethinking proceeds from invisible men, like you conform your thoughts to the invisible Jesus? Sure, we hate theistic thought, and militate against it, there's this invisible person problem you have that we don't.



“Telling each other to take every thought captive to the obedience of atheism and that their local atheist leaders are ready to punish all disobedience (2nd Corinthians 10:5-6)? ”


Atheists aren't organized enough for the latter to really occur (though tongue-lashings are common enough), but I can see the former happening after a fashion.
[/QUOTE]

Ok, so you admit we don't threaten to punish those who fail to conform to our beliefs. But many cult leaders threaten to kick out members of their cult who disobey, how is this any different from standard excommunications and disfellowshiping in Christianity?
The threat of being kicked out, when one is already emotionally and socially committed to the group (membership in the denomination or inclusion in the leadership or faculty) is standard procedure in cults to force obedience.



"Telling each other daily to put on the whole armor of atheism, that they may be able to stand against the wiles of Christianity, having the breastplate of situation ethics, girding our loins with truth, our feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of atheism, above all the shield of faith, to quench the fiery darts of Christian apologists, donning the helmet of knowledge, wielding the sword of deductive arguments, with all meditation at all times (Ephesians 6:11-18)? ”

Again, not in so many words, but yes.


Sorry, there was already a Christian here who said he didn't know of any atheist equivilent. Which one of you has the truth?



“Exhorting inconsistent atheists in their weekly groups to either confess and repent of their error of entertaining non-atheist thoughts, or else be excommunicated from the congregation, knowing that a little bit of leaven leaveneth the whole lump (one inconsistent atheist can infect the rest of the group he fellowships in, 1st Corinthians 5:6)? ”



Happens quite a bit in online atheist forums.


Not in the one's I've been in (infidels.org/errancy), you don't cite sources because you are just pulling this stuff out of thin air. The other groups I'm in are Christian discussion groups.



“View all non-christian thoughts and arguments automatically as tares sown by an invisible person whose single purpose of existence is to steal, kill and destroy atheism (John 10:10-11)? ”


Did you mean "non-atheist thoughts?"


yes



In any case, the latter part is true, though it's not an "invisible person," but Christians who are doing so.


You believe Christians are doing the work of the archenemy of Christianity?



“Listen seriously to atheist leaders who scream “if any man teaches you any form of thought different than the one that *I* am preaching to you, let him be eternally cursed!” (Galations 1:6-9)? ”


Yep, though "eternally cursed" would be reduced to "shunned and ridiculed until the day we assume you enter into oblivion after death."
[/QUOTE]

Sources? I don't listen to any atheist leaders who talk like that, I listen to the ones who say "if it works for you, great", and I'm not going to bash your beliefs unless you first ask for it", such as Holding first asked for it with his chicken challenge.

“And Believing seriously any new atheist who insists that he came to accept atheism after a flash of light knock him off his horse and was so intrusive that the men who were there heard a voice, but didn’t see anything, and which blinding flash of visionary knowledge caused him physical blindness for three days, but who was attended by another atheist friend later, who, through ESP knew that this phenomena had taken place (Acts 26:12-14, 9:10-19)? ”

I thought that it would be "but who was attended by another atheist friend later, who, through ESP, knew that this phenomena HADN'T taken place."
[/QUOTE]

No, "HAD taken place", to keep consistent with the analogy to Paul's song and dance in Acts.



“ …THEN the Christian will have sufficient basis for claiming that atheists have the same degree of bias against opposing views that Christians do. ”

Of course, because we all know that you are the sole owner of the truth behind what constitutes bias for atheists.


Answer the argument!



“ But until that day, atheists have complete freedom in their world view to be objective and consider seriously any arguments against their beliefs, ”

They have complete freedom to do so in any case, but that doesn't mean that they use it. Much like you, many don't.


yeah, no rebuttal, just whining.



while bible believing Christians are hopelessly lost in full prejudice and bias against all non-biblical thought, so much so, that even trigger-phrases and buzz words are already in place to squelch doubts that first appear to the Christian somewhat justified. ”

Translation: "Pot calling kettle. Pot calling kettle. Do you read me? You're black. Over."


Not at all. I know of no atheists that read a single bo

[skepticbud]

Today @ 07:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88697#post88697)
Jinx72:


Today @ 07:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88697#post88697)
Jinx72:

Do you know any atheists who:

Gathering in groups once a week for the purpose of singing praises to invisible persons (Psalms); ? ”

How does this (and everything else) figure into your accusation of "brainwashing?"


Constant affirmation that what you believe is true, singing songs to invisible men...? I understand completely why you who believe and do such things don't see the conncetion. Playing dumb can also get thee out of a traffic ticket, if done right.




“ Listen to an atheist speaker religiously once ot twice a week or more, encouraging them to continue resisting the evils of Christian thought, (Hebrews 10:25)? ”

Madalyn Murray O'Hair was quite popular as an atheist speaker whom atheists listened to "once or twice a week or more" and who "encouraged them to continue resisting the evils of Christian thought."


Not ALL atheists. There is nothing in atheist thought that commands us to "not forsake the gathering of ourselves together", but Christians are commanded to do this, and certainly do it more so than any atheist who gathers with atheist friends.



Even today, there are plenty of atheist-run radio shows which people listen to - dare I say it? - religiously.


is that the same thing as going to church twice a week, in a room filled with likeminded people, listending reverently to the pastor as if a great than human intelligence were moving through him? Beginning and ending it all with the singing of songs to this invisible person? Oh yeah, sure is difficult to see how atheists have any less indoctrination than Christians. We listen to radio shows, obviously we are hopelessly biased!



Then there's the atheist websites with their almost daily sermons about "the evils of Christian thought."


None of those sermons attempt to make the atheist feel guilty about his imperfections though.



“ Proclaiming a single atheist book as having all the answers to life (Hebrews 4:12) or at least what is necessary to avoid the coming cosmic war? ”

To imply (or even outright say) that the Bible is a "single book" is really a misnomer.


yeah, my fault, I should have realize that there is no such thing as "the" bible, unless you think evangelical Protestantism is the only form of christianity that ever existed.



Aside from that, there are plenty of books which make up the standard atheist repetoire. And, again, there are the atheist websites and their continuous writings.


Ah, so atheists mouse clicking and reading an article on some website is equivilent to the Christian belief that the bible is the word of an invisible man. But I am the one alleging you are brainwashed, so I guess I should have only expected such hair-brained answers from you.


“Studying this atheist book daily with the reverent attitude that more reading means more alignment with "truth", and encourage others to mediate upon it’s precepts daily so they will not depart from it’s instruction (Psalms)? ”

Okay, every atheist who has a favorite atheist website which they check daily please raise your hand.
[/QUOTE]

Does "favorite" and "check daily" equate to "this source of info has the answers to all of life for everybody, and to study the same exact source, which doesn't change it's words ever, bring you into a closer relationship with an invisible man..."?



“ Telling each other to not be conformed to Christianity, but rather be transformed by the renewing of their mind (Romans 12:2)? ”

Pretty commonplace among them, yes.


No, I know of no atheist who talks like that. My own stance is that if it works for you, so be it, but don't hit people over the head with it. JP Holding does this all the time. And my presence here was the result of my challenge to an article of his. I am not typically zealous to defend atheism and challenge Christians unless they first challenge me, and that's exactly what Holding "chicken challenge' is all about.



“ Telling each other that the atheist who doubts is like a wave of the sea, tossed here and there with every wind of doctrine, let no atheist who doubts think that he recieve anything from smarter atheists (James 1:6)? ”

Not in so many (poetic) words, but yes.


Source? Please come up with an atheist leader who tells atheists that any among them who doubt atheism are unstable in all their ways, and don't deserve further atheist enlightenment.



“Say they should let no man take them captive through vain religion which is according to the tradition of theism and not according to atheisim(Colossians 2:8)? ”

One word: freethought. Another word: infidel.


But do we say our freethinking proceeds from invisible men, like you conform your thoughts to the invisible Jesus? Sure, we hate theistic thought, and militate against it, there's this invisible person problem you have that we don't.



“Telling each other to take every thought captive to the obedience of atheism and that their local atheist leaders are ready to punish all disobedience (2nd Corinthians 10:5-6)? ”


Atheists aren't organized enough for the latter to really occur (though tongue-lashings are common enough), but I can see the former happening after a fashion.
[/QUOTE]

Ok, so you admit we don't threaten to punish those who fail to conform to our beliefs. But many cult leaders threaten to kick out members of their cult who disobey, how is this any different from standard excommunications and disfellowshiping in Christianity?
The threat of being kicked out, when one is already emotionally and socially committed to the group (membership in the denomination or inclusion in the leadership or faculty) is standard procedure in cults to force obedience.



"Telling each other daily to put on the whole armor of atheism, that they may be able to stand against the wiles of Christianity, having the breastplate of situation ethics, girding our loins with truth, our feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of atheism, above all the shield of faith, to quench the fiery darts of Christian apologists, donning the helmet of knowledge, wielding the sword of deductive arguments, with all meditation at all times (Ephesians 6:11-18)? ”

Again, not in so many words, but yes.


Sorry, there was already a Christian here who said he didn't know of any atheist equivilent. Which one of you has the truth?



“Exhorting inconsistent atheists in their weekly groups to either confess and repent of their error of entertaining non-atheist thoughts, or else be excommunicated from the congregation, knowing that a little bit of leaven leaveneth the whole lump (one inconsistent atheist can infect the rest of the group he fellowships in, 1st Corinthians 5:6)? ”



Happens quite a bit in online atheist forums.


Not in the one's I've been in (infidels.org/errancy), you don't cite sources because you are just pulling this stuff out of thin air. The other groups I'm in are Christian discussion groups.



“View all non-christian thoughts and arguments automatically as tares sown by an invisible person whose single purpose of existence is to steal, kill and destroy atheism (John 10:10-11)? ”


Did you mean "non-atheist thoughts?"


yes



In any case, the latter part is true, though it's not an "invisible person," but Christians who are doing so.


You believe Christians are doing the work of the archenemy of Christianity?



“Listen seriously to atheist leaders who scream “if any man teaches you any form of thought different than the one that *I* am preaching to you, let him be eternally cursed!” (Galations 1:6-9)? ”


Yep, though "eternally cursed" would be reduced to "shunned and ridiculed until the day we assume you enter into oblivion after death."
[/QUOTE]

Sources? I don't listen to any atheist leaders who talk like that, I listen to the ones who say "if it works for you, great", and I'm not going to bash your beliefs unless you first ask for it", such as Holding first asked for it with his chicken challenge.

“And Believing seriously any new atheist who insists that he came to accept atheism after a flash of light knock him off his horse and was so intrusive that the men who were there heard a voice, but didn’t see anything, and which blinding flash of visionary knowledge caused him physical blindness for three days, but who was attended by another atheist friend later, who, through ESP knew that this phenomena had taken place (Acts 26:12-14, 9:10-19)? ”

I thought that it would be "but who was attended by another atheist friend later, who, through ESP, knew that this phenomena HADN'T taken place."
[/QUOTE]

No, "HAD taken place", to keep consistent with the analogy to Paul's song and dance in Acts.



“ …THEN the Christian will have sufficient basis for claiming that atheists have the same degree of bias against opposing views that Christians do. ”

Of course, because we all know that you are the sole owner of the truth behind what constitutes bias for atheists.


Answer the argument!



“ But until that day, atheists have complete freedom in their world view to be objective and consider seriously any arguments against their beliefs, ”

They have complete freedom to do so in any case, but that doesn't mean that they use it. Much like you, many don't.


yeah, no rebuttal, just whining.



while bible believing Christians are hopelessly lost in full prejudice and bias against all non-biblical thought, so much so, that even trigger-phrases and buzz words are already in place to squelch doubts that first appear to the Christian somewhat justified. ”

Translation: "Pot calling kettle. Pot calling kettle. Do you read me? You're black. Over."


Not at all. I know of no atheists that read a single book or volume with different books in it (oh wow, what a seriously important distinction, as is the bible being one book or many books was somehow critical to distinguish to get across the main point I'm arguing) with the attitude that everytime they think of something that doesn't agree with that book, suddenly, it's THEY that must be wrong, because that book is inerrant in spite of what Christians have said about it before. Nope, sorry.



“But it sure does shut the mouths of bible-believing Christians who insist they obey the New Testament and yet are still as equally as objective as atheists in evaluating contrary evidence. ”

Nah, Christians aren't equally as objective as atheists. Atheists are much less objective. Nothing you've stated here or elsewhere denies that (and it actually proves it).


unsubstantiated allegation. it's funny to watch you post this stuff, as if the way Christians live out their Christianity doesn't make them any more biased toward their own views than somebody that DOESN'T have religion. That's exactly why you call atheism and evolution a religion, because you would admit you are brainwashed and we aren't, if you didn't make this false equation. learning in school biologly class taht animals evolved is quite a bit less brainwashing than singing praises to god in languages that you've never studied. You dont' speak in tongues? you must think the Christians that do are crazy, in agreement with me!



“Yet the bible believers would assert the laughably absurd position that, in spite of all the above biblical demands I listed above, which they attempt to obey 24 hours a day (ya dont' wanna be a hypocrite, do ya?), nevertheless, they are NOT so biased that they cannot evaluate evidence against them objectively. ”

You've proven time and time again that you are anything but objective. Your scorn and contempt for Christians and Christianity ooze from each and every one of your posts.


You haven't defended your own ability to be objective, you are just pointin the finger and making unsubstaniated allegations. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I am not objective. You need to answer the inconsistency of saying you are more objective than people who DON'T read the same religious book everyday as if it had answers for everybody on earth.



“ Now I’m gonna have to get going, my atheist congregation is holding a meditation vigil and a “skeptic’s annotated bible” study, and I don’t wanna miss this chance to gather in Farrell Till’s name and praise him for his mighty knowledge that has saved untold numbers of Christians from certain intellectual death. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘atheism is wrong’.” (2nd Delusions 6:66, SIKO version) ”

"atheist congregation" = online atheist buddies


False, email chatting doesn't carry the social conditioning consequences of meeting in person, where we can all observe each other's body langauge and the pressure to agree with each other is greater, and if atheists do meet up to discuss atheism, it isn't religiously 3 times a week and singing songs to invisible men and talking in wannabe languages we haven't even studied, so that our atheist friends assure themselves that this cackling we are doing surely is a real language, though perhaps not an earthly language.



"meditation vigil" = rap session on an atheist forum


atheists talking about atheism and how best to us human logic toward that end, isn't the same thing as Christians silently praying to one invisible person and feeling an answer from, even though they also know that billions of others pray similarly and also similarly feel this "person" has "answered" each of their various problems.



"'skeptic’s annotated bible' study" = laugh about all those alleged "atrocities, errors and contradictions" in the Bible


Quite a bit different than reading an atheist book reverently as if it had answers to all life's problems, as we all interpret the same atheist book the same way. Not too much can be misunderstood in popular atheist books, but the Christian bible? Christians disagree over what it means or teaches and have every since your religion started.



"gather in Farrell Till's name" = read Till's latest ramblings


READ them, not prayfully open them up, believing that a great invisible person will show us something in there we haven't seen before, or attend weekly gatherings to that effect.



"praise him for his mighty knowledge that has saved untold numbers of Christians from certain intellectual death" = mindlessly ridicule JPH's trashings of Till's latest ramblings (and making sure to use JPH's real name as something akin to a vile curse)


ridiculing somebody else's writings isn't equivilent ("=") to praising an invisible person.



“ But atheists dont' gather every Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday, to hold hands and sing praises to the sacred cow of science, believing against hope that in stupidity is science's strength made perfect. ”

Are you sure?


yes



The first part of that paragraph is irrelevant, but isn't science's strength said to be in that it is inherently "weak?" What's "true" and "a fact" in science today might not be so tomorrow. Is not its weakness in this regard its greatest strength?


No, it's popular for Christians to condemn science as ever-changing, but I assure you not many more tests need to be performed in order to determine that cars are held to the earth by gravity. SOME things in science change, but not the basic beliefs.



“But Christians do the same on those days: just change "atheist" to Christians, "sacred cow of science" to "god" and change "stupidity is science's strength made perfect" to "My strength is made perfect in weakness..." ”

This just goes to show that you have no clue what that means.


More mindless ranting without substance. Apostle Paul was complaining to Jesus about his physical weaknesses and hardhips, and the thorn in his side, when that stupid phrase came into play. I know perfectly well what it means, it means that which non-Christians would regard as weak, paul's god thinks is strong. That's why Paul then goes on to glory in his weakenesses. Your criticism of me is more emotional than true. Are you a woman?



“The Christian who objects to this hypothesis of mine must first marshal evidences that atheists do things in their lives that are equal to the kind of brainwashing tactics Christians perform on themselves and others as described in the above bible verses, or you lose. ”

You aren't even close to proving that anything you've pointed out is "brainwashing." Instead of your typical bashing session that we see here, let's see some comparisons between real, documented methods of brainwashing and what is stated in the Bible.


Your gonna get that documentation real quick.



“Yeah that's right, you Christians just come up with an invisible man that us atheists believe in, who lives in our hearts, and who also was once a real human, and this whole argument of mine will crash and burn thereby. Until that day, sweet dreams. ”

*yawn* And Snooty thinks *I* am hateful and arrogant?


yes, and that's unbiblical, you are supposed to be gentle. Holding didn't touch my specific thread on 2nd Timothy about gentleness, because there's no answer to it, and you are condemned by that same post of mine. Who cares if I am also hateful? Apostle Paul said be gentle with those that oppose.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 06:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88973#post88973)
Evangel:

these atheists dont deserve the time of day nor the benefit of the doubt. skepticbutt lives and breathes ignorance and stupidity. i am sure its heart has long been cool and his mind long gone. any logical thought left in his mind just ran away screaming.

I could say the exact same thing to the Christians. What would it accomplish?

[skepticbud]

reprinted from the Mar/Apr 1990 Bethel Ministries Newsletter Eight Marks of a Mind-Control Cult by Randall Watters (a Christian man) Brainwashing has become almost a household word in the last two decades or so. In 1961, Robert J. Lifton wrote the definitive book on the subject, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, after studying the effects of mind control on American prisoners of war under the Communist Chinese. Lifton outlines eight major factors that can be used to identify whether a group is a destructive cult or not. Any authoritarian religion should be held up to the light in order to determine just how destructive their influence is on their members. Judge for yourselves.

Milieu Control
"Milieu" is a French word meaning "surroundings; environment." Cults are able to control the environment around their recruits in a number of ways, but almost always using a form of isolation. Recruits can be physically separated from society, or they can be warned under threat of punishment to stay away from the world's educational media, especially when it might provoke critical thinking.

yep, the bible commands Christians to "come out and be ye seperate, and I will recieve you" and "do not be yoked with unbelievers/light doesn't fellowship with darkness" and "whoever is a friend of the world is the enemy of god" and "the ways of the world are foolishness to god", and other assorted buzz-words that require bible believers to isolate themselves in their daily life, by refusing intimate friendship with those who are not Christians. In this way the person obeying the bible controls his environment. You don't have to move to the middle of the desert before you can be called brainwashed.


Any books, movies or testimonies of ex-members of the group, or even anyone critical of the group in any way are to be avoided.

that's exactly right. "bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ". How biased would you say an atheist was, if he said "I take every thought captive to the obedience of atheism, and am ready to punish all disobedience" (2nd Corinthians 10)? 9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat." 12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." (2nd Corinthians 5) -- Note that the Christian brothers paul says to disassociate from are those that obviously have different views from paul. For Paul, to worship anything other than his god while you are a Christian, is idolotry, so Christians who obey this verse would naturally seperate themselves from other Christian 'brothers' who espouse a different form of Christianity.


Information is carefully kept on each recruit by the mother organization.

In Christianity, it's called "accountability groups". In the bible it's called "confess your sins one to another".


All are watched, lest they fall behind or get too far ahead of the thinking of the organization. Because it appears that the organization knows so much about everything and everyone, they appear omniscient in the eyes of the recruits.

The eyes of the lord are in every place. the tyrant doesn't have to be the organization, the Christian already believes god is watching his every move.


Mystical Manipulation In religious cults, God is ever-present in the workings of the organization.

How often is god present when you gather in Jesus' name?


If a person leaves for any reason, accidents or ill-will that may befall them are always attributed to God's punishment on them.

That hardly needs substantiation, every biblical character that gave up on god is said to have had calamity befall them, just read what happens to OT Israel when they leave Judaism and go into idolotry. Do they become prosperous? does the biblical author say they lose their freedom and go into captivity beacuse of leaving god?


For the faithful, the angels are always said to be working, and stories circulate about how God is truly doing marvelous things among them, because they are "the truth."

So far, I haven't met a Christian who says guardian angels are fictional.


Demand for Purity The world is depicted as black and white,

We know that we are of god and the whole world lays in the lap of the wicked one....1st john 5:19...whosoever believes in god will not perish / I am the way, the truth and the life, nobody comes to the father except through me (salvation is the same for everybody) You are either sheep or goats, wheat or tares, saved or lost, sounds pretty black and white to me!


with little room for making personal decisions based on a trained conscience.

Take every thought that exalts itself against the knowledge of god, and bring it into captivity to Christ. the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom.


One's conduct is modeled after the ideology of the group, as taught in its literature.

self evident


People and organizations are pictured as either good or evil, depending on their relationship to the cult.

Everybody who hasn't accepted Jesus and joined that organization called Christianity, is gonna go to hell. Be real careful if you are a Christian that doesn't believe in hell, you offer us atheists nothing better than what we already expect; to die and stay dead forever.


Universal tendencies of guilt and shame are used to control individuals, even after they leave.

"In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching[1] you received from us..If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother." (2nd Thessalonians 3:6, 14)



There is great difficulty in understanding the complexities of human morality, since everything is polarized and oversimplified."

3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself." (1 Timothy 6)



All things classified as evil are to be avoided, and purity is attainable through immersion into the cult's ideology.

psalm 119 is absolutely nothing but exactly immersion into Ideology of Judaism, and regarded by most Christians as the same attitude they should take regarding the New Testament. 12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-_edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12) "not live by bread alone, but by every WORD of GOD." (Matthew 4:4) "like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, (1st peter 2:2) 7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether. 10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. ({Psalm 19)



The Cult of Confession Serious sins (as defined by the organization) are to be confessed immediately. The members are to be reported if found walking contrary to the rules.

already cited


There is often a tendency to derive pleasure from self-degradation through confession. This occurs when all must confess their sins before each other regularly, creating an intense kind of "oneness" within the group.

Confess your sins, the one to the other.


It also allows leaders from within to exercise authority over the weaker ones, using their "sins" as a whip to lead them on.

already cited 2nd Thess.


The "Sacred Science" The cult's ideology becomes the ultimate moral vision for the ordering of human existence.

19Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[3] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21envy, murders,[4] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galations 5:1 ff)


The ideology is too "sacred" to call into question, and a reverence is demanded for the leadership.

Love believes all things, 1st Corinthians 13. "17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." (Hebrews 13:17)


The cult's ideology makes an exaggerated claim for possessing airtight logic, making it appear as absolute truth with no contradictions. Such an attractive system offers security.

Can anybody say "the biblical doctrine of inerrancy?" I don't care if you don't believe in inerrancy, the fundamentalists who extract it out of 2nd Timothy 3:16 are justified. And you don't want to reveal which parts of the bible you think are in error, trust me. If you don't believe me, go ahead, give me a verse in the bible that you think contains an error.


Loading the Language Lifton explains the prolific use of "thought-terminating cliches," expressions or words that are designed to end the conversation or controversy. We are all familiar with the use of the cliches "capitalist" and "imperialist," as used by antiwar demonstrators in the 60's. Such cliches are easily memorized and readily expressed. They are called the "language of non-thought," since the discussion is terminated, not allowing further consideration.

unbeliever, goats, tares, wolves in sheep's clothing, worldly person, emmisary of the devil, false teacher, and other assorted biblical phrases that perform their required mental duties in the Christians head once the opposer has been labeled as such.


In the Watchtower, for instance, expressions such as "the truth", the "mother organization", the "new system", "apostates" and "worldly" carry with them a judgment on outsiders, leaving them unworthy of further consideration.

other Christians use those terms too, except maybe "mother organization".


Doctrine Over Person Human experience is subordinated to doctrine, no matter how profound or contradictory such experiences seem.

Listening to an angel of god would be an experience, right? paul says even if an angel from heavenpreaches any other gospel than the one Paul preaches, let him be accursed. (Galations 1:6-9).


The history of the cult is altered to fit their doctrinal logic.

You don't hear much about the manechians, or the ebionites, right? But we all know about christian book burning decrees that destroyed all Christian thought that wasn't constantine approved or trinitarian, right? If you don't know of Christian book burning decrees to rid the world of forms of Christianity that the form in power at the time disagreed with, please study christian history before you respond.


The person is only valuable insomuch as they conform to the role models of the cult. Commonsense perceptions are disregarded if they are hostile to the cult's ideology.

You are the salt of the earth, but if the salt has lost it's savor, it's good for nothing but to be cast out and walked on under the feet of men.


Dispensing of Existence The cult decides who has the "right" to exist and who does not. They decide who will perish in the final battle of good over evil. Christians tirelessly proclaim that all unbelievers will have their part in the lake of fire (like liars do too) and true Christians will walk streets of gold. The leaders decide which history books are accurate and which are biased. I cited three major modern historians who said the main source of knowledge we have on ancient christianity, 'Church History' by Eusebius, was a biased and inaccurate history put together by a person who is "loose and uncritical in their sources", in my first speech against JP Holding in the Matthew authorship debate. And exactly the burning of books to supress history that the church in power didn't want the masses to know of, is exactly what happened in early church history, Constantine comes to mind.

[QUOTE] Families can be cut off

"34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10)


and outsiders can be deceived, for they are not fit to exist!

does god send unbelievers to hell or anihilate them because they ARE fit to exist, or because they AREn'T? See! You believe just like the cults do.

[Jim E.]

Today @ 12:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88635#post88635)
skepticbud:

Do you know any atheists who:

Gathering in groups once a week for the purpose of singing praises to invisible persons (Psalms); ?

Christians are brainwashed. And I mean that as a compliment. If they weren't brainwashed they would be mentally ill. But if they want to keep worshipping an invisible being, well they're free to do that in their asylums, uh churches. Worshipping an invisible being. No, doesn't seem strange at all. :ahem:

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[Evangel]

SKEPTICBUTT:
I could say the exact same thing to the Christians. What would it accomplish?

ME:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
well since you have no credibility and have made it well known that you seek only to cause trouble you would disregarded and ignored. a good part of the local atheists are probably secretly embarrased to be assosciated with you, but thats what they get. Kyle Gerkin himself has spoken ill of you, your word has no value in any circle. for sure it has no meaning to me, maybe if you werent so cocky and you actually debated and didnt dodge questions like you are so inclined to do then maybe id listen to you. besides JPH took you by your head and smashed it to floor already.

now i realize as a Christian i shouldn't be handling this situation like this butt in your case i've decided to make an exception.

best wishes,
Evangel

[Defenestrator]

skepticbud:

reprinted from the Mar/Apr 1990 Bethel Ministries Newsletter Eight Marks of a Mind-Control Cult by Randall Watters (a Christian man) yada, yada, yada



All please note that you can find this at http://www.freeminds.org/psych/lifton.htm and that Randall Watters is a Christian who used to be involved in the Jehovah's Witnesses WatchTower Society. So, when SkepticBud says in his title that a Christian author has evidence that Christians are "brainwashed," I take that as a deceptive statement. Nowhere does the article say that Christians are "brainwashed."

Also note that I couldn't find any listing of Randy Watters' educational background. Why anybody would listen to him, I don't know. What I do know is that SkepticBud hasn't produced any psychology journal articles that talk about "brainwashing." The fact is that professional psychologists don't acknowledge "brainwashing" as a legitimate idea. But I'm sure someone can find a webpage somewhere to show that I'm wrong.

[Evangel]

Today @ 08:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89381#post89381)
Jim Eisele:



Christians are brainwashed. And I mean that as a compliment. If they weren't brainwashed they would be mentally ill. But if they want to keep worshipping an invisible being, well they're free to do that in their asylums, uh churches. Worshipping an invisible being. No, doesn't seem strange at all. :ahem:

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

ive come to the conclusion that Christianity is true and the resurrection occured and ive been brainwashed because i dont agree with you. I dare you to learn about Christianity. I dare you to refute the Christian cosmological theory. I dare you to read. I dare you to move yourself. I dare you to open your eyes. Only a morally selfish and incompetent person would force himself into believing that there is no god, the only question now is what religion is correct. Chrisianity has the most evidence in every aspect compared to any other world religion. It also has the best promise: love Christ, belief in the Resurrection and whenever you repent your sins to God and you are truly sorry they will be forgiven.

No spending all of ones lifetime on an impossible quest to balance out ones karma in hopes that one may return as a human in the next life, but what is the point of reincarnation if you retain nothing. you have none of your memories, experiences, personality, lifestyle, likes, dislikes. the best they can offer is that they assume you are reincarnated when you die.

Allah is god of death and no doubt inspired by Satan himself. Any god that would want you to end your life for them in order to receive salvation is not worthy of worship. Muslims have even claimed that Jesus was part of their religion so that they could more easily convert us. The only reason their religion survived is because it had a military to back it up and spread its beliefs, Christianity did not have this advantage.

i smell something fishy here and its not my food. i do not take kindly to personal insults and insults usually show a lack of confidence.

God is only an invisible being to us now, well we can't see him anyway. so i have no problem saying that i worship an invisible being at least what im worshipping is reality not what i want to be because it fits into my way of life. Evolution forbid i had to change myself.

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 02:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89022#post89022)
Nowhere357:

This fallacy is not in my list of logical fallacies. Please explain?

the formal name is Appeal to Consequences. see here:
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/adconseq.html


Yes. All that can be questioned is your ability to use reason effectively. But if you are a Christian freethinker, then you CAN be reasoned with. :)

yes, but that involves good reasoning, of course :-P

but seriously, i try to be reasonable. i think that if a good argument is made against God, i may doubt. however, due to my epistemology, what constitutes as a good argument is a lot higher of a standard than what most nontheists will bite onto.

[Evangel]

Today @ 10:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89486#post89486)
Defenestrator:




All please note that you can find this at http://www.freeminds.org/psych/lifton.htm and that Randall Watters is a Christian who used to be involved in the Jehovah's Witnesses WatchTower Society. So, when SkepticBud says in his title that a Christian author has evidence that Christians are "brainwashed," I take that as a deceptive statement. Nowhere does the article say that Christians are "brainwashed."

Also note that I couldn't find any listing of Randy Watters' educational background. Why anybody would listen to him, I don't know. What I do know is that SkepticBud hasn't produced any psychology journal articles that talk about "brainwashing." The fact is that professional psychologists don't acknowledge "brainwashing" as a legitimate idea. But I'm sure someone can find a webpage somewhere to show that I'm wrong.

SKEPTICBUTT is grasping for air but there is none left. :cheers: somehow i am not surprsed by your findings. Somehow i doubt i am brainwashed and ill think of reasons for that right now actually.

First, i do not dogmatically accept Catholicism because it has existed for 2000 years and it is the first Christian religion. i realise that many of their beliefs are beneficial to Christians some of them only to a select few

Secondly, i have not made a decision on wheter preterism or futurism is true, but i say i am futurist since preterism has to prove to me that it was written before 70AD. Most Christians worldwide choose not to even debate this subject and just default to futurism.

Thirdly, i grew up going to church and bible school yes but i was a hardcore atheist until a roughly two years ago. my friend Kyle can attest to that. It wasn't until that i started learning that i saw the truth and good in Christianity. no one else comes close to what Christ offers for us. He lets us get off scot free of our sins as long as we are truly sorry for our sins and repent them; yes we must also love Jesus and believe in the Resurrection but those are both easy to do since Jesus loves you and the Resurrection has very few substantial arguments made against it and thats only because of the kind Kyle Gerkin who brings up good points but there hardly enough to turn you entirely away from believing in the Resurrection.

Fourthly, I go to church extremely rarely because i usually end up learning things i already know and hearing bible verses that i have already read. So i doubt i am exposed to much outside brainwashing.

Fifthly, i had doubts in Christianity for a while but after having read The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel almost all of my major doubts have been obliterated and i even had a spiritual rebirth a few weeks back. Also having read the AWESOME articles by JP Holding and Glenn Miller have remove basically any doubt. Glenn Miller has some awesome articles for Christians. Also having read many of the arguments made by atheists here on theologyweb.com and the arguments are simply not substantial. The logical proof for evolution is simply zilch. there is nothing that can even come close to proving it possible. The only part of evolution that has a substance to it the geocolumnal stacking of bones, but the argument has been made that the bones were stacked in the great flood. personally i think God had them there so that there was a need for faith and you couldnt just come to the logical conclusion of God's existence. He loves you but He wants you to love and trust him, its hard to tell someone to do that so He has to test us and He tries ever so hard to get us to feel his love but some of us are just plain blind or too stubborn to change or ways.

Sixthly (is this a word?), i can feel the love that God has for me and i trust that the message he revealed to us is true. I trust in Him and and i love Him without question. I experience Him so i know Him to be.

thats all i say for now but i know for sure that there is more i could use to prove that i have not been "brainwashed". if anything Stephen Hawking has brainwashed you with his theories of imaginary time, i laugh at his theories and fail to see any logic in them.

i think this article could also be used to show that i am "freethinker" but it seems the only acceptable definition of that phrase is one that does not follow Christianity. decide for yourself.

with eternal love,
Evangel

[Sheepdog]

Jim Eisele proves to us yet again, self-induced ignorance is bliss:


Christians are brainwashed. And I mean that as a compliment. If they weren't brainwashed they would be mentally ill. But if they want to keep worshipping an invisible being, well they're free to do that in their asylums, uh churches. Worshipping an invisible being. No, doesn't seem strange at all. :ahem:

puleeze. when you are done appealing to stupid and want to actually say something that isn't inane, do let us know.

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 11:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89517#post89517)
Evangel:

Fourthly, I go to church extremely rarely because i usually end up learning things i already know and hearing bible verses that i have already read. So i doubt i am exposed to much outside brainwashing.

i thank you for your testimony, it was encouraging. but, the part above concerns me. it isn't that i think you have to go to church to be Christian or anything dumb like that. but, a church is a great place to meet other Christians, and we, being social creatures by nature, need fellowship.

besides, even old dogs learn new tricks

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 01:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89381#post89381)
Jim Eisele:

Christians are brainwashed. And I mean that as a compliment. If they weren't brainwashed they would be mentally ill. But if they want to keep worshipping an invisible being, well they're free to do that in their asylums, uh churches. Worshipping an invisible being. No, doesn't seem strange at all. :ahem:


You know, I read posts by people like SkepticBud and Nowhere (among others) and am convinced that there are skeptics out there who are quite intelligent and learned, and know how to debate honestly and effectively. Then I read Jim Eisele's posts like this one...

David

[Kyle]

Hello Evangel. Yes, I do remember your hardcore atheist days (and all of my constant discussions with you about the topic). I would like to think that I had a positive influence on your conversion, but either way I'm glad that you have become a Christian (Evangel is even the webmaster of my up-and-running apologetics website).

Having said that, Evangel, I would like to differ with your opinion on the issue of fossils. I believe the flood is possible (and no, atheists, I am neither qualified nor informed enough to defend such a belief), but for me it is not really that important. In fact, the whole issue of evolution I find relatively insignificant these days. The most important thing to know is that God exists and Christianity is the most rational religion to follow. But don't worry, pal, I'm still not an evolutionist. I just don't think that God would deliberately mislead people with how He "placed" fossils. But, whether or not the fossil record proves evolution, the basic contention that God exists and Christianity is true is barely affected, let alone refuted.

As for the brainwashing issue, I really don't feel a need to comment. If atheists wish to claim I am brainwashed, so be it. Of course, they are talking from pure ignorance because they have no idea of my thoughts or my way of thinking, but I have no problem with them making baseless claims. I mean, atheists have no idea of what sorts of doubts are in my mind, what sort of experiences I've had, and what sort of life I've lived. In the end, it's really quite useless to charge "brainwashing".

Sincerely,

Kyle.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 03:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89486#post89486)
Defenestrator:

So, when SkepticBud says in his title that a Christian author has evidence that Christians are "brainwashed," I take that as a deceptive statement. Nowhere does the article say that Christians are "brainwashed."

I never said the author was saying those things to prove that Christianity, his own profession of religion, was false.

I was using a Christian's own assesment of what brainwashing is to prove that even by his own standards, bible-believers fit the bill.

But I wouldn't expect a brainwashed person to put these elementary facts together.

[QUOTE]
I also note that I couldn't find any listing of Randy Watters' educational background. Why anybody would listen to him, I don't know.


Why do you listen to JP Holding? DO you have any listing of his educational background? Then perhaps you should listen to me, because I've read numerous books on the bible too, though I never did while on the clock.



What I do know is that SkepticBud hasn't produced any psychology journal articles that talk about "brainwashing."


As if you would be convinced of my position if I had. But anyway:

"The Mind of the Bible Believer" includes a chapter called "The Evangelical Mind Control System", in which he quotes the bible extensively to show that it prescribes brainwashing.

The author, Edmund D. Cohen, is a Ph.d in psychology. One part says "The unsurpassed psychological acumen of he New Testament authors is explained here for modern readers. it will unsetttle both liberal and concservative proponents of Christianity, inform those concerned with the mental-health problems fundamentalism causes its unsuspecting participants, and warn of it's potential adverse social effects." (page 433)



The fact is that professional psychologists don't acknowledge "brainwashing" as a legitimate idea. But I'm sure someone can find a webpage somewhere to show that I'm wrong.

that made a whole lot of sense. You are sure that someone can find a webpage somewhere to prove that your "fact" is wrong? Did you have coffee this morning?

[johnransom]

Today @ 03:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89193#post89193)
Nowhere357:
Your use of invective is indicative of your lack of maturity and your lack of a supportable position. It also indicates a lack of wisdom.
IOW, you can’t take an attack that ridicules your position. Deal with it. And if you think you’ve been dealt with harshly so far here, have you got an education coming.


Life is too short and peace is to valuable for me to waste my time talking with unpleasant people.
An odd statement, considering that you proceed to talk. Evidently I am not in your considerable estimation unpleasant. Of whom are you actually talking?


Do you claim that supernatural entities are a scientific fact? Or do you claim that xianity does not require belief in supernatural entities? In either case, your first objection is refuted.
Ah. So all facts must be scientifically verifiable, whatever that might mean. It doesn’t occur to you that not all facts are subject to scientific inquiry? Moreover, if the definition of science is that it examines all that is in nature, then by definition it cannot be used to test the supernatural. Objection sustained.


We are responsible for reaching our own conclusions. Things are true (or not) because they are true (or not), and NOT because someone says so. This is a fact of reality, and it refutes your second objection.
First, it is refreshing to hear an atheist assert the existence of absolute truth. But the argument is pointless, because the truth of a claim has nothing to do with our ability to arrive at conclusions. Objection sustained.


The first statement in incorrect. Although you have the right to redefine terms all you want, communication requires common definitions.
No, communication requires people to have the capacity to understand what is being said. You spout drivel and demonstrate poor reading. I didn’t say the definition was incorrect, I said it was faulty. And for the reasons given – that there is reason to consider atheists irrational and that rational inquiry is not limited to the groups listed. And I also gave the reason why the definition exists – to claim intellectual authority (an irony, given the definition).


The second statement is silly. We can say the same about xians, but it is not helpful.
Another assertion from the great wielder of authority. And utterly illogical. For this to be valid, the third statement as recast to follow from this would have to read “There is nothing in the definition that excludes atheists from being Christians.” Even your average atheist would consider that ludicrous.


The third statement is correct. Imagine that!

So is the fourth statement. Again, we can say the same about xians, but why bother?
Because it would be irrelevant. But my statement is relevant here, because the claim is being made that atheists are rational and Christians are not. Do try to keep up.


So your third objection is sort of mixed, but I'll score it as refuted.
Another wonderful ex cathedra assertion. You wish. Objection sustained.


Actually, it assumes reality is subject to rational inquiry. Which IS necessarily true. If something affects reality or exists in reality then we can detect it.

So your fourth objection is refuted.
Dead wrong. First, reality is not necessarily subject to rational inquiry. Evidently you haven’t heard of the concepts “axiom” and “properly basic”. Second, how do you know that if something exists it can be detected? What is there to prevent an entirely undetectable thing from existing? How would you ever know? You are now claiming omniscience – I’m impressed that your authority has grown to reach so far. Third, who is to say that our ability to detect reality is reliable? Objection sustained.


Freethinkers are people. Imagine that!
And immediately you descend to triviality and irrelevance. Totally non-responsive.


If I was interested in hiding something, maybe I should have removed the "1 a" part, whaddya think?
I think you are even more careless than I bothered to demonstrate.


You insult xians by implying they don't use dictionaries, you insult freethinkers by implying they need to play tricks, and you insult me by saying I stacked the deck. You are just an all-around insulting kind of person! In all three cases, you are wrong, and this refutes your sixth objection.
I never made the first implication, nor was the second – I demonstrated that they do play tricks; whether they need to was never addressed (although you are quite correct in that statement:teeth:). The third was quite categorically stated and clearly demonstrated and was not implied at all. And if you are insulted by having your silly little argument shown to be what it is, tough. You’re playing with the big boys here. Don’t be surprised when your nose gets bloodied. Quit whining and grow up. Objection sustained.


Keep it up. You are a great champion for the cause of freethought!
And you completely ignore my point that you evidently don’t know what “notitia, assentia, fiducia” means. Either that or you do know and need to avoid the issue.

[Defenestrator]

skepticbud:

Why do you listen to JP Holding?

I don't. Who said I did?


DO you have any listing of his educational background?

No.


Then perhaps you should listen to me, because I've read numerous books on the bible too, though I never did while on the clock.

What are you an expert on? Maybe I will listen to you on that subject.


As if you would be convinced of my position if I had.

Yes, I would be. Find a psychology journal that takes "brainwashing" seriously and I'll concede your point.


But anyway:

"The Mind of the Bible Believer" includes a chapter called "The Evangelical Mind Control System", in which he quotes the bible extensively to show that it prescribes brainwashing.

The author, Edmund D. Cohen, is a Ph.d in psychology. One part says "The unsurpassed psychological acumen of he New Testament authors is explained here for modern readers. it will unsetttle both liberal and concservative proponents of Christianity, inform those concerned with the mental-health problems fundamentalism causes its unsuspecting participants, and warn of it's potential adverse social effects." (page 433)


Do you have any real quotes from the book? The book is 432 pages long as shown here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879754958/qid=1052280724/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-1858663-0923154?v=glance&s=books and the quote above is from a description that you found here: http://www.skeptic.de/b/0138.htm or some other website. That is not a quote from the book.

But, even given all that, your quote says nothing about "brainwashing." Do you have an actual quote from the book that talks about "brainwashing?"

But I'd still rather see a journal article rather than some book written for the general population (of skeptics).



that made a whole lot of sense. You are sure that someone can find a webpage somewhere to prove that your "fact" is wrong? Did you have coffee this morning?

Tell me a fact. I'll find a webpage that says you are wrong. My point is that webpages aren't very reliable - especially when the person linking to them takes things out of context and misconstrues information.

[Unknown Banana]

Today @ 03:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89495#post89495)
Evangel:

Only a morally selfish and incompetent person would force himself into believing that there is no god, the only question now is what religion is correct.

I know you were just responding to Jim, but do you mind not insulting the rest of us in the process? :P I don't believe I am incompetant, and I think I have better morals than a lot of christians I know, and also have no reason to 'force' myself not to believe in God. (It's not like I'd have to make a big change in my life, just my beliefs) But anyway, no worries :)

[skepticbud]

Today @ 04:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89517#post89517)
Evangel:


SKEPTICBUTT is grasping for air but there is none left. :cheers:


You can continue to insult my online name if you wish, but, just between me and you, it looks like you are about 9 years old. Not that you should, care, if I marshalled bible verses to prove you are a hypcrite for acting like that, you wouldn't care, after all, it might just be Greco-Roman rhetoric.



somehow i am not surprsed by your findings. Somehow i doubt i am brainwashed and ill think of reasons for that right now actually.


hare-krishna's say the same thing.



First, i do not dogmatically accept Catholicism because it has existed for 2000 years and it is the first Christian religion. i realise that many of their beliefs are beneficial to Christians some of them only to a select few.


correction, we are talking about Christianity, not Catholicism.



Secondly, i have not made a decision on wheter preterism or futurism is true, but i say i am futurist since preterism has to prove to me that it was written before 70AD.


yeah, the bible is the word of god, and you have the spirit guiding you, but you can't make heads of tails out of what god says about the end-times. Oh yeah, you have something way better than atheism for sure.



Most Christians worldwide choose not to even debate this subject and just default to futurism.


yup, Christians typically go along witht the trend.



Thirdly, i grew up going to church and bible school yes but i was a hardcore atheist until a roughly two years ago.


And I grew up going to church and was a christian until some years ago. So? Exceptions prove the rule.



my friend Kyle can attest to that. It wasn't until that i started learning that i saw the truth and good in Christianity. no one else comes close to what Christ offers for us.


Correction, nothing else comes close to the kind of state of mind you enter when you confess Jesus as you lord. You suddenly find happiness and purpose for living, and since you didn't find these things with other world-views, those other views must be wrong!

Kyle's logic is that I cannot call him brainwashed because i cannot know what kind of experiences he had. To use that same logic, YOU cannot know what kind of let-downs and horrors and evils might have been experienced by former Christians who are now atheists as a result. Just because it works for you doesn't guarantee that it will work for somebody else.



He lets us get off scot free of our sins as long as we are truly sorry for our sins and repent them;


You don't have any facts to back that up. You have the theological speculations of ancient writers in the New Testament, and your own personal feelings of how wonderful it was when you accepted jesus. If you think your own experiences is sufficient to justify your continued faith, surely you will agree that the personal tragedies and other negative experiences of other people, which you dont' know about, are sufficient to warrant their choice to leave the faith....!? Nah, you aren't that consistent. When you feel good about Jesus, that's because it's all true...but if you feel bad about jesus, the problem must be the hurting person's perception of reality, right? Good feelings about invisible persons are ALWAYS to be trusted, right?



yes we must also love Jesus and believe in the Resurrection but those are both easy to do since Jesus loves you and the Resurrection has very few substantial arguments made against it and thats only because of the kind Kyle Gerkin who brings up good points but there hardly enough to turn you entirely away from believing in the Resurrection.


Your cup runneth over. I'll stomp the resurrection back into the ground that it never came from if you wanna debate it. Debate it with me and see. Or else realize what a sour puss you are, saying atheists are certainly wrong, but not willing to engage in a debate on the resurrection, as if you only have time to post your rantings and not to actually debate something formally. I'm ready to debate! What a great chance for you to prove to the Christians here one more time that the devil's emmisaries are stupid, eh?



Fourthly, I go to church extremely rarely because i usually end up learning things i already know and hearing bible verses that i have already read. So i doubt i am exposed to much outside brainwashing.


Great! so then you agree that if you go to church regularly, you are subject to more brainwashing than those who dont' go that often ("extremely rarely")?



Fifthly, i had doubts in Christianity for a while but after having read The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel almost all of my major doubts have been obliterated and i even had a spiritual rebirth a few weeks back.


I have already ripped that book apart with a 20 page rebuttal that I wrote myself. Pick the chapter that you think has the best defense, and agree to defend it, and I'll challenge it.



Also having read the AWESOME articles by JP Holding and Glenn Miller have remove basically any doubt.


Pick any article you want that you think a skeptic cannot refute, i'll challenge it.



Glenn Miller has some awesome articles for Christians. Also having read many of the arguments made by atheists here on theologyweb.com and the arguments are simply not substantial.


yeah, it couldn't possibly be that you simply fail to see the reasoning for what it is. Nope. You are the judge of all mankind, if you don't think the arguments are convincing, those arguments must suck.



The logical proof for evolution is simply zilch. there is nothing that can even come close to proving it possible.


Since we say evolution took place over millions of years, we would obviously believe the earth and universe to be old, not young. You wanna start there?



The only part of evolution that has a substance to it the geocolumnal stacking of bones, but the argument has been made that the bones were stacked in the great flood. personally i think God had them there so that there was a need for faith and you couldnt just come to the logical conclusion of God's existence.


how stupid.



He loves you but He wants you to love and trust him, its hard to tell someone to do that so He has to test us and He tries ever so hard to get us to feel his love


So hard that little girls get raped everyday by disgusting men? Oh yeah, god sure does love us. You would be quick to fault a parent who knew that he child was being raped, but chose to do nothing about it. Your solitary reason for saying god's ways are myserious is because that is the only excuse left between you and certain defeat. To make up and excuse for why god does something, is to first presuppose he exists. This excuse making then, when you run into the argument from evil against god, is merely begging the question, a typical Christian fallacy. You cannot make excuses for why god does or doesn't do something until you first prove he definitely exists, since obviously the argument from evil contends that evil exists precisely because your loving god does not.



but some of us are just plain blind or too stubborn to change or ways.


That's right. Rule #37 in the "atheist handbook", (there are different english editions, which all their supporters pointing the finger at each other and saying 'falsely translated!') says "be no longer conformed to the image of Christianity, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..." Soo, yeah, nutin's gonna change my mind.



Sixthly (is this a word?), i can feel the love that God has for me and i trust that the message he revealed to us is true.


Said David Koresh to the branch davidians. Said brigham young to the danites.



I trust in Him and and i love Him without question. I experience Him so i know Him to be.


"without question", the key phrase in your entire post.



thats all i say for now but i know for sure that there is more i could use to prove that i have not been "brainwashed".


not possible, when you said you love god without question, everybody discovered how free you are of brainwashing.



if anything Stephen Hawking has brainwashed you with his theories of imaginary time, i laugh at his theories and fail to see any logic in them.


He is also known as the greatest thinker of modern times by most scientists. Don't shout too loudly that you fail to see any logic in his theories. I don't follow him particularly.



i think this article could also be used to show that i am "freethinker"


Never, you are far from being a freethinker, religious dogma permeates most of your phrases.

[Unknown Banana]

As for the couple of people who have said "At least I'm being brainwashed for the right cause!"... well, while it might be a good cause (Generally), saying you're being brainwashed with the truth is like brainwashing a person into believing the easter bunny real and correct - What then do you think that person would say when asked whether his belief is the truth? Even though we know it's not, he would 'know' his belief was true.

Anyway, as said before, I guess we should really stay away from the whole 'brainwashing' term, as it is incorrect and somewhat insulting I'd say.

[mickiel]

I have seen many brainwashed christians, some of them with way out interpitations of the bible. I have had to loose many of ignorant brainwashing doctrines myself on occassion. In my view, if a person cannot see that brainwashing exist in christianity, they themselves are experiencing a type of blind brainwashing. Spiritual brainwashing is most likely a false doctrine being accepted as truth. I think a whole lot of that is happening.

[skepticbud]

Today @ 05:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89587#post89587)
Defenestrator:

[QUOTE]
“ But anyway:

"The Mind of the Bible Believer" includes a chapter called "The Evangelical Mind Control System", in which he quotes the bible extensively to show that it prescribes brainwashing.

The author, Edmund D. Cohen, is a Ph.d in psychology. One part says "The unsurpassed psychological acumen of he New Testament authors is explained here for modern readers. it will unsetttle both liberal and concservative proponents of Christianity, inform those concerned with the mental-health problems fundamentalism causes its unsuspecting participants, and warn of it's potential adverse social effects." (page 433)

Do you have any real quotes from the book?


yes, I just gave you one. I didn't type in the number of the page because I was bored. The very top of the back-cover says "see last page of this book for description and author information." Page 432 is the end of the index, page 433 has the quote i cited, and the next three pages are blank. I am using the "new, updated edition, 1988 edition. Does that squelch your dogma that I must not be quoting a page?



The book is 432 pages long as shown here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=glance&s=books and the quote above is from a description that you found here: http://www.skeptic.de/b/0138.htm or some other website. That is not a quote from the book.


"http://www.skeptic.de/b/0138.htm " is actually nothing but quotes from the back of the book, and the last one that corrosponds to the quote I gave here, comes from page 433. The actual page number doesn't exist, because the book stops the numbering at 432, but the next page after 432 contains the quote I cited.



But, even given all that, your quote says nothing about "brainwashing." Do you have an actual quote from the book that talks about "brainwashing?"


Not quite yet. The trinity is not biblical. Why? The word "trinity" isn't in the bible. Are you sorry yet?



But I'd still rather see a journal article rather than some book written for the general population (of skeptics).


Sorry, your first complaint was that I couldn't find a professional psychologist who believed brain-washing was real. Now that I found one with a ph.d in that field who writes about the evangelical mind control system, suddenly, books aren't good enough, there must be journal articles.



Tell me a fact. I'll find a webpage that says you are wrong. My point is that webpages aren't very reliable - especially when the person linking to them takes things out of context and misconstrues information.


Who doesn't know that? And if you are charging me with doing that, where is your proof? Hopefully this time around you'll pay more attention to what I say instead of knee-jerk google searches that give you web pages that say things that you misunderstand.

[Socrates]

ScepticButt:Why do you listen to JP Holding? Because he knows what he's talking about, and consults REAL experts on the topics he discusses. DO you have any listing of his educational background? Then perhaps you should listen to me, because I've read numerous books on the bible too, though I never did while on the clock.Then you'd have to show that you know more than the squat you do!! And it doesn't show, given that you trust the ludicrous Edmund D. Cohen's The Mind of the Bible Believer published by the humanist Christ-myth–promoting outlet Prometheus Books, 1986. Just cheap psychologizing and a major genetic fallacy. I.e. Cohen thinks that allegedly tracing the origins of a belief, one can show that the belief is false. However, by that "reasoning", benzene can't be a hexagonal molecule because Kekulé thought of it after a dream about a snake biting its tail and forming a ring.

And JP Holding has an incisive review of this Cohen crap at www.tektonics.org/JPH_NNP.html which is one reason I nominated him as my successor to Poster of the Month (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/memberschoice.php?s=&action=main).

[Ethos]

Yesterday @ 05:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88635#post88635)
skepticbud:

Do you know any atheists who:

Gathering in groups once a week for the purpose of singing praises to invisible persons (Psalms); ?

Listen to an atheist speaker religiously once ot twice a week or more, encouraging them to continue resisting the evils of Christian thought, (Hebrews 10:25)?

Proclaiming a single atheist book as having all the answers to life (Hebrews 4:12) or at least what is necessary to avoid the coming cosmic war?

Studying this atheist book daily with the reverent attitude that more reading means more alignment with "truth", and encourage others to mediate upon it’s precepts daily so they will not depart from it’s instruction (Psalms)?

Telling each other to not be conformed to Christianity, but rather be transformed by the renewing of their mind (Romans 12:2)?

Telling each other that the atheist who doubts is like a wave of the sea, tossed here and there with every wind of doctrine, let no atheist who doubts think that he recieve anything from smarter atheists (James 1:6)?

Say they should let no man take them captive through vain religion which is according to the tradition of theism and not according to atheisim(Colossians 2:8)?

Telling each other to take every thought captive to the obedience of atheism and that their local atheist leaders are ready to punish all disobedience (2nd Corinthians 10:5-6)?

Telling each other daily to put on the whole armor of atheism, that they may be able to stand against the wiles of Christianity, having the breastplate of situation ethics, girding our loins with truth, our feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of atheism, above all the shield of faith, to quench the fiery darts of Christian apologists, donning the helmet of knowledge, wielding the sword of deductive arguments, with all meditation at all times (Ephesians 6:11-18)?

Exhorting inconsistent atheists in their weekly groups to either confess and repent of their error of entertaining non-atheist thoughts, or else be excommunicated from the congregation, knowing that a little bit of leaven leaveneth the whole lump (one inconsistent atheist can infect the rest of the group he fellowships in, 1st Corinthians 5:6)?

View all non-christian thoughts and arguments automatically as tares sown by an invisible person whose single purpose of existence is to steal, kill and destroy atheism (John 10:10-11)?

Listen seriously to atheist leaders who scream “if any man teaches you any form of thought different than the one that *I* am preaching to you, let him be eternally cursed!” (Galations 1:6-9)?

And Believing seriously any new atheist who insists that he came to accept atheism after a flash of light knock him off his horse and was so intrusive that the men who were there heard a voice, but didn’t see anything, and which blinding flash of visionary knowledge caused him physical blindness for three days, but who was attended by another atheist friend later, who, through ESP knew that this phenomena had taken place (Acts 26:12-14, 9:10-19)?

…THEN the Christian will have sufficient basis for claiming that atheists have the same degree of bias against opposing views that Christians do. But until that day, atheists have complete freedom in their world view to be objective and consider seriously any arguments against their beliefs, while bible believing Christians are hopelessly lost in full prejudice and bias against all non-biblical thought, so much so, that even trigger-phrases and buzz words are already in place to squelch doubts that first appear to the Christian somewhat justified.

Of course this doesn’t prove that atheists are right and Christians are wrong.

But it sure does shut the mouths of bible-believing Christians who insist they obey the New Testament and yet are still as equally as objective as atheists in evaluating contrary evidence.

Yet the bible believers would assert the laughably absurd position that, in spite of all the above biblical demands I listed above, which they attempt to obey 24 hours a day (ya dont' wanna be a hypocrite, do ya?), nevertheless, they are NOT so biased that they cannot evaluate evidence against them objectively.

Now I’m gonna have to get going, my atheist congregation is holding a meditation vigil and a “skeptic’s annotated bible” study, and I don’t wanna miss this chance to gather in Farrell Till’s name and praise him for his mighty knowledge that has saved untold numbers of Christians from certain intellectual death. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘atheism is wrong’.” (2nd Delusions 6:66, SIKO version)

Sure we all have biases.

But atheists dont' gather every Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday, to hold hands and sing praises to the sacred cow of science, believing against hope that in stupidity is science's strength made perfect.

But Christians do the same on those days: just change "atheist" to Christians, "sacred cow of science" to "god" and change

"stupidity is science's strength made perfect" to

"My strength is made perfect in weakness..."

The Christian who objects to this hypothesis of mine must first marshal evidences that atheists do things in their lives that are equal to the kind of brainwashing tactics Christians perform on themselves and others as described in the above bible verses, or you lose.

Yeah that's right, you Christians just come up with an invisible man that us atheists believe in, who lives in our hearts, and who also was once a real human, and this whole argument of mine will crash and burn thereby. Until that day, sweet dreams.:poke:

You poor poor man :no: A am sooo sorry you feel that way.

God please Forgive him for he knows not what he does...

I will pray for you every time I pray that God will melt your hardened heart, and that you may experience the indescribable joys and eternal peace of mind, body and spirit that are just some of the priceless treasures one receives with a life under/alongside God..
I remember when I felt like you did once.. Not quite as angry about God, but still blind to him...That is why I have much sympathy for you, it goes even further than empathy...
But I can say truly that I am most certainly not brainwashed, no, quite the opposite. I am enlightened, and empowered in the Lord!!! I just wish you could feel the same way :no:

[Nowhere357]

johnransom:[/i]

IOW, you can’t take an attack that ridicules your position. Deal with it. And if you think you’ve been dealt with harshly so far here, have you got an education coming.


IOW the indicators I mentioned prove accurate. And if I have an education coming, I promise I wont get it from you.


An odd statement, considering that you proceed to talk. Evidently I am not in your considerable estimation unpleasant. Of whom are you actually talking?
I can deal with rudeness, and will post or not as I see fit. I can also deal with logical evasions, and will post or not as I see fit. When I find a person who is both rude, and logically evasive, I choose to put that person on ignore. Reserving my rights, of course.

So in your case I waited to see your response. Now that I see your evasiveness, I no longer have any interest in your opinion. I will answer this post just for fun, however.


Ah. So all facts must be scientifically verifiable, whatever that might mean. It doesn’t occur to you that not all facts are subject to scientific inquiry? Moreover, if the definition of science is that it examines all that is in nature, then by definition it cannot be used to test the supernatural. Objection sustained.
I said no such thing. I am aware of an entire class of things that are scientifically undetectable.

If god exists, then god is natural. "Supernatural" means "things that don't exist", to many skeptics. This is our working definition. I get loose with the term when talking with theists, because that helps with communication. I believe in spiritual reality, I believe spirituality is natural, and I believe that "supernatural" can mean "spiritual reality".

Objection overruled.


First, it is refreshing to hear an atheist assert the existence of absolute truth. But the argument is pointless, because the truth of a claim has nothing to do with our ability to arrive at conclusions. Objection sustained
I don't know how you define "absolute truth" (and I no longer care).

My statement was: "We are responsible for reaching our own conclusions. Things are true (or not) because they are true (or not), and NOT because someone says so. This is a fact of reality, and it refutes your second objection."
By arguing against this, you admit you think truth is true because someone says so. That is just plain reality-challenged.

Objection overruled.


No, communication requires people to have the capacity to understand what is being said. You spout drivel and demonstrate poor reading. I didn’t say the definition was incorrect, I said it was faulty. And for the reasons given – that there is reason to consider atheists irrational and that rational inquiry is not limited to the groups listed. And I also gave the reason why the definition exists – to claim intellectual authority (an irony, given the definition).
Clear evasion. I said communication requires common definitions, and you disagree! As if using different definitions gives us the "capacity to understand".

To call a definition faulty, is to call it "incorrect". Sheesh.
The rest of this quote is so confused, I don't know what to say. Atheists are irrational, because they use reason?
The list was open-ended with the words "and others" or something like that. So the charge that it was limited in application to the listed groups, is false. (Poor reading?)
And the definition exists to claim intellectual authority? What in the world are you trying to say?

Never mind, I don't care. Objection overruled. (Whether you made one or not.)


Another assertion from the great wielder of authority.

Heh. I pass up a chance to insult Christians, so you attack me.


And utterly illogical. For this to be valid, the third statement as recast to follow from this would have to read “There is nothing in the definition that excludes atheists from being Christians.” Even your average atheist would consider that ludicrous.
Showing your poor grasp of the concepts. Atheists and Christians are mutually exclusive. Freethought and Christianity are not. Try re-reading the definition for freethought. If for example a xian has a direct personal experience of God, he could accept the existence of God without relying on authority, dogma, etc.

Objection overruled. (I like saying that. To you.)


Because it would be irrelevant.
I passed up another chance to insult xians. At least you didn't attack me this time.


But my statement is relevant here, because the claim is being made that atheists are rational and Christians are not. Do try to keep up.
Your statement is not relevant, because I never claimed that Christians are irrational. Do try to pay attention.


Another wonderful ex cathedra assertion. You wish. Objection sustained.

Whatever. You wish.

Objection overruled.


Dead wrong. First, reality is not necessarily subject to rational inquiry. Evidently you haven’t heard of the concepts “axiom” and “properly basic”. Second, how do you know that if something exists it can be detected? What is there to prevent an entirely undetectable thing from existing? How would you ever know?
I am right. You are wrong. First, reality is subject to rational inquiry. "Inquiry" is how we examine reality. "Reason" is how we inquire.
Second, if something exists, yet cannot be detected (even in theory) then we've just robbed the words of meaning. If "exists" is to have meaning, then what "exists" must affect reality. And so can be detected. I suggest you look the words up in a dictionary.


You are now claiming omniscience – I’m impressed that your authority has grown to reach so far. Third, who is to say that our ability to detect reality is reliable? Objection sustained.

I claimed no such thing; you impress easily; and our ability to detect reality is a path, not a destination.

Objection overruled.


And immediately you descend to triviality and irrelevance. Totally non-responsive.
Wrong. You incorrectly limited the scope of "freethought". I addressed that error.


I think you are even more careless than I bothered to demonstrate.
Heh. I showed that your accusation of cheating was wrong, but you are not big enough to admit it. Your attack here just shows your logical evasiveness.


I never made the first implication, nor was the second – I demonstrated that they do play tricks; whether they need to was never addressed (although you are quite correct in that statement:teeth:). The third was quite categorically stated and clearly demonstrated and was not implied at all.
Check this out. First and second, your intention was not to make those implications, but make them you did. Third, I did not say you implied the insult to me - I said you insulted me. (Reading skills again?.)


And if you are insulted by having your silly little argument shown to be what it is, tough.
I never said I was insulted. I said you insulted me. You sure like jumping to conclusions! An affliction of the reality challenged, I think.

And my argument is strong enough to tie YOU into knots.


You’re playing with the big boys here.
If you think you're a big boy, think again.


Don’t be surprised when your nose gets bloodied. Quit whining and grow up.
In your view, people either accept your abuse, or you will abuse them. Well, you are consistent, anyway.

Objection overruled.


Well, that was fun. Thanks. You help the cause of freethought!

Feel free to post a bunch of insults and unsupportable statements. I promise to ignore you, so you can have the last word, and pretend like you won, okay?

The lurkers can draw their own conclusions. :smile:

[Unknown Banana]

As a lurker, I would just like to say I found that thoroughly amusing :teeth:

[FirstSunday33ad]

Yesterday @ 05:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89242#post89242)
Nowhere357:


I am unable to reduce this to anything but :"believe it or else!".

Not one word about morals, behaviors and intentions.


You seem to say here that we should believe the Bible, and not the other religious books. That's off thread, I guess.

Here, please understand that the skeptic fails to accept the book as above all others. God made all of us - muslims and buddhists also. It is morally repugnant that god would punish people for where they happened to be born.


Thank you, I now have a better understanding of what you meant.

Then you missed my clarifying point of how the Demons believe but will still be punished. It is not enough simply to “believe” (i.e. acknowledge intellectually that Jesus is the Son of God), you must also accept Him as your Saviour and follow Him.

Once you do that, the “morals, behaviours and intentions” follow. If you claim to be following Jesus but continue to live as if He didn’t exist or didn’t mean what He said, then you are not following Him.

I have reread what I wrote and I cannot see where I said, “we should believe the Bible, and not the other religious books”. We should, but like you said that is off thread. What I said was that “being told what to believe” could not be associated with someone “researching, reading and concluding after investigation that the Bible was telling the truth as opposed to the Koran (for example).”

This is also off thread, but in reply to your statement that “It is morally repugnant that god would punish people for where they happened to be born.” You are right, it is. That is why people are NOT punished for where they happen to be born. People are “punished” (which is also an incorrect way of describing judgement) for the decisions and choices they make.

[Evangel]

Today @ 12:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89629#post89629)
Unknown Banana:

I know you were just responding to Jim, but do you mind not insulting the rest of us in the process? :P I don't believe I am incompetant, and I think I have better morals than a lot of christians I know, and also have no reason to 'force' myself not to believe in God. (It's not like I'd have to make a big change in my life, just my beliefs) But anyway, no worries :)

for having offended you i am sorry. youll have to show me your non moral objections to a God however. :teeth: PM me with your questions and ill try my hardest to answer them truthfully.

best regards,
Evangel

[Defenestrator]

skepticbud:

Sorry, your first complaint was that I couldn't find a professional psychologist who believed brain-washing was real. Now that I found one with a ph.d in that field who writes about the evangelical mind control system, suddenly, books aren't good enough, there must be journal articles.


Check back to what I've said. I've always asked for a journal article.

[johnransom]

Today @ 05:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89773#post89773)
Nowhere357:
IOW the indicators I mentioned prove accurate. And if I have an education coming, I promise I wont get it from you.
Never said you would. There are plenty of others around here who will hit you way harder than I have.


I can deal with rudeness, and will post or not as I see fit. I can also deal with logical evasions, and will post or not as I see fit. When I find a person who is both rude, and logically evasive, I choose to put that person on ignore. Reserving my rights, of course.
Except that goes exactly against what you previously said, that you will not talk to anyone you consider unpleasant. Not that I expected consistency.


So in your case I waited to see your response. Now that I see your evasiveness, I no longer have any interest in your opinion. I will answer this post just for fun, however.
Evasive? I answer each and every one of your arguments and you define that as evasive? No wonder we’re having trouble communicating.


I said no such thing. I am aware of an entire class of things that are scientifically undetectable.
Then your question as to whether supernatural entities are scientific facts is another irrelevance, unless you are claiming that they should be, which goes against what you stated to Deffy. Inconsistency again.


If god exists, then god is natural. "Supernatural" means "things that don't exist", to many skeptics. This is our working definition. I get loose with the term when talking with theists, because that helps with communication. I believe in spiritual reality, I believe spirituality is natural, and I believe that "supernatural" can mean "spiritual reality".

Objection overruled.
Ah. We are arguing on the basis of redefining “supernature” to make it subject to scientific inquiry. Strange, you criticized me for supposedly defining terms my own way. Inconsistent and hypocritical to boot. Getting much better. And if you believe in a natural spiritual reality, kindly explain what on earth that is and how we can detect it.


I don't know how you define "absolute truth" (and I no longer care).

My statement was: "We are responsible for reaching our own conclusions. Things are true (or not) because they are true (or not), and NOT because someone says so. This is a fact of reality, and it refutes your second objection."
By arguing against this, you admit you think truth is true because someone says so. That is just plain reality-challenged.

Objection overruled.
Nope. You merely fail to understand the objection. Truth is truth regardless of the observer; on that we agree and it is also a decent working definition of absolute truth. Evidently you don’t care how you define terms either; but then we just showed that, didn’t we? Actually consistent this time. But it does nothing to disprove my initial point that rejection of third party authority merely results in elevating one’s personal authority; indeed it supports it. I never stated that truth is truth if someone says so; I said truth has nothing to do with our ability to form conclusions. Only the poorest of readers could mangle my statement to mean what you claim.


Clear evasion. I said communication requires common definitions, and you disagree! As if using different definitions gives us the "capacity to understand".
How so? So long as everyone can understand what others mean by terms they use, a common definition is utterly unnecessary. However, where disputants arbitrarily redefine terms to serve their own debating purposes without informing others of their meaning, as you have done, only then does difficulty arise.


To call a definition faulty, is to call it "incorrect". Sheesh.
More incomprehension. I said, to be more accurate, that it was a faulty “mixing of terms”. Meaning that the term itself is somewhat self-contradictory.


The rest of this quote is so confused, I don't know what to say. Atheists are irrational, because they use reason?
You’re projecting your own confusion. No such statement was made. I said there is reason to consider atheists irrational and that the listed groups are not the only groups to whom rational inquiry is available. There was no causation stated or implied; the two statements are independent. There is nothing to prevent the irrational from using reason (or at least trying).


The list was open-ended with the words "and others" or something like that. So the charge that it was limited in application to the listed groups, is false. (Poor reading?)
And the definition exists to claim intellectual authority? What in the world are you trying to say?
The statement actually read “Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists”. Please try to keep up with your own argument. While I will admit that this is open-ended, the clear implication is that any additions to the list would have to be of the same ilk. And of course it serves that purpose – the self-evident implication is “we think rationally and you don’t”.


Heh. I pass up a chance to insult Christians, so you attack me.
The unsupported assertion I attacked was your claim that “The second statement is silly”. It had nothing to do with you passing up on chances to insult.


Showing your poor grasp of the concepts. Atheists and Christians are mutually exclusive. Freethought and Christianity are not. Try re-reading the definition for freethought. If for example a xian has a direct personal experience of God, he could accept the existence of God without relying on authority, dogma, etc.
Hardly. Let’s examine the argument with the data directly in front of us, since you apparently have difficulty checking back on yourself. I said:

“The term ‘freethinker’ as applied to this group is merely a title, not a description. There is nothing in the definition that excludes theists from being freethinkers.”

The first sentence is the “second statement” you referred to. Immediately after declaring it silly, you said:

“We can say the same of xians, but it is not helpful.”

So the first sentence becomes:

“The term ‘Christian’ as applied to this group is merely a title, not a description.”

In order to follow in similar fashion, the second sentence must become:

“There is nothing in the definition that excludes atheists, agnostics and rationalists from being Christians.”

I skipped the last two groups for brevity the first time, but the intent was clear. Now you would claim that “freethinkers” should replace “theists” in the second sentence, but that is invalid, because we are transposing terms from the second part of your definition, and “freethinker” is not a definition of “freethinker”.


I passed up another chance to insult xians. At least you didn't attack me this time.
Yes I did. I called your point irrelevant. Your confusion grows.


Your statement is not relevant, because I never claimed that Christians are irrational. Do try to pay attention.
I didn’t say you did. I was referring to the overall point of the thread. Get a clue.


Whatever. You wish.

Objection overruled.
Much as you would like, unsupported assertions do not qualify as arguments.


I am right. You are wrong.
Well. That settles it then.


First, reality is subject to rational inquiry. "Inquiry" is how we examine reality. "Reason" is how we inquire.
Merely repeating unsupported assertions also does not qualify as argument. Not to mention evasion. How exactly does one perform “rational inquiry” on an axiom? Or do you reject the claim that axioms are real?


Second, if something exists, yet cannot be detected (even in theory) then we've just robbed the words of meaning. If "exists" is to have meaning, then what "exists" must affect reality. And so can be detected. I suggest you look the words up in a dictionary.
Redefining terms again. We were not talking about “theoretical detection” (which is not really detection at all, but inference), rather about real detection. The inferred existence of the undetectable was precisely my point rebutting you.


I claimed no such thing; you impress easily; and our ability to detect reality is a path, not a destination.
Well, now that we have seen that your actual game is on-the-fly redefinition of terms, I guess not. And what does “our ability to detect reality is a path” have to do with whether the ability itself is reliable or not? Of course it’s a path, but how do you know it’s the right path? Oh, we’re back to the omniscience claim again. I take the concession back.


Wrong. You incorrectly limited the scope of "freethought". I addressed that error.
Based on the obvious implication of your definitions. Have we redefined the terms again?


Heh. I showed that your accusation of cheating was wrong, but you are not big enough to admit it. Your attack here just shows your logical evasiveness.
Drivel. I merely showed it was a very poor job of cheating. The charge was actually a compliment, since it implies a degree of intelligence. The alternative doesn’t.


Check this out. First and second, your intention was not to make those implications, but make them you did. Third, I did not say you implied the insult to me - I said you insulted me. (Reading skills again?.)
No, I didn’t, you inferred them. Big difference. You claimed I suggested a “need” to play tricks; I rejected that, saying that I merely showed that tricks were indeed played; their necessity was not an issue. As for your personal insult, that too was an inference. However, none was categorically made, since I merely presented an argument showing you stacked the deck. That you perceive that as an intentional insult (and therefore as an implication) is your problem, not mine.


I never said I was insulted. I said you insulted me. You sure like jumping to conclusions! An affliction of the reality challenged, I think.
And the difference would be what exactly? I take it that among all the other things we have concluded you have never heard of, we can now include the passive voice?


Feel free to post a bunch of insults and unsupportable statements. I promise to ignore you, so you can have the last word, and pretend like you won, okay?
But instead of me actually winning, you are going to run crying to your Mommy and thereby claim victory. Nice.


The lurkers can draw their own conclusions.
Oh, indeed they can.

[Sheepdog]

i wonder when SmokinBud was planning to respond to my first post. maybe he hasn't because he realizes that it is based on too many unfounded assumptions that i pointed out.

just maybe

[apologetics]

:huh:

Bud!

Instead of running around spouting off about how intelligent or untelligent Christians are in one mindless thread after the next, why don't you just finish what you started in the previous threads! Don't stick your tail between your legs or act as if you just forgot.....

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=90351#post90351

Come on back! We are all waiting your answers to your big "challenge"!

[Jim E.]

Today @ 12:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89567#post89567)
skepticbud:
"The Mind of the Bible Believer" includes a chapter called "The Evangelical Mind Control System", in which he quotes the bible extensively to show that it prescribes brainwashing.

The author, Edmund D. Cohen, is a Ph.d in psychology. One part says "The unsurpassed psychological acumen of he New Testament authors is explained here for modern readers. it will unsetttle both liberal and concservative proponents of Christianity, inform those concerned with the mental-health problems fundamentalism causes its unsuspecting participants, and warn of it's potential adverse social effects." (page 433)


Only the Christians can't tell they have been brainwashed. Christians don't care about evidence. Christianity is about control. Ask a Christian why he's a Christian, and he mumbles something mindless like "because it's true." Christians won't present their reasons for being a Christian because it doesn't take much to destroy their faith. Day by day, moment by moment, Christians fritter away their brains and their lives. Nope, doesn't sound at all like brainwashing to me. :ahem:

Jim Eisele the free atheist watching the atrophy of Christians' minds render their hopes of escaping brainwashing smaller,
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 01:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90514#post90514)
Jim Eisele:

Only the Christians can't tell they have been brainwashed. Christians don't care about evidence.

Yes, we do. You just like to pretend we don't, since it goes against what you want to believe about us.


Christianity is about control. Ask a Christian why he's a Christian, and he mumbles something mindless like "because it's true."


Really? Why not ask the Christians on this board why they believe, so the rest of the board can see our responses and see that you're wrong.


Christians won't present their reasons for being a Christian because it doesn't take much to destroy their faith.


I'll be glad to present mine. Do you want them?


Day by day, moment by moment, Christians fritter away their brains and their lives. Nope, doesn't sound at all like brainwashing to me. :ahem:


The way you present it DOES sound like brainwashing. But the way you present it is about as far from reality as it can get.

David

[Unknown Banana]

Yesterday @ 02:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89889#post89889)
Evangel:

for having offended you i am sorry. youll have to show me your non moral objections to a God however. :teeth: PM me with your questions and ill try my hardest to answer them truthfully.

best regards,
Evangel

No worries :) I never actually got offended, it just didn't seem right. I'll have to get back to you on the questions though...

[Jim E.]

Today @ 08:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90526#post90526)
KingDavid8:
Yes, we do. You just like to pretend we don't, since it goes against what you want to believe about us.

No, you don't. Check out your typical atheist/evolutionary forum. Open. Check out your typical Christian forum. Closed or non-existent. Mind-control. Mind-control. Mind-control.



Really? Why not ask the Christians on this board why they believe, so the rest of the board can see our responses and see that you're wrong.

You're late to the game, David. Did that in the thread "Any reasons to be a Christian?" The most forceful response was "The Resurrection" with no reasons why we should believe that event ever happened. Typical responses were begging-the-question Bible gibberish that provided much more evidence for mind-control than truth.



I'll be glad to present mine. Do you want them?

This should be good. Just waiting for the question to be begged...be prepared to be deconverted.



The way you present it DOES sound like brainwashing. But the way you present it is about as far from reality as it can get.

We'll see if you feel the same way after your deconversion.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 01:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90559#post90559)
Jim Eisele:

JIM:Christians don't care about evidence.

KINGDAVID: Yes, we do. You just like to pretend we don't, since it goes against what you want to believe about us.

JIM:No, you don't. Check out your typical atheist/evolutionary forum. Open. Check out your typical Christian forum. Closed or non-existent. Mind-control. Mind-control. Mind-control.


checking...checking...yep, lots of Christians discussing evidence. Can't you see them?



JIM:Christianity is about control. Ask a Christian why he's a Christian, and he mumbles something mindless like "because it's true."

KING:Really? Why not ask the Christians on this board why they believe, so the rest of the board can see our responses and see that you're wrong.

JIM:You're late to the game, David. Did that in the thread "Any reasons to be a Christian?" The most forceful response was "The Resurrection" with no reasons why we should believe that event ever happened. Typical responses were begging-the-question Bible gibberish that provided much more evidence for mind-control than truth.


checking...checking...Yep, re-reading that forum, I'm seeing a lot of Christians giving more forceful answers that "because it's true" and "the resurrection". Can't you see them? Or do you have problems with posts that are more than 2 or 3 words long?



JIM:Christians won't present their reasons for being a Christian because it doesn't take much to destroy their faith.

KING:I'll be glad to present mine. Do you want them?

JIM: This should be good. Just waiting for the question to be begged...be prepared to be deconverted.


The main reason is that all available evidence favors the historical truth of Jesus' resurrection, and absolutely none refutes it.

I'll be waiting for you to present the historical evidence against the resurrection so that the deconversion to begin.

David

[Nowhere357]

Sheepdog:[/i]

the formal name is Appeal to Consequences.


Ah, thank you. I admit I don't see it. Here is my original statement (and a couple of clarifications):


Freethought can embrace Christianity - or anything else - to the extent that xianity - or anything else - can verify their claims.
Christianity CANNOT embrace freethought, because xianity relies on unsupportable claims.
This makes freethought the superior position.

To DB : For this thread, let me say that atheism is able to examine ALL the religious texts, avoiding fixation on any one book. This gives a more expansive view, can access all available viewpoints, is more likely to be exposed to truth, is less likely to accept unsupportable claims.
This makes atheism superior.

To Defenestrator : I think freethought is "against" Christianity when Christianity tries to make claims about physical reality. Religion is the incorrect tool for investigating matter/energy and space/time. By insisting on unsupportable claims (such as "the sun goes around the earth", or "all humans come from Adam and Eve") IMO Christianity makes it harder for people to accept the Bible as containing spiritual truth.
I said: "A view that embraces other true views is "superior". I guess this experiment is just a rework of the blind men and the elephant."

I'd like to point out that when dealing with basic ideas, our worldviews often (maybe always) reduce to a tautology, or circular reasoning.

For example "God exists because He exists" and "the universe exists because it exists".

SO the fallacy tables are an important consideration, but not the only consideration. Logic doesn't trump reality, I guess I'm trying to say.

I'll also point out that although a Christian can use freethought, this is not equivalent to "Christianity can embrace freethought". After all, a xian pedophile may molest an altar boy, and a xian fanatic may bomb an abortion clinic, but that doesn't mean Christianity supports them.

Don't read that as an attack - atheists may be perverts or hatemongers also. Please don't read it as comparing freethought to those negative activities - that would be out of context.

I guess I shouldn't post at 1:30 am. I barely make sense when I'm wide awake.


i think that if a good argument is made against God, i may doubt. however, due to my epistemology, what constitutes as a good argument is a lot higher of a standard than what most nontheists will bite onto.
I have no interest in deconverting anyone - that is not my motive. Unless they believe for the wrong reasons; that is, their beliefs make them a worse person, and not a better person. Christianity does have a dark side, IMO, and I do resist that.

As many posters here know - including yourself, I think - religion is for a fact a source of spiritual strength.

One more point: I am no logician (I know, it's obvious), I am an explorer. But I figure I have as much right to the truth as anyone else. :)

[Nowhere357]

KingDavid8:[/i]

The main reason is that all available evidence favors the historical truth of Jesus' resurrection, and absolutely none refutes it.

How do you defend against this?:
There is evidence (anecdotal and literary) for the existence of leprechauns, and none to refute them.

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 08:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90765#post90765)
Nowhere357:


How do you defend against this?:
There is evidence (anecdotal and literary) for the existence of leprechauns, and none to refute them.

I accept the existence of leprechauns in anecdotes and literature. Provide me overwhelming historical evidence, and I'll accept their existence in history as well.

David

[dawnghost]

wow. what a stupid thread.

skepticbud, did you try to undermine your credibility here in TWeb on purpose with this thread? or has your bigotry fogged your mind to the extent where you can't discern a good argument from a totally idiot one anymore?

wow. what a shame. :no:

[johnransom]

Well, Nobrain has, I think, wimped out and put me on ignore, so he won’t see this, but everybody else will:


Today @ 02:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90763#post90763)
Nowhere357:
Ah, thank you. I admit I don't see it. Here is my original statement (and a couple of clarifications):


Freethought can embrace Christianity - or anything else - to the extent that xianity - or anything else - can verify their claims.
Christianity CANNOT embrace freethought, because xianity relies on unsupportable claims.
This makes freethought the superior position.
There is another problem with this statement that I hadn’t really considered before. Christianity, to NB, fits within freethought only to the extent that its claims are verifiable. But his immediately following statement is that Christianity’s claims are unsupportable. This is of course itself not a given and therefore logically invalid, but aside from that, what does “unsupportable” mean? In context it can only mean either “unverifiable” or, less likely, “disproven”. In the first instance, the argument is rendered meaningless, because all he is saying is that the extent to which Christianity can fit within freethought is zero. In the latter case, he is saying that Christianity only fits within freethought for the purpose of disproving itself.

He goes on, after some standard (and therefore banal) atheist objections:


I said: "A view that embraces other true views is "superior". I guess this experiment is just a rework of the blind men and the elephant."
The analogy is silly, of course, because in the story, the blind men all arrive at a false view of reality. Therefore it is irrelevant to a discussion of “true views”. However, his basic assertion still doesn’t hold, because for one thing freethought is not so much a view as a methodology. The only “view” it holds is that rational inquiry is the proper way to address religious or other claims, i.e., that it is the best methodology. Moreover, it is yet another unsupported assertion that freethought is true. Finally, he is now saying that Christianity is a true view, which contradicts his earlier claims. NB demonstrates both illogic and inconsistency.


I'd like to point out that when dealing with basic ideas, our worldviews often (maybe always) reduce to a tautology, or circular reasoning.

For example "God exists because He exists" and "the universe exists because it exists".
I have already, to his evident chagrin, pointed out to NB that he clearly does not understand the concepts “axiom” and “properly basic”. Here he shows it quite admirably. Neither of these claims is properly basic. “God exists” and “the universe exists” are respectively a properly basic claim and an axiom, but NB’s formulations are not, because they are formed as conclusions. They are also not tautologies for the same reason (a tautology is propositional) – “Either God exists or He doesn’t” is a tautology.


SO the fallacy tables are an important consideration, but not the only consideration. Logic doesn't trump reality, I guess I'm trying to say.
Actually, it’s the truth tables that are important, but we’ll let that pass. And of course logic does not trump reality, but neither does reality trump logic. In order to hold, they must be congruent. NB continues to confuse reality with observation of reality.


I'll also point out that although a Christian can use freethought, this is not equivalent to "Christianity can embrace freethought". After all, a xian pedophile may molest an altar boy, and a xian fanatic may bomb an abortion clinic, but that doesn't mean Christianity supports them.

Don't read that as an attack - atheists may be perverts or hatemongers also. Please don't read it as comparing freethought to those negative activities - that would be out of context.
Given that NB admits there is absolutely no analogous link between rational inquiry and molestation or murder, how could this be construed as anything other than an attack? Beyond that, he is saying Christianity cannot embrace positive behavior because it rejects negative behavior. Which of course makes absolutely no sense.


I guess I shouldn't post at 1:30 am. I barely make sense when I'm wide awake.
Frankly, no he doesn’t.



I have no interest in deconverting anyone - that is not my motive. Unless they believe for the wrong reasons; that is, their beliefs make them a worse person, and not a better person. Christianity does have a dark side, IMO, and I do resist that.
An equivocation. The dark side of Christianity relates to the actions of its membership, not to its philosophical basis, which is the meaning of the term as addressed in the argument. And it is not entirely clear that believing for the wrong reasons necessarily makes one a worse person. Better to accidentally arrive at the truth than not at all.


As many posters here know - including yourself, I think - religion is for a fact a source of spiritual strength.
True, but irrelevant to the truth of the underlying claims.


One more point: I am no logician (I know, it's obvious), I am an explorer. But I figure I have as much right to the truth as anyone else. :)
Well, finally a valid statement. And the extent of the right to truth is zero

[Nowhere357]

KingDavid8:

I accept the existence of leprechauns in anecdotes and literature. Provide me overwhelming historical evidence, and I'll accept their existence in history as well.

As I currently understand, it is debatable to some extent whether Jesus existed. Let's assume he did (I believe he was a real person).

As far as I know, the only evidence that he "died for our sins" and rose from the grave, is one book!

So you seem to be requiring different levels of evidence for these two ideas. Why?

[Jim E.]

Yesterday @ 10:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90628#post90628)
KingDavid8:
I'll be waiting for you to present the historical evidence against the resurrection so that the deconversion to begin.


Well, golllllllllllleeeeeeeeee David. Not so eager any more to present a whit of evidence for Christianity, are you? You're basically deconverted already. You're a Christian with no reasons to be a Christian. Get a reason to be a Christian, and then maybe we'll talk. Just a post ago you wanted to give your reasons. Then you sensed my confidence and you froze up. Face it, David, you know you're wrong but just haven't figured out how to escape the wretched trap of Christianity yet. I don't envy you.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[KingDavid8]

Yesterday @ 09:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91285#post91285)
Nowhere357:

As far as I know, the only evidence that he "died for our sins" and rose from the grave, is one book!


I disagree that the Biblical writings are the only evidence that Jesus rose from the grave (I also consider the Bible a collection of books, not a single book, but that's moot). There's plenty of historical and archeological evidence to support it, as well. On top of that (though this came after I believed), the experiences in my own life have, at least to me, confirmed the truth of Jesus and His message.



So you seem to be requiring different levels of evidence for these two ideas. Why?

I'm not requiring different levels of evidence at all. The Gospels (whether true or not) were intended by their authors to be historical documents. The authors intended to convince their readers that the resurrection was a historical event, not a myth or anecdote. If you could find me any books about leprechauns that are intended by their authors to be historical documents, convincing its readers that the existence of leprechauns is historical fact, not myth or anecdote, I would consider that a point in favor of the possible existence of leprechauns. That's not to say that such books, in and of themselves, would convince me that leprechauns exist (any more than the Biblical writings, in and of themselves, convince of Jesus). But it would be a start. If you could, on top of that, show me that these books are not contradicted by known historical evidence, that the authors claimed to know for certain that leprechauns existed and believed in them even to the point that they would rather die than deny their existence, and is taken seriously enough that many respected scholars are convinced of the existence of leprechauns, then I would definitely consider the possibility that leprechauns exist. And, of course, if I could experience leprechauns in my own life as I have experienced Jesus (even if I didn't actually see the leprechauns), that would probably clinch it for me.

And by the way, I do apply these standards to other books as well. Part of the reason I reject the early parts of Genesis as being literal history is that they are contradicted by known historical evidence, and I don't believe it's author intended it to be historical, but meant for it to be metaphorical. I do believe in Genesis, but I just don't take it literally.

David

[apologetics]

Jim Eisele:

I have absolutely no idea why people such as yourself continuously attack Christians with the "where's your evidence?" argument. I've seen this a 1000 times and each person appears to believe that they have hit on something original!

What proof would satisfy you? God coming out of the clouds and slamming his fist into your head?

Here's a question for you Jim......Provide me some evidence as to why we exist. How did the world and the universe start? I want solid evidence! Without solid evidence, maybe there is no reason to really believe that we are here! Maybe the existentialists were right!

But, because I'm tired of seeing you rant as if you have all of the academic answers about this little topic, I'll provide you a few examples where the evidences of Christianity have been used:

In 1986, Christian apologist Dr. Gary Habermas (Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy – and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology – at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.) had a debate with well-known atheist Antony Flew on the topic "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" The jury was comprised of five independent philosophers from various universities and colleges. At the end of the debate, four judges ruled that Habermas had won. The fifth judge ruled the debate a draw. 4-0-1 for Habermas. 0-4-1 for Flew. After the debate, one judge stated, "I was surprised (shocked might be a more accurate word) to see how weak Flew's own approach was....I was left with this conclusion: Since the case against the resurrection was no stronger than that presented by Antony Flew, I would think it was time I began to take the resurrection seriously." One of the other judges stated this: "I conclude that the historical evidence, though flawed, is strong enough to lead reasonable minds to conclude that Christ did indeed rise from the dead...Habermas does end up providing highly probable evidence for the historicity of the resurrection with no plausible naturalistic evidence against it. Habermas, therefore, in my opinion, wins the debate."

Don't take my word for this! Read all about it yourself in Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate.

Second example:

In 1993, Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig (Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California.) debated Frank Zindler of the American Atheists, Inc. on the topic Atheism vs. Christianity: Where does the evidence point? At the end of this debate, 82% of those who had entered the auditorium confessing either atheistic, agnostic or skeptical beliefs concluded that the case for Christianity had been the most compelling. IN FACT! 47 people who entered the auditorium as either an atheist, agnostic or skeptic exited as a Christian. Incidentally, there was NO ONE became an atheist that night!

Again.....do not believe me! A videotape of this debate is available at Amazon.com. Just look for William Lane Craig and Frank Zindler, Atheism vs. Christianity: Where Does the Evidence Point? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993).

At this site:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/debates.html

you can get copies of 10 of William Lane Craig's debates with other well-known atheists. Look them up! You seem very concerned with this topic. I wouldn't stop your search here. Why don't you go to the people who really have the answers you claim to believe do NOT exist!

However, it is my opinion that nothing will change your mind. You know that God will not appear to you and have convinced yourself that because of that He must NOT exist. Great logic!

In addition, I wouldn't put to much stock in any thread started by SkepticBud. Bud is too cowardly to finish challenged that HE STARTED. I've come to find that this is an interesting character flaw in your typical skeptic.

[Dilton]

Today @ 01:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91476#post91476)
apologetics:


However, it is my opinion that nothing will change your mind. You know that God will not appear to you and have convinced yourself that because of that He must NOT exist. Great logic!



Sorry to enter the discussion, but that´s a great logic indeed.

[Jim E.]

apologetics:

In my opinion, public Christians are thoroughly dishonest frauds. This is the year 2003. Why don't these public Christians enter internet forums? Because they'll get skewered. That is why skeptics thoroughly dominate internet forums. Christians bob, weave, and dodge, and are too scared to even share their own reasons for being Christians (absolutely pathetic). The best they can do is throw up a link. If this is the "courage" that your piddly little god inspires, it sounds a lot more like Christianity is a bunch of humans scared of deconversion.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 01:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91476#post91476)
apologetics:
The jury was comprised of five independent philosophers from various universities and colleges. At the end of the debate, four judges ruled that Habermas had won.

Wow! Where did they find these incredible judges that had no prior religious bias?


One of the other judges stated this: "I conclude that the historical evidence, though flawed, is strong enough to lead reasonable minds to conclude that Christ did indeed rise from the dead

That judge was a Christian. Probably a liberal Christian of some variety. I think I can state that as fact without even knowing his name.

There is no evidence extant outside of the bible. This is not opinion. It is fact.

You can keep throwing these red herrings, but where is the evidence? It's not good enough to claim that some foolhardy judges believe the evidence to be sufficient, you need to actually present it so we can make up our own minds.

Goodness knows, I've been asking Christians to present this amazing evidence for years, and none is forthcoming. It always boils down to 'the bible says xyz, and the bible is true, therefore xyz is true!', or (slightly less often) 'Christian scholars believe xyz, therefore xyz is true!'.


IN FACT! 47 people who entered the auditorium as either an atheist, agnostic or skeptic exited as a Christian.

Probably untrue, but even so - the world is full of gullible people that are incapable of properly examining evidence. That's why the world is full of crazy religions of every description.


In addition, I wouldn't put to much stock in any thread started by SkepticBud. Bud is too cowardly to finish challenged that HE STARTED. I've come to find that this is an interesting character flaw in your typical skeptic.

He probably got bored waiting for a Christian to present the evidence that they keep hyping up.

Paul

[Evangel]

Sorry it took so long to respond but i had extracurricular activities to attend to. along with school and scholarly work :smile:

Yesterday @ 12:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89633#post89633)
skepticbud:
You can continue to insult my online name if you wish, but, just between me and you, it looks like you are about 9 years old. Not that you should, care, if I marshalled bible verses to prove you are a hypcrite for acting like that, you wouldn't care, after all, it might just be Greco-Roman rhetoric.


Taking shots at Holding while he isn’t present, for shame. I care about the verses but they are not applicable in every situation.


correction, we are talking about Christianity, not Catholicism.

Im proving I have not been brainwashed, the oldest Church and also the one with the most dogmatic beliefs. Few of which I agree with.


yeah, the bible is the word of god, and you have the spirit guiding you, but you can't make heads of tails out of what god says about the end-times. Oh yeah, you have something way better than atheism for sure.

I acknowledge my ignorance and you rationalize yours.


yup, Christians typically go along witht the trend.

My point is that I am not a typical Christian I am open to listen to atheists and debate on theology as well


And I grew up going to church and was a christian until some years ago. So? Exceptions prove the rule.

The so called “brainwashing” of the Church obviously had poor effect on me. If anything it may have have deterred my faith.


Correction, nothing else comes close to the kind of state of mind you enter when you confess Jesus as you lord. You suddenly find happiness and purpose for living, and since you didn't find these things with other world-views, those other views must be wrong!

I researched, I studied, no way would I walk blindly into something. I had no personal experiences then, God didn’t show himself to me. I had no objections to evolution because I blindly and authoritarily believed in it. My teachers told me it was so and it was so. The evidence for Christianity moved to look more into it and seriously consider it.


Kyle's logic is that I cannot call him brainwashed because i cannot know what kind of experiences he had. To use that same logic, YOU cannot know what kind of let-downs and horrors and evils might have been experienced by former Christians who are now atheists as a result. Just because it works for you doesn't guarantee that it will work for somebody else.

True I cannot know whether your atheism is justified but I know that my own theism is justified but your own claims of me being brainwashed are useless invective.


You don't have any facts to back that up. You have the theological speculations of ancient writers in the New Testament, and your own personal feelings of how wonderful it was when you accepted jesus. If you think your own experiences is sufficient to justify your continued faith, surely you will agree that the personal tragedies and other negative experiences of other people, which you dont' know about, are sufficient to warrant their choice to leave the faith....!? Nah, you aren't that consistent. When you feel good about Jesus, that's because it's all true...but if you feel bad about jesus, the problem must be the hurting person's perception of reality, right? Good feelings about invisible persons are ALWAYS to be trusted, right?

It is always a trajedy when one comes to a time when they need Jesus and his love the most and they turn the back away because everything didn’t go the way they wanted it to.


Your cup runneth over. I'll stomp the resurrection back into the ground that it never came from if you wanna debate it. Debate it with me and see. Or else realize what a sour puss you are, saying atheists are certainly wrong, but not willing to engage in a debate on the resurrection, as if you only have time to post your rantings and not to actually debate something formally. I'm ready to debate! What a great chance for you to prove to the Christians here one more time that the devil's emmisaries are stupid, eh?

I have seen the way you debate and I’d rather not waste my time on your rabble rousing. Besides I’d rather have someone more qualified in the subject debate you. Im sure JP Holding would love to take you on, if you feel up to the challenge.


Great! so then you agree that if you go to church regularly, you are subject to more brainwashing than those who dont' go that often ("extremely rarely")?

If the so called “brainwashing” does in fact occur, which I strongly doubt it does, than not being around it would prevent it from occuring. Of course if im exposed to it once or twice it surely works. Their methods are frightengly effective


I have already ripped that book apart with a 20 page rebuttal that I wrote myself. Pick the chapter that you think has the best defense, and agree to defend it, and I'll challenge it.

Show me the 20 page rebuttal. I have an email address if you do not have a website.


Pick any article you want that you think a skeptic cannot refute, i'll challenge it.

Refer to above


yeah, it couldn't possibly be that you simply fail to see the reasoning for what it is. Nope. You are the judge of all mankind, if you don't think the arguments are convincing, those arguments must suck.

What is your number one reason for not believing in a god? I hope it is not a personal objection.


Since we say evolution took place over millions of years, we would obviously believe the earth and universe to be old, not young. You wanna start there?

Nah lets start at the beginning of life. Show me a scientifical observation that shows single-celled organisms “evolving” into multi-celled organisms. Show me conclusive scientific data showing that life can quote “come from nothing.”


how stupid.

I agree actually, you shouldn’t believe in something because of your opinion on the existence of a god.


So hard that little girls get raped everyday by disgusting men? Oh yeah, god sure does love us. You would be quick to fault a parent who knew that he child was being raped, but chose to do nothing about it. Your solitary reason for saying god's ways are myserious is because that is the only excuse left between you and certain defeat. To make up and excuse for why god does something, is to first presuppose he exists. This excuse making then, when you run into the argument from evil against god, is merely begging the question, a typical Christian fallacy. You cannot make excuses for why god does or doesn't do something until you first prove he definitely exists, since obviously the argument from evil contends that evil exists precisely because your loving god does not.

God doesn’t claim to control the will of man. As to existence of God I’ll just refer to the cosmological theory. Just because God doesn’t want evil to occur doesn’t mean it wont occur. We ate the forbidden fruit and knowledge of evil is our punishment.


That's right. Rule #37 in the "atheist handbook", (there are different english editions, which all their supporters pointing the finger at each other and saying 'falsely translated!') says "be no longer conformed to the image of Christianity, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..." Soo, yeah, nutin's gonna change my mind.

If you had a basic understanding of any language besides English you would know that there are some words that do not have exact translations and almost always have different ways in which they can be used. This is a poor example but here it is the spanish usage of falling head over heels literally means exchanging my feet for my face. You have to look at in the way they used it in the times not how it is worded when it is put into English.


"without question", the key phrase in your entire post.

That is what Jesus requires for my salvation. I will of course still have doubts which is why I expose myself to your atheist arguments and theories, however off the wall they may be.


not possible, when you said you love god without question, everybody discovered how free you are of brainwashing.

Oh no the cat is out of the bag now.


He is also known as the greatest thinker of modern times by most scientists. Don't shout too loudly that you fail to see any logic in his theories. I don't follow him particularly.

Anyone that has to create something as rediculous as imaginary time is obviously reaching. However he has stated that if the Big-Bang theory were to be true then there must be a god.


Never, you are far from being a freethinker, religious dogma permeates most of your phrases.

I don’t know whats more absurd, the lack of validity and reason behind your posts or that I (and others) actually consider to read them.


With eternal love, :kiss:
Evangel

[Evangel]

05-06-2003 @ 11:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=89529#post89529)
Sheepdog:

i thank you for your testimony, it was encouraging. but, the part above concerns me. it isn't that i think you have to go to church to be Christian or anything dumb like that. but, a church is a great place to meet other Christians, and we, being social creatures by nature, need fellowship.

besides, even old dogs learn new tricks

I simply dont have the time (rationalizing). but i really do have busy weekends what with making movies, doing homework, researching theology, hanging out with friends, spending time with my girlfriend, doing yardwork.

[Evangel]

Yesterday @ 08:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=90551#post90551)
Unknown Banana:

No worries :) I never actually got offended, it just didn't seem right. I'll have to get back to you on the questions though...

im waiting and more than glad to help :teeth:


needs repeating... :smile:


Sheepdog:
i wonder when SmokinBud was planning to respond to my first post. maybe he hasn't because he realizes that it is based on too many unfounded assumptions that i pointed out.

just maybe



Dawnghost:
wow. what a stupid thread.

skepticbud, did you try to undermine your credibility here in TWeb on purpose with this thread? or has your bigotry fogged your mind to the extent where you can't discern a good argument from a totally idiot one anymore?

wow. what a shame.

[dawnghost]

Today @ 01:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91507#post91507)
Dilton:
Sorry to enter the discussion, but that´s a great logic indeed.

I truly hope you are joking :ponder: :hrm:

[Dilton]

Not quite. One cannot be blamed for not believing in God based on a logic like that.

damn the message got very big, so I deleted it all and I will leave the way it is up there, waste of keyboard this discussions are.

[KingDavid8]

Yesterday @ 11:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91401#post91401)
Jim Eisele:

Well, golllllllllllleeeeeeeeee David. Not so eager any more to present a whit of evidence for Christianity, are you? You're basically deconverted already. You're a Christian with no reasons to be a Christian. Get a reason to be a Christian, and then maybe we'll talk. Just a post ago you wanted to give your reasons. Then you sensed my confidence and you froze up. Face it, David, you know you're wrong but just haven't figured out how to escape the wretched trap of Christianity yet. I don't envy you.



I've given my reasons to you already. What the Bible says, the historical evidence, my experiences in life, my conversations with Christians and non-Christians, books I've read, etc. All of these things combine to convince me of the truth of Jesus Christ.

David

[apologetics]

Unbelieveable!


In my opinion, public Christians are thoroughly dishonest frauds. This is the year 2003. Why don't these public Christians enter internet forums? Because they'll get skewered. That is why skeptics thoroughly dominate internet forums. Christians bob, weave, and dodge, and are too scared to even share their own reasons for being Christians (absolutely pathetic). The best they can do is throw up a link. If this is the "courage" that your piddly little god inspires, it sounds a lot more like Christianity is a bunch of humans scared of deconversion.

Jim, did you even read my post? The evidence is there. Whether you chose to believe it is another story! Why don't you do some independant research on Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig. Look at their credentials. Why would either of them waste their time on an internet bulletin board? So they can be criticized by some mental midget who doesn't even know 1/4 of what they have forgotten? I don't know why I do most of the time. How many minds are actually changed here?

I am MORE than willing to share ALL of the reasons that I believe in God. It will take a LONG time and I am sure you wouldn't read 10 lines!

Why don't you do some research on the topic of Christian apologetics. You will find out that there are literally 1000's of books filled with all sorts of evidence about Christianity. Oh, but I forgot.....those authors aren't entering mindless internet chat rooms and bulletin boards and wasting tons of hours talking with people who couldn't care less about their evidence.

[apologetics]

Today @ 02:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91530#post91530)
lordsnooty:

Wow! Where did they find these incredible judges that had no prior religious bias?

That judge was a Christian. Probably a liberal Christian of some variety. I think I can state that as fact without even knowing his name.

There is no evidence extant outside of the bible. This is not opinion. It is fact.

You can keep throwing these red herrings, but where is the evidence? It's not good enough to claim that some foolhardy judges believe the evidence to be sufficient, you need to actually present it so we can make up our own minds.

Goodness knows, I've been asking Christians to present this amazing evidence for years, and none is forthcoming. It always boils down to 'the bible says xyz, and the bible is true, therefore xyz is true!', or (slightly less often) 'Christian scholars believe xyz, therefore xyz is true!'.

Probably untrue, but even so - the world is full of gullible people that are incapable of properly examining evidence. That's why the world is full of crazy religions of every description.

He probably got bored waiting for a Christian to present the evidence that they keep hyping up.

Paul


Paul, I have posted this other places and get the same response from people such as yourself. Instead of disparaging the material a priori I would suggest that you actually pick up a copy of each and read and/or watch for yourself. Are you worried that their might be actually something in there that contradicts your beliefs that evidence does not exist?

It's amusing to watch skeptics dance around the fact that evidence really DOES exist! You use the word "probably" three times and "I think" once. It is also laughable that when presented with the realization that skeptics/agnostics/atheists have actually been swayed by the evidence (because to think any differently would be force an acknowledgement that evidence actually swayed someone) the skeptic falls back on the old "gullible people" routine. Indicating that only those like themselves and their skeptical friends are intelligent enough to deny God. It's beyond amusing!

Oh, and on Bud's sudden disappearance from the "challenge" he gave Christians. Instead of spouting off another "probably" why don't you visit the thread for yourself and check out when each post was given. He ran because he knew he had blown it! It had nothing to do with getting bored from lack of answers! The guy is a goof!

[DBoone]

< Christians bob, weave, and dodge, and are too scared to even share their own reasons for being Christians (absolutely pathetic). The best they can do is throw up a link. >

I've given my testimony on this forum, it's up to you now Jim. No doubt you've heard the testimonies of many Christians since you seem to frequent so many forums, that you must know the Gospel message off by heart. And every one of us has told you the same thing, but just in case you haven't been told, I'll tell you: God is real, and He loves you more than you think. Try something: get out of the city, drive or bus as far away from the dirt and sin of humanity, climb a mountain or sit by a raging river, take a little time, open up your heart, and in that quietness consider all the words of Christ that you have heard testified or read in the scriptures. And then do what many of us have done, pray your first prayer. Most of those first prayers start the same: "God, if you're really real, please show yourself to me. If you're really there I'd like to give you a chance in my life. This is my promise, that if you show yourself to me I'll accept you into my life. Many others have told me that you're real, and now I want to know for myself once and for all." etc etc something like that. The sinner's prayer can come later, first YOU have to see that God is real and that He's waiting for you to open up to Him. He's done the same for all of us, and if your heart isn't as hard as mine was, God will answer sooner than you might expect.

[DBoone]

apologetics -

Your last post reminds me of a classic skeptic's dodge, he calls your stuff "double-speak". You spend an hour or so research a cogent and thorough explanation to someone's question, and they try to simply dismiss it by quoting Orwell. To the credit of some skeptics they actually respond, and I'm sure that some skeptics get pretty irate when a Christian dismisses them too, but it's still pretty goofy if you ask me.

[apologetics]

DBoone:

I agree. I have run into this many times and from experience have learned not to waste my time needlessly. When I run into someone who genuinely desires knowledge, I will share, but I have learned by experience what is meant by Proverbs 26:4-5. I believe 'ole Jim was the kinda person Solomon had in mind.

Evidence is such a subjective topic. The OJ jury and the DNA evidence should be all you need to know to see this. If someone wants to NOT believe what they are being presented....wasting hours trying to change them is just that.....wasting!

[apologetics]

Here's something that I will also throw into the ring. Of course it will only prove useful to those wishing it to be useful, but anyway....

According to Pastor David T. Moore from his series Marathon Marriage (for more info on Moore see his website www.mooreonlife.com), marriages as-a-whole end in divorce 58% of the time. However, the divorce rate for marriages of those people who claim that the regularly pray together and attend church together is 1 in 1104 or less than 1/1000th of a percent. I don't know where he got the statistic, but rather than having to hear all the blather about how this isn't true, I would suggest that you email Moore and ask him to provide you the study where he got this statistic. His email address is on his website. But I'm sure that even this small task will be too much for the common skeptic.

Is this evidence? I guess that depends upon which side of the fence you reside.

[DBoone]

Amen.

I mean you can call it brainwashing if you want, but after the 1000th and 2000th coincidence in my life, I stopped believing in coincidence. Skeptics and Christian alike marvel at the synchronicity of events in our lives, and rarely do we stop to ask why they happen, we just accept that they do because we each just happen to be "the center of the universe".

[dawnghost]

Today @ 04:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91657#post91657)
Dilton:
Not quite. One cannot be blamed for not believing in God based on a logic like that.

damn the message got very big, so I deleted it all and I will leave the way it is up there, waste of keyboard this discussions are.

well, maybe he cannot be blamed if he doesn't understand the logical fallacy in that argument. but I'll be sure to fix this minor problem, don't worry.


Today @ 01:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91476#post91476)
apologetics:
However, it is my opinion that nothing will change your mind. You know that God will not appear to you and have convinced yourself that because of that He must NOT exist. Great logic!

Dilton replied:


Today @ 01:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91507#post91507)
Dilton:
Sorry to enter the discussion, but that´s a great logic indeed.

so, to quote Stephen Downes:

Definition:

Argument from Ignorance
(argumentum ad ignorantiam)


Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

Examples:
- Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist.
- Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won't.
- Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false.

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.htm

there you go.

[jimbo]

KingDavid,


I've given my reasons to you already. What the Bible says, the historical evidence, my experiences in life, my conversations with Christians and non-Christians, books I've read, etc. All of these things combine to convince me of the truth of Jesus Christ.

Did you post these reasons earlier in the thread? If so, could you point me to the page? I'd be curious to see your reasons for accepting Christianity.

Thanks.

Jimbo

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 06:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92604#post92604)
jimbo:

KINGDAVID: I've given my reasons to you already. What the Bible says, the historical evidence, my experiences in life, my conversations with Christians and non-Christians, books I've read, etc. All of these things combine to convince me of the truth of Jesus Christ.

JIMBO: King David, Did you post these reasons earlier in the thread? If so, could you point me to the page? I'd be curious to see your reasons for accepting Christianity.

Thanks.


I was referring to a conversation we had in the "Evidence That Christianity Is False" thread. My reasons were in post #34 on page 3 (our conversation continues through post #72 on page 5), and I was summarizing them in the statement quoted above.

David

[Jim E.]

Today @ 01:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92604#post92604)
jimbo:

KingDavid,



Did you post these reasons earlier in the thread? If so, could you point me to the page? I'd be curious to see your reasons for accepting Christianity.

Thanks.

Jimbo

Christians simply engage in all manners of dishonesty. They can afford that luxury. If a Christian is thoroughly dishonest, no big deal. He just knows that he will die without punishment.

On the other hand, atheists have very strong motivation to be honest about Christianity. Hide and seek games such as David is playing are annoying, disrespectful, and dishonest.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[Dilton]

Yesterday @ 03:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=91947#post91947)
dawnghost:


Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, &quot;Lack of proof is not proof.&quot; (p. 59)



http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.htm

there you go.

Yes now I got it. The argument was truly imbecile.

But then there´s the question: can you blame someone for not believing in God at all? Can you truly say it is very obvious He exists or that it all depends on his faith and subjective feelings?
Because fallacies we all have them, but we know the truth to be just one, after all it would be absurd if God existed for Christians and did not exist for atheists at the same time.
I do not see, then, the problem in someone saying that he does not believe in God because there is no proof. I mean, science deals with things that can be observed and proved. If it does not, it is merely a theory, not a belief. That´s why I think this dialogue among atheists and christians to be incompatible, and the same when a christian uses science to try and prove his faith.
And that´s also why I think there is no problem for someone to have science all over his blood and be a christian or whatever at the same time. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

You cannot say you do not believe in God because the bible cannot be proved, and you cannot say you believe in God because it is all proved in science. -this is where I was trying to get. :smile: NOOO I USED A SMILEY NOOOO AAARRRGHHH!!!

[Nowhere357]

KingDavid8:

I disagree that the Biblical writings are the only evidence that Jesus rose from the grave (I also consider the Bible a collection of books, not a single book, but that's moot). There's plenty of historical and archeological evidence to support it, as well.
I hear this claim repeatedly, but I have not yet seen the evidence. Perhaps that will change when I'm finished with the "Is the Bible Divine" thread.


On top of that (though this came after I believed), the experiences in my own life have, at least to me, confirmed the truth of Jesus and His message.
Truth of his message I understand. But what experience have you had which convinces you that Jesus rose from the dead?


I'm not requiring different levels of evidence at all.

I understand your point, and concede the analogy doesn't hold.

I was trying to help make the skeptic view of this, more clear to you. Instead of the analogy of leprechauns, try the analogy of Zeus and Mt. Olympia. I think the points you used to refute leprechaunism, would then fail.


The authors intended to convince their readers that the resurrection was a historical event, not a myth or anecdote.
What the authors intended is debatable. At any rate, people really did believe in zeus. We can imagine that people wrote about zeus, intending to convey what they THOUGHT was the truth.


If you could, on top of that, show me that these books are not contradicted by known historical evidence, that the authors claimed to know for certain that leprechauns existed and believed in them even to the point that they would rather die than deny their existence,
Zeus can at least potentially fulfill these requirements.


and is taken seriously enough that many respected scholars are convinced of the existence of leprechauns, then I would definitely consider the possibility that leprechauns exist.
Modern scholars know zeus to be false, but back in the day it was the reigning belief. If we allow the perspective of the people who lived back then, the analogy holds.


And, of course, if I could experience leprechauns in my own life as I have experienced Jesus (even if I didn't actually see the leprechauns), that would probably clinch it for me.
Zeus believers interpreted their experiences within the paradigm of their religion, exactly as Christians do today. They really believed!

This is not intended as evidence that xianity is false. The point is to illustrate the skeptic view of supernatural entities.

If I lived in ancient Greece, I would have questioned the existence of Zeus.

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 01:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92691#post92691)
Jim Eisele:

Hide and seek games such as David is playing are annoying, disrespectful, and dishonest.


Explain how I'm playing "hide and seek games", please? He asked where the post was, and I told him exactly where it was - the thread title, the page number, and the post number. If I'd told him "go find it yourself", your accusation would be justified.

David

[Nowhere357]

apologetics:

Here's something that I will also throw into the ring. Of course it will only prove useful to those wishing it to be useful, but anyway....

Good point. We all tend to try and fit observations into our worldview. Skepticism insists we consider all viewpoints, which helps avoid this problem.


According to Pastor David T. Moore from his series Marathon Marriage, marriages as-a-whole end in divorce 58% of the time. However, the divorce rate for marriages of those people who claim that the regularly pray together and attend church together is 1 in 1104 or less than 1/1000th of a percent.
I am aware of scientific studies showing that religious beliefs can be associated with lower divorce rates, so I suppose the study you refer to here may be correct.

This is evidence for the power of faith. I think the studies show that what is required is a belief in a religion, and not necessarily a belief in Christianity.

[dawnghost]

Today @ 01:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92699#post92699)
Dilton:
But then there´s the question: can you blame someone for not believing in God at all? Can you truly say it is very obvious He exists or that it all depends on his faith and subjective feelings?
Because fallacies we all have them, but we know the truth to be just one, after all it would be absurd if God existed for Christians and did not exist for atheists at the same time. emphasis added

I truly wish everyone had that vision you stated there. but anyway that could even be the subject for another thread. :smile:


Dilton
But then there´s the question: can you blame someone for not believing in God at all? Can you truly say it is very obvious He exists or that it all depends on his faith and subjective feelings?

this is another question that is very complex to answer. if you don't want to debate over this subject, you could try the Liberal Arts Dept. located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=9) for a friendly talk.


Dilton
You cannot say you do not believe in God because the bible cannot be proved, and you cannot say you believe in God because it is all proved in science.

I'd say the main point is that both sides, christians and skeptics, deal with faith. but if this discussion is worth having (and I think it is, since it deals with our very nature and purpose), why not give it the proper importance? after all, you do believe the truth to be one. don't you want to be a little more sure that you just might be right? :ponder: :smile:

oh yeah... and by 'discussion worth having', I don't mean this stupid thread here, just to make myself perfectly clear. :shifty:

[Evangel]

Today @ 08:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92691#post92691)
Jim Eisele:

Christians simply engage in all manners of dishonesty. They can afford that luxury. If a Christian is thoroughly dishonest, no big deal. He just knows that he will die without punishment.

On the other hand, atheists have very strong motivation to be honest about Christianity. Hide and seek games such as David is playing are annoying, disrespectful, and dishonest.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

did you read this thread before you posted that? or did you just post for the sake of posting and just tried to take a cheapshot at poor david.


Today @ 01:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92610#post92610)
KingDavid8:

I was referring to a conversation we had in the &quot;Evidence That Christianity Is False&quot; thread. My reasons were in post #34 on page 3 (our conversation continues through post #72 on page 5), and I was summarizing them in the statement quoted above.

David

i have no motivation to be dishonest. if what im saying isnt the truth and what i believe than i have no reason to believe it. why give myself moral limitations when i don't need them. i could be out drinking, doing drugs, having sex, and worshipping Satan.

If anything atheists have more motivation to be dishonest since you would have to totally change the way you live your life and you would have to admit that you aren't the center of the universe. i'm sure you would rather burn than let your guard down even for a second. if God exists your entire life up until now would have been in vain and i don't think you'd want to admit to that either. stay forever ignorant and the ruler of your destiny, who needs God when you are a god.

Here is David's post:http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=78112#post78112

[Evangel]

Today @ 08:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92699#post92699)
Dilton:

Yes now I got it. The argument was truly imbecile.

But then there´s the question: can you blame someone for not believing in God at all? Can you truly say it is very obvious He exists or that it all depends on his faith and subjective feelings?
Because fallacies we all have them, but we know the truth to be just one, after all it would be absurd if God existed for Christians and did not exist for atheists at the same time.
I do not see, then, the problem in someone saying that he does not believe in God because there is no proof. I mean, science deals with things that can be observed and proved. If it does not, it is merely a theory, not a belief. That´s why I think this dialogue among atheists and christians to be incompatible, and the same when a christian uses science to try and prove his faith.
And that´s also why I think there is no problem for someone to have science all over his blood and be a christian or whatever at the same time. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

You cannot say you do not believe in God because the bible cannot be proved, and you cannot say you believe in God because it is all proved in science. -this is where I was trying to get. :smile: NOOO I USED A SMILEY NOOOO AAARRRGHHH!!!

i have several questions for you my dear atheists friend, statements as well.

-show me evolution occuring right now.
-show me a single celled organism "evolving" into a multicelled organism.
-show me conclusive scientific evidence that shows life coming from nothing.
-explain to me how abiogenesis and the goop can occur and show me examples of its existence today.
-show me good evidence of tranistional forms in nonverbebrates.
provide to me a cosmological theory that fits the facts more than the big bang theory. (probably the only one you can answer but Hawking has lost his marbles)
-If we were to evolve the capability to breathe would our brains be able to evolve the capacity to regulate it at the same time. seems like a stretch to assume that the organ and the mental ability to control it would evolve at the same time.
-Unless humans were a huge anomaly in evolution it would seem to be that the rest of the creatures of the planet would have evolved at a similar rate and would have a much larger brain capacity then what they do. If you say they have as much brain power as they need then i could still say then why did humans evolve from apes if they had everything they needed. because they wanted to be smarter?
-Why didnt creatures in the same area evolve differently? if one was best suited wouldn't it kill out the rest or the rest would evolve to be similar to it.
-It seems unlikely to me that if an organism were to evolve from asexual into mating that it would find another organism like it with the same mutation and that its partner would have the right organ. The two might not even be compatable if the evolution speciezed them. besides that the organism would have a limited time to find a partner before it ceased to exist.
-What about irreducably complex organisms?

These are all the contentions i can remember for now. i'm sure ill find more later or remember them.

[dawnghost]

Evangel
i have no motivation to be dishonest. if what im saying isnt the truth and what i believe than i have no reason to believe it. why give myself moral limitations when i don't need them. i could be out drinking, doing drugs, having sex, and worshipping Satan.

somehow, the 'original sin' subject rushed through my mind when I read that. most people in my workplace view the moral framework of christianity as an obsolete, close-minded one. they all have their own set of standards to support their actions, to make their understanding of what's right or wrong fit their behavior. add some moral relativism here and there and voila! you're one supportive, open-minded fella who doesn't need the christian standards to be 'good'.

I could be listening to Emperor and Dark Funeral, since I enjoy their music so much. but why am I offended by their lyrics? oh yeah, I am a christian, I limit myself, I am close-minded. sorry.

Evangel: :thumb: to you, brother.

[jimbo]

Jim,



Today @ 01:15 AM post located here
jimbo:

KingDavid,



Did you post these reasons earlier in the thread? If so, could you point me to the page? I'd be curious to see your reasons for accepting Christianity.

Thanks.

Jimbo Christians simply engage in all manners of dishonesty. They can afford that luxury. If a Christian is thoroughly dishonest, no big deal. He just knows that he will die without punishment.

On the other hand, atheists have very strong motivation to be honest about Christianity. Hide and seek games such as David is playing are annoying, disrespectful, and dishonest.

Whoa there cowboy. In answer to my question, King David was nice enough to direct me to where he wrote previously about his reasons for being a Christian. I don't see why you think he is being dishonest or disrespectful.

Cheers,

Jimbo

[Jim E.]

Today @ 12:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92831#post92831)
KingDavid8:



Explain how I'm playing &quot;hide and seek games&quot;, please? He asked where the post was, and I told him exactly where it was - the thread title, the page number, and the post number. If I'd told him &quot;go find it yourself&quot;, your accusation would be justified.

David

Typically, I don't do links because Christians are full of evasion. If you want my time, put (or as you claim, re-post) your point in writing where everyone can see it. It's up to you. If I have a Christian on the run, I will emphasize his evasiveness. Christians then retreat into silence. What I've seen from you so far isn't close to being worth traveling through a thread.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[Jim E.]

Today @ 12:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92847#post92847)
Evangel:
i have no motivation to be dishonest. if what im saying isnt the truth and what i believe than i have no reason to believe it. why give myself moral limitations when i don't need them. i could be out drinking, doing drugs, having sex, and worshipping Satan.

If anything atheists have more motivation to be dishonest since you would have to totally change the way you live your life and you would have to admit that you aren't the center of the universe. i'm sure you would rather burn than let your guard down even for a second. if God exists your entire life up until now would have been in vain and i don't think you'd want to admit to that either. stay forever ignorant and the ruler of your destiny, who needs God when you are a god.

What type of baloney is this? Christians are the most dishonest people I know when it comes to discussing faith. What do they care? I find this tripe thoroughly insulting and indicative of a delusional person. Either that or self-righteous pomp. Like to be self-righteous, dontcha?

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[Jim E.]

Today @ 01:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92876#post92876)
jimbo:
Whoa there cowboy. In answer to my question, King David was nice enough to direct me to where he wrote previously about his reasons for being a Christian. I don't see why you think he is being dishonest or disrespectful.

Oh, jimbo, jimbo, jimbo. Evasion is standard operating procedure for Christians. I've been "discussing" with David for a while and all he does is beg the question. His arguments are a complete waste of time. I notice you didn't share his "reasons" for being a Christian.

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[jimbo]

Jim,

Here is what King David wrote in the post he directed me to:


As for what evidence would sway me away from Christianity, there really isn't any one thing I could think of, short of finding the body and being able to prove it's His. This is mostly because there isn't any one thing that convinces me of His resurrection. I believe in Jesus for many reasons. What the Bible says, the historical evidence, the wisdom of Jesus, the dedication of the 1st century Christians, my dealings with both Christians and non-Christians, the experiences in my life, the books I've read, the results of my redemption, what I've felt in my heart - all of these things combine to convince me of Jesus. It was a lot of things that swayed me from atheism to Christianity (I was an atheist for most of my life), and if anything would, hypothetically, sway me back, it would likely be a lot of things. You give me one piece of evidence that goes against Jesus, well, I've got 99 that go for Him, so that better be one darned impressive piece of evidence. Give me ten individual pieces, and that might be a better start.

I think I understand your point--King David is not providing specifics. He is making a general claim about the weight of evidence in different areas, but he doesn't focus on anything specific that can be examined in detail. This could be described as evasive.

Cheers,

Jimbo

[Jim E.]

Today @ 03:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92921#post92921)
jimbo:
I think I understand your point--King David is not providing specifics. He is making a general claim about the weight of evidence in different areas, but he doesn't focus on anything specific that can be examined in detail. This could be described as evasive.


Thanks for your pleasant post. As I recall, I tried to discuss David's first reason and he quoted John 3:16 which I found laughable. The "discussion" completely fell apart at that point, as I didn't immediately see the light from this verse.

Take care,

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[famousGandalf7]

I have never been brainwashed. I have been to one service (only) in many places where brainwashing, as well as other forms of manipulation (witchcraft) were common practice. I did not return to any of them. Perhaps they have repented, or perhaps they are still practicing witchcraft, it is of no consequence. The Truth is not affected by lies, but lies are destroyed by the Truth. I found Christianity to be liberty from being brainwashe by my atheist parents, my atheist schools, college, the US Navy, and even many of my friends. I found freedom and liberty to be much more exciting than slavery to being brainwashed by the lies told to the masses. They are the same lies that were told in the Garden of Eden: "Hath God said..." and "Ye shall not surely die..." They just 'look' different. Christians are liberated, and someone who is still brainwashed by the world can NEVER understand. :dunce:

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." -- John 3:3

[Evangel]

Today @ 02:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92905#post92905)
Jim Eisele:
What type of baloney is this?

makes a claim based on his own personal beliefs


Christians are the most dishonest people I know when it comes to discussing faith.

makes a claim without providing or even giving a hint of evidence. just says it to take a shot at christians


What do they care?

i care plenty, if what i believe isnt true then why give myself moral limitations that i dont need. i could be off having sex, drinking, smoking, and pleasuring myself with anything and everything. I dont believe because i believe. I believe because the evidence points that way. Since the evidence is true i have faith.


I find this tripe thoroughly insulting and indicative of a delusional person.
[quote]
makes another baseless claim and another hateful insult. seems like his objections to Christianity and the existence of a god are indeed self motivated.
[quote]
Either that or self-righteous pomp.

even resorts to name calling. where did i worship myself in my statement? i doubt i did. i more likely scrutinized myself for sinning than saying i am a perfect being, i am nowhere near being perfect but i want to be.


Like to be self-righteous, dontcha?

again where did i do this? making more baseless claims so you can justify your own personal motivations. you seek not to understand only to undermine, that doesn't seem like what someone in search of the truth would say.


Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org
at least you have the courage to give out a name and the location of your website. this i commend you for.

[Jim E.]

Today @ 03:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92944#post92944)
famousGandalf7:

I have never been brainwashed. I have been to one service (only) in many places where brainwashing, as well as other forms of manipulation (witchcraft) were common practice. I did not return to any of them. Perhaps they have repented, or perhaps they are still practicing witchcraft, it is of no consequence. The Truth is not affected by lies, but lies are destroyed by the Truth. I found Christianity to be liberty from being brainwashe by my atheist parents, my atheist schools, college, the US Navy, and even many of my friends. I found freedom and liberty to be much more exciting than slavery to being brainwashed by the lies told to the masses. They are the same lies that were told in the Garden of Eden: &quot;Hath God said...&quot; and &quot;Ye shall not surely die...&quot; They just 'look' different. Christians are liberated, and someone who is still brainwashed by the world can NEVER understand. :dunce:

&quot;Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.&quot; -- John 3:3

Hey, this sounds like the ramblings of a brainwashed person. You even believe in Adam and Eve. :huh:

Care to tell us why you believe Adam and Eve is factual? Or do you just like to talk if you don't have to defend your position?

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[Evangel]

Today @ 02:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92902#post92902)
Jim Eisele:
Typically, I don't do links because Christians are full of evasion. If you want my time, put (or as you claim, re-post) your point in writing where everyone can see it. It's up to you. If I have a Christian on the run, I will emphasize his evasiveness. Christians then retreat into silence. What I've seen from you so far isn't close to being worth traveling through a thread.

someone in search of the truth would look for it. they would be more than glad to go to any length to find what it is. if that person couldn't even spend 5 seconds to find a link then i doubt there going to read the bible and make up their own mind as to whether or not it is the divinely inspired word of God. Instead they'll just take the work and word of other atheists and just use that since they are too busy with their own life of pleasure to be bothered with anything remotely close to the truth. If i see an atheist hiding behind his own moral objections i will be quick to point it out. :teeth: If you want to respond to my previous post and give me answers to all of my objections to evolution than have at it. because only with evolution can you really remain atheist. You'd of course rather have a blind faith in evolution and follow satan's deceptions than change your the way you live your life in anyway. Evolution forbid your wrong. All ive seen from you is mindless chatter, baseless claims, personal objections and total ignorance of every possible objection to atheism and every piece of supportive evidence towards Christianity. But you are indeed your own master. Who needs God when you are a god?

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 05:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92825#post92825)
Nowhere357:

KINGDAVID8: I disagree that the Biblical writings are the only evidence that Jesus rose from the grave (I also consider the Bible a collection of books, not a single book, but that's moot). There's plenty of historical and archeological evidence to support it, as well.

NOWHERE: I hear this claim repeatedly, but I have not yet seen the evidence. Perhaps that will change when I'm finished with the &quot;Is the Bible Divine&quot; thread.


Probably the best book I’ve seen on the subject is “The Case For Christ” by Lee Strobel (a former atheist).

If you want, we could start a new thread on the historical evidence. But to kind of summarize it here, I think it’s clear that the Gospels were written as historical documents. No, that doesn’t prove them valid (I’m sure many things written as historical documents are false), but it does make them evidence that needs to be weighed. I also believe that the fact that many early Christians willingly suffered persecution in the name of Jesus means that they honestly believed that Jesus was for real. Again, this doesn’t, in an of itself, prove Jesus WAS for real (or if it does, it also proves the validity of Mohammad, Joseph Smith, and David Koresh). But the fact that they (unlike the early followers of the other three, with maybe a couple of exceptions in Smith’s case) claimed to see something which cannot be explained by natural means, namely the resurrection of the dead body, does make it evidence that needs to be weighed.



Truth of his message I understand. But what experience have you had which convinces you that Jesus rose from the dead?


In general, the results of my redemption, of my prayers, and the application of the Bible in my life has convinced me of the reliability of the Gospel message. It’s the kind of thing that’s hard to relay to other people. You’d almost have to see my transformation from the person I was to the person I am.



I was trying to help make the skeptic view of this, more clear to you. Instead of the analogy of leprechauns, try the analogy of Zeus and Mt. Olympia. I think the points you used to refute leprechaunism, would then fail.


Perhaps some of the points would, but hardly all of them. Did those who wrote the original texts about Zeus face persecution rather than deny their truth of what they wrote? Did anyone claim to witness first-hand any of Zeus’ miracles?



What the authors intended is debatable.


Reading the texts, I think it’s obvious that they were trying to relay the Jesus story as the truth, not a myth or parable.



If I lived in ancient Greece, I would have questioned the existence of Zeus.

So would I, just as I questioned the existence of the Judeo-Christian God and Jesus (it took me about seven years to fulfill my journey from atheist to agnostic to Christian). I still question some aspects of mainstream Christian belief, but Jesus’ resurrection as a historical event is something I no longer find a good reason to question. If anyone has such a reason, feel free to present it.

David

[Evangel]

Today @ 04:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92955#post92955)
Jim Eisele:
Hey, this sounds like the ramblings of a brainwashed person. You even believe in Adam and Eve. :huh:

Care to tell us why you believe Adam and Eve is factual? Or do you just like to talk if you don't have to defend your position?

again you missed the point. He was saying that lies of the snake did sound very appeasing but that there were dire consequences for their actions. Satan's deceptions are extremely appealing and the weak will always choose them. Christ offers eternal love and salvation if you would only love, believe, trust in him and repent your sins. Satan offers a life of pleasure without any consequences or interference from him, at least until you die. Sane people can and do choose hell because they can make the argument that Satan has more to offer and then they can just make objections to Christ and choose not to believe him until Christ himself appears to them and tells them to believe. And even if Christ did this they would not love and love trust in Christ they would only believe in him, which would not save their souls and then it might even allow people to actually believe in God and hate him. That is why you have to make the first few steps not God.

Wheter or not the story of Adam and Eve is true, the point is still made and your personal motivation shines through your post.

And actually since you are objecting to Christianity and Christianity isn't objecting to you. You would be required to prove that the story of Adam and Eve isn't true. Good luck on that.

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 07:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92902#post92902)
Jim Eisele:

Typically, I don't do links because Christians are full of evasion. If you want my time, put (or as you claim, re-post) your point in writing where everyone can see it. It's up to you. If I have a Christian on the run, I will emphasize his evasiveness. Christians then retreat into silence. What I've seen from you so far isn't close to being worth traveling through a thread.


Jimbo asked where he could see the post, so I told him where he could see the post. I don't see why any sane person would find that 'evasive' (clearly Jimbo didn't). If you think I should have taken it a step further and transferred the post over, I can understand that. But since there was no such request, there was nothing evasive about my response. But since you seem to be asking me to re-post it here, I'll do so.

What I said was:


As for what evidence would sway me away from Christianity, there really isn't any one thing I could think of, short of finding the body and being able to prove it's His. This is mostly because there isn't any one thing that convinces me of His resurrection. I believe in Jesus for many reasons. What the Bible says, the historical evidence, the wisdom of Jesus, the dedication of the 1st century Christians, my dealings with both Christians and non-Christians, the experiences in my life, the books I've read, the results of my redemption, what I've felt in my heart - all of these things combine to convince me of Jesus. It was a lot of things that swayed me from atheism to Christianity (I was an atheist for most of my life), and if anything would, hypothetically, sway me back, it would likely be a lot of things. You give me one piece of evidence that goes against Jesus, well, I've got 99 that go for Him, so that better be one darned impressive piece of evidence. Give me ten individual pieces, and that might be a better start.

Here are some things that would, if not convince me, be a big part of the process of swaying me back:

A logical argument for how Christianity could have taken such an extreme hold on so many people in the first century without an actual resurrected Jesus, preferrably with at least some historical evidence to back it up.

Evidence that a story remarkably similar to the Jesus story was floating around prior to the first century.

Evidence that any of the New Testament authors ever denied the truth of what they wrote, even if it was under torture and/or threat of imprisonment or death. Or, in general, any evidence that the authors had doubts about the truth of what they had written.

Evidence that events in the New Testament took place in locations that did not exist at that time.

Evidence that the actions of characters in the New Testament were wildly inconsistent with what such people would do.

Am I asking too much?


David

[Jim E.]

Today @ 04:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92957#post92957)
Evangel (previously):
i'm sure you would rather burn than let your guard down even for a second.

Now, now Evangel. Let's not back away from what you said. This is not the statement of a thinking person. In fact, it sounds more like the usual Christian defensiveness.

OK, Big Boy, what's your #1 reason to be a Christian? Quick, quick, before I burn :eww:

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[Dilton]

Today @ 06:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92861#post92861)
Evangel:



i have several questions for you my dear atheists friend, statements as well.

-show me evolution occuring right now.
-show me a single celled organism &quot;evolving&quot; into a multicelled organism.
-show me conclusive scientific evidence that shows life coming from nothing.
-explain to me how abiogenesis and the goop can occur and show me examples of its existence today.
-show me good evidence of tranistional forms in nonverbebrates.
provide to me a cosmological theory that fits the facts more than the big bang theory. (probably the only one you can answer but Hawking has lost his marbles)
-If we were to evolve the capability to breathe would our brains be able to evolve the capacity to regulate it at the same time. seems like a stretch to assume that the organ and the mental ability to control it would evolve at the same time.
-Unless humans were a huge anomaly in evolution it would seem to be that the rest of the creatures of the planet would have evolved at a similar rate and would have a much larger brain capacity then what they do. If you say they have as much brain power as they need then i could still say then why did humans evolve from apes if they had everything they needed. because they wanted to be smarter?
-Why didnt creatures in the same area evolve differently? if one was best suited wouldn't it kill out the rest or the rest would evolve to be similar to it.
-It seems unlikely to me that if an organism were to evolve from asexual into mating that it would find another organism like it with the same mutation and that its partner would have the right organ. The two might not even be compatable if the evolution speciezed them. besides that the organism would have a limited time to find a partner before it ceased to exist.
-What about irreducably complex organisms?

These are all the contentions i can remember for now. i'm sure ill find more later or remember them.

You have nice questions to be posted in a scientific forum to discuss the THEORY of evolution. What I was trying to say, and you missed the whole point, is that science is not equal in its essence to religion. What all here seem to be doing is to put religion in the same level of science, but to me they are incompatible to be discussed.

Christians use to say that to believe in evolution is a prove of faith harder than to believe in God. I believe this has some problems, because I don´t see christians finding it hard to believe in God, yet all christians here seem very keen to believe in God without any difficulties. And also, no one "believes" in evolution, but they theorize evolution, and that´s a whole different world.

[Evangel]

Today @ 04:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92966#post92966)
Jim Eisele:
Now, now Evangel. Let's not back away from what you said. This is not the statement of a thinking person. In fact, it sounds more like the usual Christian defensiveness.

OK, Big Boy, what's your #1 reason to be a Christian? Quick, quick, before I burn :eww:

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org
one quip in response to all of my posts. i would have expected more from an esteemed atheist such as yourself.

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 08:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92925#post92925)
Jim Eisele:

Thanks for your pleasant post. As I recall, I tried to discuss David's first reason and he quoted John 3:16 which I found laughable. The &quot;discussion&quot; completely fell apart at that point, as I didn't immediately see the light from this verse.


Anyone wanting to see what he's talking about, go to the "Evidence That Christianity Is False" thread and read it for yourself.

Oops, that's right. Jim doesn't want me to just point to the thread, but to transfer the text over. Very well, here's what happened. Responding to my first post (the one I quoted in my previous post), Jim said (in post #49):


Now tell us what the Bible says that you consider a reason to be a Christian.


I responded (post #53)


"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

That's one, at least.


Jim responded (post #55):


So, basically, you've been brainwashed by religion. You uncritically accept it as true and no longer care about evidence.

I see that verse and think "religious drivel." I guess you're just not comfortable trying to defend a religion with normal discussion.

You just want to quote a favorite Bible verse and go to a happy place. Whatever...


I responded (post #62):


Excuse me? I thought you asked me for something from the Bible. Maybe I was mistaken. That's what "tell us what the Bible says" means, I believe. If not, then what, exactly, were you asking for?

If you want to discuss the evidence, I'll be glad to do so. But please don't ask me for something, then criticize me for giving it.

As I believe I explained earlier, I believe in the Bible for many reasons, not just one. I believe in it because of what the Bible says, plus the evidence, plus my experiences, etc.


Jim responded (post#66):


My position is that there are no valid reasons to be a Christian. Your first "reason" for being a Christian was "what the Bible says" (specifically John 3:16). John 3:16 is a faith statement that can only be believed if you think Christianity is of divine origin. Are you trying to claim Christianity is true because of the amazing evidence of John 3:16?


I responded (post #68):


You really may want to go back and read my first posting here, because you've already forgotten, or decided to ignore, what I said. Here, I'll repost the relevant portion.

“ "What the Bible says, the historical evidence, the wisdom of Jesus, the dedication of the 1st century Christians, my dealings with both Christians and non-Christians, the experiences in my life, the books I've read, the results of my redemption, what I've felt in my heart - all of these things combine to convince me of Jesus." ”

How does one get from that that "What the Bible says" is the ONLY reason I'm a Christian and that I "no longer care about evidence." ("evidence" is right there in the list, dude!). Did you read the first four words, then quit? Are you under the impression that if someone posts a list of reasons, the first one is the only one they really mean, and the rest are just window dressing?

So your position is that there are no valid reasons to be a Christian. Fine, I acknowledge your position. Please acknowledge (or at least attempt to comprehend) mine if you want to continue this discussion. If necessary, read the above quoted portion two or three times.

BTW, Is Jim always like this, or is this just for my benefit?


Jim responded:


Uh, let's take them one at a time. And I clearly said your first reason, not your ONLY reason. Maybe after your first reason is thoroughly debunked you will want to take a break. If your first reason isn't your strongest, feel free to change the discussion to your strongest reason. Just throwing out John 3:16 is pretty weak stuff.


I responded (post #72):

This conversation just gets more and more surreal.

So were my eyes deceiving me when I read your statement that I 'no longer care about the evidence'? Did somebody hijack your post and put that in there against your will? Or do you feel that something being SECOND on my list means I no longer care about it? And I 'just threw out' John 3:16 because you said, "Now tell us what the Bible says that you consider a reason to be a Christian." Sorry if it's some sort of faux pas to give you what you ask for.


Jim never responded.

David

[Jim E.]

To KingDavid8:

Well, David, you appear to want to discuss now. We'll see...

Why doesn't evolution nullify Christianity?

Jim Eisele
Genesis in Question
http://genesisinquestion.org

[KingDavid8]

Yesterday @ 08:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92921#post92921)
jimbo:


I think I understand your point--King David is not providing specifics. He is making a general claim about the weight of evidence in different areas, but he doesn't focus on anything specific that can be examined in detail. This could be described as evasive.


I understand what you're saying, but I wouldn't say this is "evasive" unless someone is asking me to provide such evidence. The subject here was what evidence would convince us that Christianity is false, so I felt that an in-depth discussion of what evidence SUPPORTS Christianity would have been unwarranted, unless someone asked me to provide it. And since that was my first (or maybe second) post to the TWeb, no one had asked me anything yet.

David

[KingDavid8]

Yesterday @ 09:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93008#post93008)
Jim Eisele:

Well, David, you appear to want to discuss now. We'll see...

Why doesn't evolution nullify Christianity?



Because Christianity rises or falls on the question of whether Jesus was resurrected. Whether man ultimately descended from protocells or other humans is beside the point.

If Jesus was resurrected and man's ultimate ancestor was a protocell swimming in a puddle of primordial soup, then Christianity is true.

If Jesus was not resurrected and man's ultimate ancestor was a dude named Adam who lived in the Garden of Eden, then Christianity is false (and, evidently, Judaism is true).

David

[jimbo]

King David,

Some Christians say that Jesus had to suffer and die to erase Man's original sin, which was the result of Adam and Eve eating that apple in the garden of Eden. If humans evolved from single celled organisms (and all evidence points in that direction) then there was no garden of Eden and there was no original sin and there was no reason for Jesus' death and resurrection. This is why many fundamentalists try so hard to deny evolution. If they accept evolution, then they would no longer be able to pretend that their form of Christianity made sense.

Could you explain why you think Jesus had to die and resurrect?* What do you believe was the point of this?

Jimbo

*Just to be clear: I don't believe that somebody named Jesus actually rose from the dead, I am just asking this question for the sake of argument.

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 03:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93199#post93199)
jimbo:

King David,

Some Christians say that Jesus had to suffer and die to erase Man's original sin, which was the result of Adam and Eve eating that apple in the garden of Eden.. If humans evolved from single celled organisms (and all evidence points in that direction) then there was no garden of Eden and there was no original sin and there was no reason for Jesus' death and resurrection. This is why many fundamentalists try so hard to deny evolution. If they accept evolution, then they would no longer be able to pretend that their form of Christianity made sense.


Personally, I believe in the Adam and Eve story...as a metaphor for our fall from God's grace. Whether it's true or not, the most important thing is that we get meaning from it, not whether we take it literally. Could it be true that Adam and Eve were real people, and the Garden of Eden was a real place? I suppose. Perhaps they were the first ones along the evolutionary ladder that God considered "fully human", and the stuff about the formation directly from dust and ribs is metaphorical stuff added in. Or maybe, while other creatures evolved, Adam and Eve WERE made directly by God (I do kind of find the evidence for man's descending from apes pretty good, but not entirely convincing). Or, as I personally lean, Adam and Eve were only as real than the "prodigal son". Jesus spoke in parables on occasion, so why couldn't God have? Yeah, I know some of my fellow Christians will disagree with me on this, and I respectfully disagree with them, and hope we can focus more on what we have in common than the points we disagree on.

But overall, while I agree that evolution, if true, disproves a completely literal interpretation of Genesis (for that matter, so does the fact that we can see stars that are more than a few thousand light years away), it does absolutely nothing to disprove the resurrection of Jesus.

Even if Adam and Eve never really ate that forbidden fruit, the fact remains that we're all sinners by nature. "Who started it?" isn't as important a question as "who can save us from it?".



Could you explain why you think Jesus had to die and resurrect?* What do you believe was the point of this?


He died because we're sinners and He's perfect, and a perfect sacrifice is necessary to atone for sins. He resurrected to prove that He was who He claimed to be.

David

[lordsnooty]

Yesterday @ 09:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=92974#post92974)
Evangel:
one quip in response to all of my posts. i would have expected more from an esteemed atheist such as yourself.

Please forgive me if this sounds abrupt, but your arguments 'against' evolution are a bit lame.

Read a good book on evolution - even if you don't believe it, at least you'll know what you're arguing against.

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 03:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93209#post93209)
KingDavid8:
He died because we're sinners and He's perfect, and a perfect sacrifice is necessary to atone for sins. He resurrected to prove that He was who He claimed to be.

Why does God require sacrifice? Seems rather strange that the all-powerful God would require human sacrifice to satisfy him. Most barbaric.

Sacrifice was, of course, an integral part of many ancient religions, including those of the Romans and Egyptians. Not that I'm suggesting that the Bible authors stole those ideas. Cough.

Paul

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 04:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93222#post93222)
lordsnooty:

Why does God require sacrifice? Seems rather strange that the all-powerful God would require human sacrifice to satisfy him. Most barbaric.

Because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Either we die or something dies in our place.



Sacrifice was, of course, an integral part of many ancient religions, including those of the Romans and Egyptians. Not that I'm suggesting that the Bible authors stole those ideas. Cough.


Nah, you wouldn't suggest that. And I wouldn't suggest that sacrifice was part of Judaism since well before Jesus' time. Ah-choo!

David

[jimbo]

King David,


He died because we're sinners and He's perfect, and a perfect sacrifice is necessary to atone for sins.

What makes one a "sinner"?

Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection do not funtion to change the fact that we are sinners, correct? If so, was the purpose of Jesus' suffering and death to satisfy God's desire to make someone pay for the fact the human beings are sinners, a situation that He is ultimately responsible for?

Could you explain something else to me: Are Jesus and God one and the same person? This has never really been clear to me, even as a Christian.


He resurrected to prove that He was who He claimed to be.

It is kind of interesting that no historian from the time that Jesus lived seemed to be aware that he existed, preached to multitudes of people, or that he resurrected. Hmmmm....

Jimbo

[warrenirish]

05-06-2003 @ 05:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=88635#post88635)
skepticbud:

Do you know any atheists who:

Gathering in groups once a week for the purpose of singing praises to invisible persons (Psalms); ?

Listen to an atheist speaker religiously once ot twice a week or more, encouraging them to continue resisting the evils of Christian thought, (Hebrews 10:25)?

Proclaiming a single atheist book as having all the answers to life (Hebrews 4:12) or at least what is necessary to avoid the coming cosmic war?

Studying this atheist book daily with the reverent attitude that more reading means more alignment with &quot;truth&quot;, and encourage others to mediate upon it’s precepts daily so they will not depart from it’s instruction (Psalms)?

Telling each other to not be conformed to Christianity, but rather be transformed by the renewing of their mind (Romans 12:2)?

Telling each other that the atheist who doubts is like a wave of the sea, tossed here and there with every wind of doctrine, let no atheist who doubts think that he recieve anything from smarter atheists (James 1:6)?

Say they should let no man take them captive through vain religion which is according to the tradition of theism and not according to atheisim(Colossians 2:8)?

Telling each other to take every thought captive to the obedience of atheism and that their local atheist leaders are ready to punish all disobedience (2nd Corinthians 10:5-6)?

Telling each other daily to put on the whole armor of atheism, that they may be able to stand against the wiles of Christianity, having the breastplate of situation ethics, girding our loins with truth, our feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of atheism, above all the shield of faith, to quench the fiery darts of Christian apologists, donning the helmet of knowledge, wielding the sword of deductive arguments, with all meditation at all times (Ephesians 6:11-18)?

Exhorting inconsistent atheists in their weekly groups to either confess and repent of their error of entertaining non-atheist thoughts, or else be excommunicated from the congregation, knowing that a little bit of leaven leaveneth the whole lump (one inconsistent atheist can infect the rest of the group he fellowships in, 1st Corinthians 5:6)?

View all non-christian thoughts and arguments automatically as tares sown by an invisible person whose single purpose of existence is to steal, kill and destroy atheism (John 10:10-11)?

Listen seriously to atheist leaders who scream “if any man teaches you any form of thought different than the one that *I* am preaching to you, let him be eternally cursed!” (Galations 1:6-9)?

And Believing seriously any new atheist who insists that he came to accept atheism after a flash of light knock him off his horse and was so intrusive that the men who were there heard a voice, but didn’t see anything, and which blinding flash of visionary knowledge caused him physical blindness for three days, but who was attended by another atheist friend later, who, through ESP knew that this phenomena had taken place (Acts 26:12-14, 9:10-19)?

…THEN the Christian will have sufficient basis for claiming that atheists have the same degree of bias against opposing views that Christians do. But until that day, atheists have complete freedom in their world view to be objective and consider seriously any arguments against their beliefs, while bible believing Christians are hopelessly lost in full prejudice and bias against all non-biblical thought, so much so, that even trigger-phrases and buzz words are already in place to squelch doubts that first appear to the Christian somewhat justified.

Of course this doesn’t prove that atheists are right and Christians are wrong.

But it sure does shut the mouths of bible-believing Christians who insist they obey the New Testament and yet are still as equally as objective as atheists in evaluating contrary evidence.

Yet the bible believers would assert the laughably absurd position that, in spite of all the above biblical demands I listed above, which they attempt to obey 24 hours a day (ya dont' wanna be a hypocrite, do ya?), nevertheless, they are NOT so biased that they cannot evaluate evidence against them objectively.

Now I’m gonna have to get going, my atheist congregation is holding a meditation vigil and a “skeptic’s annotated bible” study, and I don’t wanna miss this chance to gather in Farrell Till’s name and praise him for his mighty knowledge that has saved untold numbers of Christians from certain intellectual death. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘atheism is wrong’.” (2nd Delusions 6:66, SIKO version)

Sure we all have biases.

But atheists dont' gather every Saturday, Sunday and Wednesday, to hold hands and sing praises to the sacred cow of science, believing against hope that in stupidity is science's strength made perfect.

But Christians do the same on those days: just change &quot;atheist&quot; to Christians, &quot;sacred cow of science&quot; to &quot;god&quot; and change

&quot;stupidity is science's strength made perfect&quot; to

&quot;My strength is made perfect in weakness...&quot;

The Christian who objects to this hypothesis of mine must first marshal evidences that atheists do things in their lives that are equal to the kind of brainwashing tactics Christians perform on themselves and others as described in the above bible verses, or you lose.

Yeah that's right, you Christians just come up with an invisible man that us atheists believe in, who lives in our hearts, and who also was once a real human, and this whole argument of mine will crash and burn thereby. Until that day, sweet dreams.:poke:

:ddw: :ddw:

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 04:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93274#post93274)
jimbo:

What makes one a &quot;sinner&quot;?


Umm...the fact that one sins?



Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection do not funtion to change the fact that we are sinners, correct?


Correct.



If so, was the purpose of Jesus' suffering and death to satisfy God's desire to make someone pay for the fact the human beings are sinners, a situation that He is ultimately responsible for?


Whether one wants to argue that God is ultimately responsible for our sinful state leads to one important question - what should God have done instead? God never forced us to sin. He gave us free will, which (whether through Adam and Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit or our own wilfull disobedience) led to our choosing to be sinners. Yes, God knew this was going to happen. But, what should God have done about it? Not given us free will? Made us unable to choose right or wrong? Not created us in the first place? I don't know about you, but I'd hate to be a programmed robot.

The only thing God could do was to find a way to bridge the gap between us and Him, to give us a way to find redemption for our sins. Cue Jesus.



Could you explain something else to me: Are Jesus and God one and the same person? This has never really been clear to me, even as a Christian.


Yes and no. Yeah, that probably sounds like a dodge, but let me ask you this - are ice and liquid water the same substance?

I believe that Jesus is God manifested into a fleshly body, and thus subject to limitations that God the Father does not have. You could say Jesus was fully human, but with the spirit of God fully residing in Him. Yeah, I don't fully understand it either. I doubt any mere mortal could.



It is kind of interesting that no historian from the time that Jesus lived seemed to be aware that he existed, preached to multitudes of people, or that he resurrected. Hmmmm....


We don't know that, since the majority of historical texts from that era have been lost over time. But the big question is - in what historical texts from that time which have been passed down to us would we expect to see Jesus' name, but do not?

David

[Nowhere357]

KingDavid8:

I like your posts. You seem reasonable, and often I understand what you're saying.


Umm...the fact that one sins?
This seems evasive to me. Maybe because I think the concept of sin is poorly understood, we use different meanings.

sin
noun
1 a : an offense against religious or moral law b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c : an often serious shortcoming : FAULT
2 a : transgression of the law of God b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
synonym see OFFENSE

A theist will use 1a (the "religious" part) and 2a & 2b.
A non-theist probably will use 1a (the "moral law" part), or 1b & 1c.

Here is where I come from: it is not a sin to be born.
If it IS a sin to be born, then "sin" is not related to morality.

It is not a sin to a non-Christian.
If it IS a sin to be a non-Christian, then "sin" is not related to morality.

If "sin" is not related to morality, then I don't know what it relates to, other than arbitrary religious laws. "Arbitrary" because there are many religions, with different and even opposing religious laws.

IMO the word "sin" MUST refer to morality, to have useful meaning.


Yes and no. Yeah, that probably sounds like a dodge, but let me ask you this - are ice and liquid water the same substance?
Good question! It makes your point, I think.

And yes ice and water are the same substance. Just for fun, I'll point out that this anology implies that when Jesus was on earth, God was no longer in Heaven! He had changed form! (That was just for fun - please ignore it.)


But the big question is - in what historical texts from that time which have been passed down to us would we expect to see Jesus' name, but do not?
Another good question. I would like to see a historian's answer.

[KingDavid8]

Today @ 06:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=93343#post93343)
Nowhere357:

I like your posts. You seem reasonable, and often I understand what you're saying.


Thank you. I feel the same way about your posts.



RE: We're sinners because we sin.

This seems evasive to me. Maybe because I think the concept of sin is poorly understood, we use different meanings.


We certainly do. But either way, I think we'd both say that anyone who sins (no matter how we define sin) is a sinner.

And you're right, the concept of sin is poorly understood. Even among Bible-believing Christians, there are a lot of things that there is no concensus on. There's a lot of disagreement over whether things like cussing, tattoos, Harry Potter books, and rock music are sinful. Some say that if it doesn't praise God in some way, then it's sinful. Others say that as long as it has no negative consequences, it's not sinful. It can be hard to keep track of, but I believe that things which violate moral law, even if not specifically violating theological law, are sins.

David