The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[Roy]

If at one time the ruins above water were few, that implies the ruins below water were many.

No, it implies that more ruins above water have recently been excavated. You could clarify this by providing the rest of Jidejian's sentence/paragraph - unless you're only pretending to be quoting Jidejian but are actually engaged in the creationist hobby of citing seventeenth-hand copies of quotes as being direct from the source.

You haven't even shown that these underwater ruins are where the city stood, as opposed to having been cast into the sea.

Jidejian calls them the ruins of Tyre, not "the debris of Tyre".

That doesn't mean the underwater ruins aren't stones cast into the sea.

You all have not yet acknowledged that the island of Tyre apparently, substantially, sank.

You have not yet provided any reason to believe it did.

If the island did sink, you should be able to estimate the area that was previously land on a satellite map of the area. You choose instead to cite the conjectures of biblical inerrantists.

If you don't want to deal with factual data, but only parrot substandard or biased apologetics, then just say so and stop wasting everyone's time.

[Roy]

References, please? And I found this picture of the siege of Tyre, which shows substantially greater extent of the island.

[lee_merrill]

No, it implies that more ruins above water have recently been excavated. You could clarify this by providing the rest of Jidejian's sentence/paragraph - unless you're only pretending to be quoting Jidejian ...

I have a copy of "Tyre through the Ages", which I cannot find right now, I may have to order another one. Here is a quote showing that Tyre was destroyed:

"Renan attributed the final devastation of Tyre to the onslaught of the Arabs at the end of the thirteenth century. From the ruins of the destroyed city [etc.]" ("Tyre through the Ages," p. 22)

If the island did sink, you should be able to estimate the area that was previously land on a satellite map of the area.

So I showed you all a map, you may make your own estimations.

Blessings,
Lee

[carpedm9587]

Perhaps not, but I know the same history you do, I know the same path of science that you know, and I once had the same general perspective you seem to have. My beliefs, too, are based on what I see as most probable. My scenario seems to me to be at least as likely as yours.

These things I know (or perhaps I assumed?). There is evidence - and there is interpretation of evidence. It is likely on the latter that we disagree. I do not know how "fundamental" your religious views are, so I'm not sure what "accepting that the biblical god exists" means in the context of our discussion. Within Christianity, there are a wide range of theologies.

Let me see if I can gues one of our differences: fragmentation of religions

For me, I look at the way religions continually fragment over time, usually over different theologies (e.g., sacraments, dual nature of the Christ, trinity) or different moral issues (e.g., homosexuality, transgender, birth control, etc.). To me, this tendency to disunity strongly suggests the absence of an underlying reality that could serve as a binding force. And when that underlying reality is claimed to be an all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent god, it makes it even less likely (to me) that such a being exists.

I suspect, for you, this phenomenon is explained by the "sinful nature" of man. Humankind has alienated itself from god, so has lost its way and is now disconnected from that supreme being, leading to discord and disagreement. Is that correct?

I would note, that even if your view preoved to be correct and mine di dnot, it would leave me with an immense problem to solve: the vast moajority of those religions and religious sects are claiming to have access to THE truth. They cannot ALL be right. How does one go about figuring out which religion, and which sect within each religion, has the correct view?

I do understand that you are not objecting to Christianity.

[Jedidiah]

These things I know (or perhaps I assumed?). There is evidence - and there is interpretation of evidence. It is likely on the latter that we disagree. I do not know how "fundamental" your religious views are, so I'm not sure what "accepting that the biblical god exists" means in the context of our discussion. Within Christianity, there are a wide range of theologies.

Let me see if I can gues one of our differences: fragmentation of religions

For me, I look at the way religions continually fragment over time, usually over different theologies (e.g., sacraments, dual nature of the Christ, trinity) or different moral issues (e.g., homosexuality, transgender, birth control, etc.). To me, this tendency to disunity strongly suggests the absence of an underlying reality that could serve as a binding force. And when that underlying reality is claimed to be an all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent god, it makes it even less likely (to me) that such a being exists.

I suspect, for you, this phenomenon is explained by the "sinful nature" of man. Humankind has alienated itself from god, so has lost its way and is now disconnected from that supreme being, leading to discord and disagreement. Is that correct?

I would note, that even if your view preoved to be correct and mine di dnot, it would leave me with an immense problem to solve: the vast moajority of those religions and religious sects are claiming to have access to THE truth. They cannot ALL be right. How does one go about figuring out which religion, and which sect within each religion, has the correct view?

I am pretty fundamentalist in my theology, but that does not mean much in what I have written here. I would be interested in the "wide range of theologies" within Christianity. God is either real or not. (By the way I have moved away from saying God exists. That seems to me to be like saying he is a part of the creation. I prefer to say He is real, or simply He is.

Religion does fragment as a result of the sinful nature of man. Men find some aspects of their religion to be distasteful (view of homosexuality, transgender, birth control, etc.) so they make changes to those views which have been handed down from the past. This does not point to any lack of underlying reality, but rather rebellion against authority. I have seen zero evidence that the all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent god is not quite real, but only that men do not want to submit. A second force in the fragmentation of religion, related to the first, is politics. When religious authorities take on civil authority it has always led to abuse and problems. This very thing led to the Reformation. Men who did not all believe what they were teaching created a problem resulting in fragmentation.

Within Christianity there is tremendous unity among various denominations who all have the same view on the basic TRUTH. That unity is generally ignored in discussions like this. All over the world there are Christians who believe the same as I do. We do differ on many lesser points, but not on the basics. Of course to me simply claiming to be Christian does not make one a Christian. Then as I mentioned, most of the worlds religions that seem to be a problem for you, do not even find themselves in the running. It was certainly a problem for me to examine the few religions that held to a god outside the creation and pick one. I could not. I let the accuracy I saw in the Biblical account convince me.

[Roy]

I have a copy of "Tyre through the Ages", which I cannot find right now, I may have to order another one. Here is a quote showing that Tyre was destroyed:

"Renan attributed the final devastation of Tyre to the onslaught of the Arabs at the end of the thirteenth century. From the ruins of the destroyed city [etc.]" ("Tyre through the Ages," p. 22)

That's a neat trick, quoting from a book you can't find. It seems you are engaged in the creationist hobby of citing seventeenth-hand copies of quotes as being direct from the source.

This raises some obvious questions:
1) Where did you really get that quote from, since you clearly didn't get it direct from source?
2) How can we be sure it's accurate?
3) How can we be sure it isn't misleadingly ripped from context?
4) Which other quotes you've used were similarly taken from unknown and potentially unreliable other sources?

Given the tendency for creationists such as yourself to propagate mined quotes, misquotes and even fabricated 'quotes', the only response to any future 'quote' you cite will be: where did you really get that 'quote' from?

If the island did sink, you should be able to estimate the area that was previously land on a satellite map of the area.

So I showed you all a map, you may make your own estimations.

I estimate that the extant built-up area is a sufficient portion of the former city to conclude that Tyre has been rebuilt; that there was no island that 'broke off' and 'sank' - that's just an inerrantist fantasy; and that if you can't be bothered to support your claims against hard evidence they aren't worth considering.

[carpedm9587]

I am pretty fundamentalist in my theology, but that does not mean much in what I have written here. I would be interested in the "wide range of theologies" within Christianity. God is either real or not. (By the way I have moved away from saying God exists. That seems to me to be like saying he is a part of the creation. I prefer to say He is real, or simply He is.

Religion does fragment as a result of the sinful nature of man. Men find some aspects of their religion to be distasteful (view of homosexuality, transgender, birth control, etc.) so they make changes to those views which have been handed down from the past. This does not point to any lack of underlying reality, but rather rebellion against authority. I have seen zero evidence that the all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent god is not quite real, but only that men do not want to submit. A second force in the fragmentation of religion, related to the first, is politics. When religious authorities take on civil authority it has always led to abuse and problems. This very thing led to the Reformation. Men who did not all believe what they were teaching created a problem resulting in fragmentation.

Within Christianity there is tremendous unity among various denominations who all have the same view on the basic TRUTH. That unity is generally ignored in discussions like this. All over the world there are Christians who believe the same as I do. We do differ on many lesser points, but not on the basics. Of course to me simply claiming to be Christian does not make one a Christian. Then as I mentioned, most of the worlds religions that seem to be a problem for you, do not even find themselves in the running. It was certainly a problem for me to examine the few religions that held to a god outside the creation and pick one. I could not. I let the accuracy I saw in the Biblical account convince me.

I'd be very curious to know about that biblical accuracy, Jedidiah, and those core truths. It would inform me a bit about the thought experiment you wanted to engage in. I believe you wanted me to start from a position of "accepting the god of the bible as true." What I don't think I did a good job of conveying is, I have no idea what that means to you. I have no idea what "the god of the bible" is for you. As a consequence, I have no idea what I was accepting as a baseline.

I know that may seem odd, but there are so many different versions of the "god of the bible." They range from the vengeful and angry god of the old testament to the forgiving and welcoming god of the new. Some embrace the theology of the trinity, and others do not. Some embrace the dual nature of "the Christ" and others do not.

So who is this god to you?

[Jedidiah]

I'd be very curious to know about that biblical accuracy, Jedidiah, and those core truths. It would inform me a bit about the thought experiment you wanted to engage in. I believe you wanted me to start from a position of "accepting the god of the bible as true." What I don't think I did a good job of conveying is, I have no idea what that means to you. I have no idea what "the god of the bible" is for you. As a consequence, I have no idea what I was accepting as a baseline.

I know that may seem odd, but there are so many different versions of the "god of the bible." They range from the vengeful and angry god of the old testament to the forgiving and welcoming god of the new. Some embrace the theology of the trinity, and others do not. Some embrace the dual nature of "the Christ" and others do not.

So who is this god to you?

Well this discussion has completely changed. My original posit was that a Creator God, not part of the creation, was real and is the source of the totality of the universe. I do not believe I ever asked you to accept that the God of the Bible was real. My memory could be wrong and I am not going to go back and look for it. I was simply supporting the idea "that there is a God" is a valid one - and I believe the accurate one. I do not have time now to go into your question. I will have to get back to this a little later today.

[Jedidiah]

I'd be very curious to know about that biblical accuracy, Jedidiah, and those core truths. It would inform me a bit about the thought experiment you wanted to engage in. I believe you wanted me to start from a position of "accepting the god of the bible as true." What I don't think I did a good job of conveying is, I have no idea what that means to you. I have no idea what "the god of the bible" is for you. As a consequence, I have no idea what I was accepting as a baseline.

I know that may seem odd, but there are so many different versions of the "god of the bible." They range from the vengeful and angry god of the old testament to the forgiving and welcoming god of the new. Some embrace the theology of the trinity, and others do not. Some embrace the dual nature of "the Christ" and others do not.

So who is this god to you?

Once I got past my prejudices it became clear that the Biblical story explained the reason evil is so much more wide spread than I could understand. It gave a self consistent framework that explained so much to me. I could not see it before I got past my preconceptions. As an aside stepping beyond preconceptions was the work of the Holy Spirit, since I never really questioned those.

My explanation of the fragmentation of religion explains much of the fragmentation of the Biblical message. The "so many different versions of the 'god of the bible'" result from men assuming that they had to be able to understand the Bible in the terms and conditions of this world (as well as the rejection of demands seen as undesirable). If there is a god, specifically the Biblical God, that ceases to be a problem. Since the Bible was reliable in the way I could understand, I deemed it reliable in things I could not understand. Clearly the Trinity (and the dual nature of Christ) is not consistent with the nature and conditions of this world. As a new Christian I rejected the divinity of Christ and spent a lot of time in the Bible trying to show that this doctrine was not taught. Eventually I surrendered to the clear teaching of the Scriptures.

The myth of the vengeful and angry god of the OT versus the loving god of the NT turns out with study to be false. God in the OT forgave Israel countless (figurative I have never tried to count the times) times and individuals also. The same God in the NT promises a horrible ultimate outcome for those who reject Him, but offers forgiveness between now and then.

Who is God to me? He is my creator and my savior. What He is doing in creation, His ultimate purpose for the whole thing, not clearly explained, but it is good enough for me.

[lee_merrill]

That's a neat trick, quoting from a book you can't find. It seems you are engaged in the creationist hobby of citing seventeenth-hand copies of quotes as being direct from the source.

Well, you can believe me or not, as you wish.

I estimate that the extant built-up area is a sufficient portion of the former city to conclude that Tyre has been rebuilt; that there was no island that 'broke off' and 'sank' - that's just an inerrantist fantasy; and that if you can't be bothered to support your claims against hard evidence they aren't worth considering.

Hard evidence is not a map that shows the area substantially larger?

Blessings,
Lee

[carpedm9587]

Once I got past my prejudices it became clear that the Biblical story explained the reason evil is so much more wide spread than I could understand. It gave a self consistent framework that explained so much to me. I could not see it before I got past my preconceptions. As an aside stepping beyond preconceptions was the work of the Holy Spirit, since I never really questioned those.

My explanation of the fragmentation of religion explains much of the fragmentation of the Biblical message. The "so many different versions of the 'god of the bible'" result from men assuming that they had to be able to understand the Bible in the terms and conditions of this world (as well as the rejection of demands seen as undesirable). If there is a god, specifically the Biblical God, that ceases to be a problem. Since the Bible was reliable in the way I could understand, I deemed it reliable in things I could not understand. Clearly the Trinity (and the dual nature of Christ) is not consistent with the nature and conditions of this world. As a new Christian I rejected the divinity of Christ and spent a lot of time in the Bible trying to show that this doctrine was not taught. Eventually I surrendered to the clear teaching of the Scriptures.

The myth of the vengeful and angry god of the OT versus the loving god of the NT turns out with study to be false. God in the OT forgave Israel countless (figurative I have never tried to count the times) times and individuals also. The same God in the NT promises a horrible ultimate outcome for those who reject Him, but offers forgiveness between now and then.

Who is God to me? He is my creator and my savior. What He is doing in creation, His ultimate purpose for the whole thing, not clearly explained, but it is good enough for me.

Wow. I could have written almost this exact same thing from the atheist side. I grew up in a Christian home (catholic) and gave myself to Christ as a boy (12). I eventually entered the seminary to prepare for priesthood, where I had an experience that caused me to let go of my pre-conceptions and begin exploring with a more open mind. Ironically, my desire was to seek out places in my beliefs where I had accepted deceptions because I viewed such deceptions as an obstacle between me and the god that I loved. The more I explored, the more the foundations of my beliefs eroded until I eventually had to acknowledge that my beliefs had shifted. First it was away from catholicism, then away from Christianity, and eventually away from any form of theism. I found that led me to a far more internally consistent worldview and I have been atheist now for almost 30 years. But the key was to let go of my preconceptions.

It is always fascinating to find someone on the same road, walking in the opposite direction. Thanks for sharing your response.

[Roy]

Well, you can believe me or not, as you wish.

I believe you can't find the book, and hence I don't believe you are quoting from it.

Hard evidence is not a map that shows the area substantially larger?

The 'map' you linked to is not hard evidence.

[lee_merrill]

I believe you can't find the book, and hence I don't believe you are quoting from it.

I'm not sure that follows; and I ordered another copy.

The 'map' you linked to is not hard evidence.

Well, we're at an impasse then.

Blessings,
Lee

[Roy]

I believe you can't find the book, and hence I don't believe you are quoting from it.

I'm not sure that follows

Really? Care to explain how you are quoting, supposedly directly, from a book you haven't got and which does not appear to be available on-line? Make sure you include how you know the quote is accurate and not out-of-context.

Well, we're at an impasse then.

No impasse. You could show how your 'map' fits on the current coastline, and try to show where the sunken island is and how the current urban area isn't a rebuilt Tyre. But since won't, your claims remain unsupported, so there's no reason to believe them.

[One Bad Pig]

That's a neat trick, quoting from a book you can't find. It seems you are engaged in the creationist hobby of citing seventeenth-hand copies of quotes as being direct from the source.

This raises some obvious questions:
1) Where did you really get that quote from, since you clearly didn't get it direct from source?

This was surprisingly easy to answer. A google search turned up exactly one result, namely this discussion. Some guy named "lee_merrill" talks about receiving and reading the book, and supplies some quotes from it. Gee, could that possibly be the same guy you're talking to here? It is manifestly not copied seventeenth hand, but quoted from the original. You'll have to buy/borrow a copy yourself if you want to check, since you manifestly don't trust Lee to quote it accurately.