Debating an Atheist

[TrumanSmith]

"There are many unanswered questions, such as the origin of life and origin of the universe."

Therein lies the problem with your beliefs Truman, it doesn't even begin to answer life's greatest questions. What's the point? Do you not see how totally unsatisfying that is for most thinking people? So you think you've got the material world all figured out and that answers everything?

PR

No- I readily admit we don't have it all figured out. Maybe just the opposite, we know almost nothing. However, the problem between me and Steve Gregg isn't that we don't know enough. The problem is not drawing a right conclusion from what we DO know. We may not know all the ways that evolution happened (mechanisms), but we do know for a fact that it happened because of the genomic evidence. THAT it happened and HOW it happened are two very different things; this is a very important point to grasp in these discussions.

About knowing everything... For example, suppose you try to teach your kid that 2+2=4. He says "But Dad, why do you think you know everything about math? Do you know string theory? Of course not. Don't be so egotistical." You see, the father doesn't have to know everything about math, such as algebra, geometry, etc., to teach that 2+2=4. In the same way, you don't have to know the origin of life and origin of the universe to be sure that humans evolved from other animals. This is because the DNA evidence is so strong.

It is also like a murder scene examination. Suppose the victim is dead, and the accused has the DNA of the victim under their finger nails, the victim has claw marks from a fight with another human, and there is victim blood in the car of the accused. But the accused says he was out-of-town, in his own car, the week the victim was killed. No one saw how the victim was killed, but you can be sure that the accused played a role, because of the DNA evidence of the blood under his nails and in the car of the accused. When the accuser says he wasn't there or did nothing, we can be sure he is lying, because the evidence speaks and his alibi contradicts the evidence. So even though evolution happens on such a big time scale and can't be directly observed (change of one species into another), we can deduce it from the DNA evidence. The alternative is that God designed humans from scratch (this is something both young and old earthers agree on). That alternative has been falsified by DNA evidence.

[TrumanSmith]

Your argument is that because Bart Ehrman said that they were anonymously written that it is true. There are scholars on each side of about every issue, lol!

No- you misunderstood. I'm not saying to believe it because Bart says it. Bart was a reference. From my understanding, it is the consensus of New Testament scholars (and no, I don't consider people like Ken Ham a Biblical scholar). By scholars, I mean like the ones who write the seminary textbooks. From my understanding, they all admit that technically the gospels are all anonymous. The academics that are believers would say that they are assigned "by tradition" and that there's no reason to doubt the assignments. But the point remains, they are written anonymously. It is one of those secrets they don't mention in church, and also many seminaries don't mention it.

[TrumanSmith]

Hi Truman,
Has evolution been demonstrated through empirical experimentaion if yes how?

Biological evolution (specifically macroevolution, change of one species into another) has not been directly observed from seeing one animal morph into another, because the time-scale is too big. But that isn't an argument against it, because it is like arguing that your finger nails don't really grow because you can't see them growing. (If you argue that you can see them grow over time by snapshots, one might argue back that it is because God makes them grow when you aren't looking, etc.). Yes, snapshots really do prove your hair and nails grow over time, even though you can't observe it. It takes observation and deduction to know this. It is the same with macroevolution. Fossils are your snapshot. And the DNA shows the signs of descent (synteny and pseudogenes and fused human chromosome #2, as some examples).

Ken Ham is being really dumb when he says people should ask the evolutionist "How do you know? Were you there?" You could use the same dumb question to ask him how he knows he has a great-great-great-great-great grandfather. How does he know, was he there? Or that Jesus once walked the Earth, how does he know, was he there?

[mattrose]

No- you misunderstood. I'm not saying to believe it because Bart says it. Bart was a reference. From my understanding, it is the consensus of New Testament scholars (and no, I don't consider people like Ken Ham a Biblical scholar). By scholars, I mean like the ones who write the seminary textbooks. From my understanding, they all admit that technically the gospels are all anonymous. The academics that are believers would say that they are assigned "by tradition" and that there's no reason to doubt the assignments. But the point remains, they are written anonymously. It is one of those secrets they don't mention in church, and also many seminaries don't mention it.

What are you talking about?

I've heard all my life that the Gospels don't have names attached to them.... and that the labels Matthew, Mark, Luke & John are part of tradition. This is not a 'secret' kept from the typical church-goer. I've never met any minister who tried to insist that the labels are part of Scripture. What's more, it would be nearly IMPOSSIBLE to find a seminary that didn't mention the Gospels being technically anonymous. When you make claims like this, it doesn't aid your argument, it hurts your credibility.

Besides, the anonymous nature of the Gospels doesn't speak against their authenticity. If anything, it speaks FOR it AND for the validity of the tradition. It was the false-Gospels who tried to claim the names of famed disciples. The four Gospels were early and anonymous and this is best explained by the obviousness of their authorship.

I read your summary essay. You have a strange habit of picking the most easily dismissed 'problems' as part of your attack on Christianity. Of all the 'apparent issues' you could pick from, for instance, you found it necessary to resort to the debated ending of Mark!?!? Sometimes I'm tempted to become an atheist just so I can write a better book against Christianity than the stuff I come across on the internet. It wouldn't take very long... and I could probably make a lot of money.

[TrumanSmith]

I am not sure what you mean with the analogy, since it is obvious I am well aware what actually makes a car go and a light turn on, purposeful planned engineering, wiring and transmission of energy all the way back to the sun.
So still you know also that the heart for example has valves that open on one side, close on the other, restrict blood from going backward, it gives one good pump, while opening into another chamber, while those valves close the others open, the opposite side is doing the same thing in synch with the left, speeding up and slowing down together at the same time, etc, etc, this is just on the surface while hundreds of other systems are working in tandem and in synch with the heart, this is not magic, it reveals design far far far superior to an automotive engine, it grew out of egg smaller than the period at the end of a sentence, and it fixes itself!
Do you not see the fantastic intellect needed to design just the heart?

Science observes the fact that millions of biological parts look similar, this does not mean they evolved.
Over and over the answer I get from the Evolutionist is that scientific observation reveals things ‘look similar’ and thus they evolved from each other. Is this your reasoning also?

At first glance, it looks impressive as intelligent design, I agree. There are even better more complex amazing things in biology that you could cite for that (such as biological micromachines like the ribosome, and the process of protein synthesis). But you also have to mix that in with evolution as a fact, because of the DNA evidence for it. In addition, you have to factor in artifacts of very poor, or stupid, design; which doesn't make sense if God is smart, but makes perfect sense if designed by a mindless nature. An example is the left recurrent larygeal nerve... most absurd in the giraffe, but for all mammals. See this, you'll find it very entertaining:
"Richard Dawkins demonstrates laryngeal nerve of the giraffe"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0

Then you also have to credit God for evil design, if he's the one making killer viruses, like the various plagues. Hardly the work of someone supposed to be all-loving and all-good.

[TrumanSmith]

What are you talking about?

I've heard all my life that the Gospels don't have names attached to them.... and that the labels Matthew, Mark, Luke & John are part of tradition. This is not a 'secret' kept from the typical church-goer. I've never met any minister who tried to insist that the labels are part of Scripture. What's more, it would be nearly IMPOSSIBLE to find a seminary that didn't mention the Gospels being technically anonymous. When you make claims like this, it doesn't aid your argument, it hurts your credibility.

That's so funny, and thanks for posting. Now when Christians on this board want to argue the point and claim that the gospels are not anonymous, I can let you deal with them.

Hey- it's not a big deal with me, just one of many datapoints that when put together, totally dismiss Christian theology.

[mattrose]

Hey- it's not a big deal with me, just one of many datapoints that when put together, totally dismiss Christian theology.

Actually, the combination of a million 'datepoints' that don't stand up to a moment of scrutiny wouldn't dismiss anything at all

[TrumanSmith]

Sometimes I'm tempted to become an atheist just so I can write a better book against Christianity than the stuff I come across on the internet. It wouldn't take very long... and I could probably make a lot of money.

You might get there. This seems to be a paradox, but actually I think the more one knows about theology and the Bible, the easier it is to turn away from it. That's the real reason why so many Christians lose their faith when they attend seminary (they call it cemeteries instead of seminaries). Lot so Pastors are turning to atheism. There's "The Clergy Project" that helps them in their transition, and there are 100's in there.

The reason why I think it is easier to leave when you know the most about it, is because you know where there are no good theological answers. The average Christian might say "I don't know, but my Pastor is smart and they know all this stuff." The Pastor thinks "There is no answer to this stuff... I know, because I've studied it."

[mattrose]

You might get there. This seems to be a paradox, but actually I think the more one knows about theology and the Bible, the easier it is to turn away from it. That's the real reason why so many Christians lose their faith when they attend seminary (they call it cemeteries instead of seminaries). Lot so Pastors are turning to atheism. There's "The Clergy Project" that helps them in their transition, and there are 100's in there. The reason why I think it is easier to leave when you know the most about it, is because you know where there are no good theological answers. The average Christian might say "I don't know, but my Pastor is smart and they know all this stuff." The Pastor thinks "There is no answer to this stuff... I know, because I've studied it."[/

I am a pastor. And I went to seminary. And I have a stronger belief in God now that I did when I first became a Christian. I'm not saying I never have doubts. I am simply saying I recognize that most of my doubts aren't very well thought out. They are basically emotional.

By the way, I've also heard many stories of atheists who start thinking and become Christians. So your point has only rhetorical value to those who don't realize that these 'conversions' happen both ways.

[TrumanSmith]

I was more interested in what you might have to say about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus which proves to me His claims and thus the veracity of the Old Testament which Jesus believed in, as well as the veracity of His apostles teachings. I noticed you call christians liars for stating Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the gospels. Quite a slur Truman, but I noticed your not adverse to using unjustified slurs, that's not very nice Truman.

It is only lying if you know the truth but say something else. If you know they are anonymous, but then claim "Matthew wrote...," then that would be lying. It is representing the text as if you knew who wrote it. Here's what I wrote about lying:

As an aside, it should be recognized that the four gospels are anonymously written. Imagine if a Pastor said “Turn to Anonymous Gospel #1” rather than “turn to the Gospel of Matthew.” Obviously that would have a greatly diminished impact on the congregation (but Christians claim to strive to be honest and represent the truth
fairly). It is a form of subtle lying to misrepresent the gospels as if scholars knew who wrote them, when no one really does.

About the resurrection- you'd have to tell me what the soul is, and then I can falsify it for you. You'll have to define it, because everyone defines it differently. The words of the Apostle Paul are to the effect "Absent in the body is to be present with the Lord." Do you believe that your soul goes immediately with Jesus when you die? Steve Gregg's response is "none of this is important" ... so there's nothing to really discuss when one says nothing is important. I wasn't able to get him to the point of having a discussion over "what is important" so I can attempt to show him how to falsify it.