Response to Atheist Missionary
The following is our response to Atheist Missionary. This is a continuation of the comments to our post answering Atheist Missionary's "Atheist Thought Experiment".
Greetings! Thank you for the invitation to visit and read your response.
A myth is defined as a traditional, typically ancient story ... I cannot conceive of a better definition for Christianity.
I like your definition and fully agree that you conceive of Christianity as a myth, but nonetheless, you have yet to prove your claim.
>"am I correct in assuming that you rely solely on the collection of ancient scripts that made their way into what we now refer to as the modern Bible to confirm that your view is superior to all of the other organized religions that hold views contrary to your own?"
Nope, you are not correct.
While my branch of Christianity did write and compile the Bible for mankind, we believe that all truth is from God and thus use all of the truth available to us, including biology, physics, mathematics, history, etc. In fact, my branch of Christianity developed the university system, the scientific method and the rules of evidence. As truth cannot contradict truth, our Christian doctrines never conflict with secular science.
As I have said before and I will say again: all religions can't be right but they certainly can all be wrong. If you are interested to know which belief systems I find the most intriguing, I would probably choose Zen Buddhism
You do recall the question I was asked was "Why do you put so much faith in a book when there are countless other holy books?"", don't you? So why did you respond with your interest in Zen Buhdism or your belief that all religions can be wrong. Fun rabbits to chase, but they are not the topic of the question. Focus, grasshopper.
Specifically, I commend you to Proof #5 Read the Bible which provides as follows:
Imagine that we are good friends.
Imagine = hypothetical.
Your long diatribe that can easily be answered with a passage from the Bible itself.
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Acts 8:30-31
The author of proof #5 seems neither to understand the scripture nor to have had someone teach them the meaning. For example, the section claiming As you page through the book further you find that it is
totally sexist from beginning to end. ignores history. Christianity was the women liberation movement of the Roman period of history. Christianity liberated women as they had never been prior.
I will grant that a number of American Christians outside my branch have used some of Paul's instructions to Timothy to subjugate women. However they are wrong for the very same reasons stated, they don't understand what they read. Much of Paul's admonitions against women speaking had to do with the disruptive behavior of women who were talking amongst themselves during the service of the day. That behavior is akin to conversing loudly in a modern movie theater. Put in historical context, its not the sexism that many claim.
Regarding creation, the flood, etc., my branch of Christianity finds no conflict with science and archeology. We recognize that the Old Testament is written in different literary styles and not as a science text book. This difference in interpretation is likely what contributes to your regarding the Bible as nonsense.
>"Stephen Law handle the logical problem of evil (for theists) much better than I could ever hope to: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/12/could-it-be-pretty-obvious-theres-no.html"
Please note that the question was about suffering and NOT evil. They are not the same nor equivalents.
I agree that suffering has plenty to do with holiness.
Hopefully you'll keep that in mind the next time you experience suffering. What's the official atheist explanation for the existence of suffering?
Your God is a masochist.
Um, positive claim with no proof.
If you can show me any recognized experimental study that disproves my bold assertion that prayer is sterile in an experimental setting, please provide it. However, I can save you the time because I know for a fact that no such study exists.
Remember, absence of proof is not proof of absence. That's the informal fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam / Argument from Ignorance.
>"I am aware of the Bible and, as indicated above, I believe it to be a throughly repulsive."
Again, the topic at hand is "Why don't I get to go to heaven...? My answer is that neither I nor my branch of Christianity have ever stated that you don't get to go to heaven. Sorry you're repuulsed by the Bible. It has that effect on some people. Curious...
>"Pascal's wager is the ultimate intellectual cop-out."
Um, would that be because Blaise based it on the pure sciences of mathematics and probability which are thouroughly rational? I'll take your response as, yes, you are aware of Pascal's wager.
>"If this is the best that you can come up with to support your belief in God, your belief is vacuous."
I wasn't asked "to support your belief in God." I was asked " " Why don't I get to go to heaven...." I answered that I don't know for a fact that you don't. Why chastise me for answering the question I was asked and not answering the question I wasn't asked? Is that rational?
>"The pleasure was all mine."
You're welcome.
God bless... +Timothy
Related Posts:
Atheist Thought Experiment
Why are there Atheists?
Atheist Believes Africa Needs God
Atheist Penn Jillette Receives Bible
Source: My ongoing discussion with a "Christian Apologetic"
Greetings! Thank you for the invitation to visit and read your response.
A myth is defined as a traditional, typically ancient story ... I cannot conceive of a better definition for Christianity.
I like your definition and fully agree that you conceive of Christianity as a myth, but nonetheless, you have yet to prove your claim.
>"am I correct in assuming that you rely solely on the collection of ancient scripts that made their way into what we now refer to as the modern Bible to confirm that your view is superior to all of the other organized religions that hold views contrary to your own?"
Nope, you are not correct.
While my branch of Christianity did write and compile the Bible for mankind, we believe that all truth is from God and thus use all of the truth available to us, including biology, physics, mathematics, history, etc. In fact, my branch of Christianity developed the university system, the scientific method and the rules of evidence. As truth cannot contradict truth, our Christian doctrines never conflict with secular science.
As I have said before and I will say again: all religions can't be right but they certainly can all be wrong. If you are interested to know which belief systems I find the most intriguing, I would probably choose Zen Buddhism
You do recall the question I was asked was "Why do you put so much faith in a book when there are countless other holy books?"", don't you? So why did you respond with your interest in Zen Buhdism or your belief that all religions can be wrong. Fun rabbits to chase, but they are not the topic of the question. Focus, grasshopper.
Specifically, I commend you to Proof #5 Read the Bible which provides as follows:
Imagine that we are good friends.
Imagine = hypothetical.
Your long diatribe that can easily be answered with a passage from the Bible itself.
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Acts 8:30-31
The author of proof #5 seems neither to understand the scripture nor to have had someone teach them the meaning. For example, the section claiming As you page through the book further you find that it is
totally sexist from beginning to end. ignores history. Christianity was the women liberation movement of the Roman period of history. Christianity liberated women as they had never been prior.
I will grant that a number of American Christians outside my branch have used some of Paul's instructions to Timothy to subjugate women. However they are wrong for the very same reasons stated, they don't understand what they read. Much of Paul's admonitions against women speaking had to do with the disruptive behavior of women who were talking amongst themselves during the service of the day. That behavior is akin to conversing loudly in a modern movie theater. Put in historical context, its not the sexism that many claim.
Regarding creation, the flood, etc., my branch of Christianity finds no conflict with science and archeology. We recognize that the Old Testament is written in different literary styles and not as a science text book. This difference in interpretation is likely what contributes to your regarding the Bible as nonsense.
>"Stephen Law handle the logical problem of evil (for theists) much better than I could ever hope to: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/12/could-it-be-pretty-obvious-theres-no.html"
Please note that the question was about suffering and NOT evil. They are not the same nor equivalents.
I agree that suffering has plenty to do with holiness.
Hopefully you'll keep that in mind the next time you experience suffering. What's the official atheist explanation for the existence of suffering?
Your God is a masochist.
Um, positive claim with no proof.
If you can show me any recognized experimental study that disproves my bold assertion that prayer is sterile in an experimental setting, please provide it. However, I can save you the time because I know for a fact that no such study exists.
Remember, absence of proof is not proof of absence. That's the informal fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam / Argument from Ignorance.
>"I am aware of the Bible and, as indicated above, I believe it to be a throughly repulsive."
Again, the topic at hand is "Why don't I get to go to heaven...? My answer is that neither I nor my branch of Christianity have ever stated that you don't get to go to heaven. Sorry you're repuulsed by the Bible. It has that effect on some people. Curious...
>"Pascal's wager is the ultimate intellectual cop-out."
Um, would that be because Blaise based it on the pure sciences of mathematics and probability which are thouroughly rational? I'll take your response as, yes, you are aware of Pascal's wager.
>"If this is the best that you can come up with to support your belief in God, your belief is vacuous."
I wasn't asked "to support your belief in God." I was asked " " Why don't I get to go to heaven...." I answered that I don't know for a fact that you don't. Why chastise me for answering the question I was asked and not answering the question I wasn't asked? Is that rational?
>"The pleasure was all mine."
You're welcome.
God bless... +Timothy
Related Posts:
Atheist Thought Experiment
Why are there Atheists?
Atheist Believes Africa Needs God
Atheist Penn Jillette Receives Bible
Source: My ongoing discussion with a "Christian Apologetic"
Labels: Atheism
0 Comments:
<< Home