Continue the debate in here

The Da Vinci Code is one of the world’s bestselling books, as is Harry Potter. Does that make them historically reliable? No!

Ah, but the Bible is the overall all time best selling book. Thats what makes it significant. If the Bible was false, then it may have been popular when it came out, but shouldn't have stayed popular for hundreds of years.

The messiah was supposed to be born of a ‘young woman’ however your Jesus was supposedly born of a virgin. This prophecy was not fulfilled. Nostradamus is claimed to have prophesied countless of historic events, yet you do not see him as inspired by God.

And how accurate was Nostradamus' prophecies? Not very.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostradamus

In contrast, most of the academic sources listed below maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus' quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power. Moreover, none of the sources listed offers any evidence that anyone has ever interpreted any of Nostradamus'

Since his death only the Prophecies have continued to be popular, but in this case they have been quite extraordinarily so. Over two hundred editions of them have appeared in that time, together with over 2000 commentaries. Their popularity seems to be partly due to the fact that their vagueness and lack of dating make it easy to quote them selectively after every major dramatic event and retrospectively claim them as "hits"

And this means what exactly? Nothing! Writing something down 12 billion times does not make it historic.

This is very important. If a manuscript of part of the Bible was found somewhere and it agreed with another manuscript found somewhere else then that would add wait to the credibility of the Bible, more so than if there was only one original manuscript for that part of the Bible. The more manuscripts there are that agree with each other, the more that document can be relied upon.

Stop being a moron. The names of places may be real but that does not mean the stories are. Paris exists, but that doesn’t mean that Da Vincis Mona Lisa contains hidden codes about Jesus. Imagine in 10,000 years time, archeologists discover the remains of New York. The also discover the remains of the Empire State building, does that mean the story of King Kong is true? Yes there was a kingdom of David, but it was a very small kingdom. Nothing like what the bible mentions.

The kingdom of David may have been small, but it was the Bible's core focus on the Kingdom of David that may have led it to seem bigger and more important than it was. The Jews where God's chosen people, that's why the Bible is primarily about them. But seriously, if the Kingdom of David wasn't important historically, would nations still be fighting over Israel nowadays?

So does the Qur’an!

Ah, but the Bible claims that Jesus is still alive. And because Jesus is still alive that in turn sets Christianity apart from all other religions.

And finally your remark towards souls, prove it? Again you make a statement with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

The fact you are searching for the truth proves that you have a soul. You have a deep longing within yourself to find out what your purpose on this Earth is really all about. You don't see any other animal on earth, apart from humans, engaged in a search for truth and meaning. And why not? Because only humans have a soul. If you didn't have a soul, then your primary concern would be to survive, not to search for truth. Thats why all animals (apart from humans) are ultimately striving to survive and mate(multiply).

Ah, but the Bible is the overall all time best selling book. Thats what makes it significant. If the Bible was false, then it may have been popular when it came out, but shouldn't have stayed popular for hundreds of years.

If this is the way you think then surely you must consider Islam. The Qur’an is still popular after 1,000 odd years. It is beautiful to listen to in it’s original Arabic. However as beautiful as this is, it does not mean that it’s contents are ture.

And how accurate was Nostradamus' prophecies? Not very.

And your point is? I’m trying to get you to believe in Nostradamus. I trying to get you to see that the prophecies are irrelevant. Especially concerning the supposes greatest story ever told.

If a manuscript of part of the Bible was found somewhere and it agreed with another manuscript found somewhere else then that would add wait to the credibility of the Bible, more so than if there was only one original manuscript for that part of the Bible. The more manuscripts there are that agree with each other, the more that document can be relied upon.

Well consider this. Matthew 27, where the dead rise from the grave and walk the streets. You of course believe this happened. Where is the other manuscripts written by different authours and are not copies of the originals? How many documents referring to Zeus or Allah are there? Does an increasing number of documents relating to them mean that they become more reliable?

The kingdom of David may have been small, but it
was the Bible's core focus on the Kingdom of David that may have led it to seem bigger and more important than it was. The Jews where God's chosen people, that's why the Bible is primarily about them. But seriously, if the Kingdom of David wasn't important historically, would nations still be fighting over Israel nowadays?

Again you miss the point. You said the bible was perfect. The bible describes the Kingdom of David as being, how should I say, the dogs balls! But in actual fact it was tiny, almost irrelevant. The existence of a King David, in no way means that his great (x50) grandson was the messiah. Unfortunately for us, archeology can not tell us if Jesus walked on water, feed 5,000 people, or even walked this Earth. It will tell us that there is a Jerusalem, and a sea of Galilee and that people met in crowds of thousands to hear public speakers. But it cannot prove a supernatural event. Science does not make any venture into the supernatural. Nations are not fighting over the Kingdom of David, they are fighting over land that a book, supposedly written by the creator of the universe, said was theirs. How pathetic! People are dying because of this bullshit!! The Middle East is in turmoil because of nothing other than believing in fairies.

Ah, but the Bible claims that Jesus is still alive. And because Jesus is still alive that in turn sets Christianity apart from all other religions.

So does the Qur’an! Not only that, Islam claims that the 12th Imam, who was hidden by Allah in 868 C.E, and that he is the untimate saviour of mankind. Sound familiar?

The fact you are searching for the truth proves that you have a soul.

No it doesn’t!

You have a deep longing within yourself to find out what your purpose on this Earth is really all about.

I don’t!

You don't see any other animal on earth, apart from humans, engaged in a search for truth and meaning. And why not?

Because they are not as evolved as humans. We know we are going to die, and to be honest most humans are afraid of dying. Hense the reason for inventing God. Chimpanzees have been known to have moral tendencies to their fellow primates.

Because only humans have a soul.

Prove it!

If you didn't have a soul, then your primary concern would be to survive, not to search for truth.

My primary concern IS to survive. It is why you and billions of people do not jump in front of buses, or engage in dangerous activities. It is why when we are ill we want to get better. Not because we want to search for truth, but because we want to live. If you fall from a height, your first, NATURAL, instinct is to stop yourself, because you don’t want to die! If you don’t want to survive then why bother living, may I suggest you throw yourself in front of a train?

Thats why all animals (apart from humans) are ultimately striving to survive and mate(multiply).

Humans are striving to survive, hence medical research, doctors, hospitals. The reason why human’s lust, is not because of the ‘fall’, but because it is our natural instinct is to pass on our genes. Needless to say some genes should not be allowed to pass on to the next generation, but who am I to decide.

To Nathan:

I assume you are a Christian (apologies if you are not and I offended you), and that Dave forwarded the link to you. May I suggest that rather than read my posts, try researching this for yourself, perhaps not starting at Christian sites, but rather scientific ones instead.

As you can see Dave needs all the help he can get. (In this Debate, his personal life is none of my concern). May I suggest that if you want top join the debate, you and Dave write one post from the both of you, as from my experience it is difficult to write replies to several people untimely asking the same questions and making the same points, not that Dave makes many
points.

William,

Yes, I am a Christian - an intellectually honest one, I hope.

At the risk of repeating myself,

1. What term best describes your beliefs about the existence or non existence of God? Atheist, agnostic etc.
2. Which theory do you think best explains the origins of the world and man?

If this is the way you think then surely you must consider Islam. The Qur’an is still popular after 1,000 odd years. It is beautiful to listen to in it’s original Arabic. However as beautiful as this is, it does not mean that it’s contents are ture.

We know that the contents of the Bible are true because of a number of reasons:

• The Bible says God created the heaven and the earth. We can see God's creation, so we know its true.
• Jesus lived on this earth and was a real person. The Bible mentions Jesus, therefore the Bible is true on that.

I quote from http://www.therivercrc.com/library/seekers/bible.htm

• The Bible claims it's true
• Jesus claims it's true
• The Bible is a morally and ethically superior piece of literature
• The Bible has the power to affect us
• The Bible has extraordinary unity
• The Bible is historically accurate
• Bible prophecies are fulfilled
• The Bible has been extraordinarily preserved
• The Bible writers endured great persecution for what they saw
• The Bible changes lives

Does an increasing number of documents relating to them mean that they become more reliable?

Yes if each document isn't a copy and is written by a different person.

Again you miss the point. You said the bible was perfect. The bible describes the Kingdom of David as being, how should I say, the dogs balls! But in actual fact it was tiny, almost irrelevant. The existence of a King David, in no way means that his great (x50) grandson was the messiah. Unfortunately for us, archeology can not tell us if Jesus walked on water, feed 5,000 people, or even walked this Earth. It will tell us that there is a Jerusalem, and a sea of Galilee and that people met in crowds of thousands to hear public speakers. But it cannot prove a supernatural event. Science does not make any venture into the supernatural. Nations are not fighting over the Kingdom of David, they are fighting over land that a book, supposedly written by the creator of the universe, said was theirs. How pathetic! People are dying because of this bullshit!! The Middle East is in turmoil because of nothing other than believing in fairies.

Its in turmoil because people don't want to accept what the Bible has to say.

So does the Qur’an! Not only that, Islam claims that the 12th Imam, who was hidden by Allah in 868 C.E, and that he is the untimate saviour of mankind. Sound familiar?

Seriously, if the story of Jesus was made up, would we have based our BC/AD calendar around Jesus?

Soul: The immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life.

Seriously, if you lacked a soul, you wouldn't search for truth. Do you or do you not have a longing within yourself to find out what truth is? Where you came from, why your here, your purpose in life? Etc...

Quote: You have a deep longing within yourself to find out what your purpose on this Earth is really all about.

I don’t!

If you weren't longing to find out your purpose, you would give up this debate and declare you didn't care. The fact your searching for truth proves that your longing.

Because they are not as evolved as humans. We know we are going to die, and to be honest most humans are afraid of dying. Hense the reason for inventing God. Chimpanzees have been known to have moral tendencies to their fellow primates.

Humans are afraid of dieing because they don't know where they are going after they die. If you know for certain your future after death then you will not fear death. Don't take Christianity and God lightly. Your eternal destiny is at stake. And if you deny Heaven and Hell exist, I challenge you to come up with a decent reason for striving for success on this earth. Even if you earned 1million pounds, when you die, you can not take it with you. So whats the point?

LUKE 12
16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully:
17 And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?
18 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
20 But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?
21 So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.
22 And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on.
23 The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment.
24 Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?
25 And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit?
26 If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?
27 Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
28 If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?
29 And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.
30 For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.
31 But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Quote: Because only humans have a soul.

Prove it!

Apart from humans, what other animals on earth take any concern for the things of religion? Because we as humans have a soul, that sets us apart from all other animals, as a race which has within us a desire to seek out truth.

We know that the contents of the
Bible are true because of a number of reasons:

• The Bible says God created the heaven and the earth. We can see God's creation, so we know its true.
• Jesus lived on this earth and was a real person. The Bible mentions Jesus, therefore the Bible is true on that.

This is circular reasoning Dave. Somthing you have mastered, and for which you should be ashamed.

The Qur'an says that Allah created the heaven and Earth. We can see Allahs creation, so we know its true.

Muhammad lived on this Earth and was a real person. The Qur'an mentions Muhammad, therefore the Qur'an is true on that.

Now I hope you can see how intellectually dishonest your are. You do not accept Islams claims to be true, yet when it comes to Christianity, these reasons become infallible.

The is far more historic evidence for the existance of Muhammad, than there is for Jesus. Remember several posts back when you claimed there are non-biblical accounts of Jesus, well you have yet to present them.

•The Bible claims it's true
•Jesus claims it's true
• The Bible is a morally and ethically superior piece of literature
• The Bible has the power to affect us
• The Bible has extraordinary unity
• The Bible is historically accurate
• Bible prophecies are fulfilled
• The Bible has been extraordinarily preserved
• The Bible writers endured great persecution for what they saw
• The Bible changes lives

Replace Bible with Qur'an and Jesus with Muhammad. You will see how stupid your argument is.

The Bible is a morally and ethically superior piece of literature

How is forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist moral or ethecial (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)? Are you crazy? Or how about being stoned to death for collecting wood on the sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)? These are exactly the type of things the childhood of our species would do, but the bible enforces and condones this behaviour, and there are plenty more. Remember how you said that, in regards to your mother being raped and having to marry her rapist, you said, and I quote:

It depends on who the rapist is.

I'm sorry, but any respect I ever had for you was lost that day in the library.

Yes if each document isn't a copy and is written by a different person.

But that is not the case.

Its in turmoil because people don't want to accept what the Bible has to say.

People don't accept it because they know its bullshit. They don't 'believe' it to be bullshit, they simply read it for themselves.

Seriously, if the story of Jesus was made up, would we have based our BC/AD calendar around Jesus?

The reason we use the Gregorian Calender is simply because the most powerful people at the time were the church. If the church believed in Mithras the we would be reffering to Mithras instead of Jesus. The fact that the church had a strangle hold over western europe does not mean that what they believed was true. Take '0' for example. It wasnt until the the middle ages when Roman Numerals were replaced with the denary system we now use. This was because the church saw it's use as heritacal. Now you image programming or performing calculations using roman numerals, and you will see the the denary system is much more beneficial, yet it was held back by the strongest power in western europe, the Church. That is exactly the type of influence they had. What was said, went!

Seriously, if you lacked a soul, you wouldn't search for truth. Do you or do you not have a longing within yourself to find out what truth is? Where you came from, why your here, your purpose in life? Etc...

What I can honestly say, it that I will never know if there is a God or not. However, all of the evidence (including scripture) leads me to the conclusion that (at least) the Abrahamic God does not exist. DO I need a purpose in my life? I think not. That does not for one second suggest that I fart about doing
nothing or feel depressed. I enjoy my life, obviously I don't want it to end, but I know I'm going to die, so why not enjoy myself, without hurting anyone else.

If you weren't longing to find out your purpose, you would give up this debate and declare you didn't care. The fact your searching for truth proves that your longing.

No Dave, I am not searching for a supernatural truth, I am defending a physical truth. Science tells us that Energy is eternal, Life ends, the dead stay dead, and virgins don't give birth. To claim otherwise is intellectual dishonesty. SO as you can see, I'm not searching, merely defending.

Humans are afraid of dieing because they don't know where they are going after they die.

True!

If you know for certain your future after death then you will not fear death.

Again, True! Just look at suicide bombers. They 'know' where they are going.

Don't take Christianity and God lightly. Your eternal destiny is at stake. And if you deny Heaven and Hell exist, I challenge you to come up with a decent reason for striving for success on this earth. Even if you earned 1million pounds, when you die, you can not take it with you. So whats the
point?

This is a question that cannot be answered, only opinionated. You challenge me to come up with a reason for living? Well I can only give you my reason. All of the evidence in this planet, solar system and cosmos does not point to anything supernatural. No book can tell me how to live. All the evidence leads to one conclusion, you only get one life, and you damn lucky if you
get it at all. This about it? How lucky are we to be alive? Think about all the countless possible people, beings that could be in my place. I am lucky, I want to make the best of it. Why waste my only life worring about the 'supposed' next? Whay waste my time fearing death? Why not enjoy every moment, every sunrise and sunset? Why not sit back and listen to the music of Beethoven and Motzart and Led Zeppelin? Why not strive to help others, not because your think you will be rewarded later but because you want the help? Why give blood? I don't give blood to buy happiness, after I am not losing a pint, but rather someone is gaining one. I regain my blood within the hour. It is an allround satisfactory transaction.

Apart from humans, what other animals on earth take any concern for the things of religion?

When we look at the Middle East, and see people killing over land that was promised on a peice of papyrus, and then look at primates playing and living together in a family you have to think for a second, which ones are the evolved ones?

Is the burial of dead bodies religous? Well...yes, but that came from primative behaviour. In his book 'The Story of God' by Professor Robert Winston, he talks about anthropologists studing chimps in Africa. They observe that when a mother of a chimp was killed, the young chimp spent every waking hour with the corpse, and then after several days, the young chimp became assimilated into a different family of chimps. Now, for an animal that you describe as basic, and indeed primative, you would expect the young chimp to stay with the parent, until it itself died. Or even the other family would shun the orphaned chimp, but they didn't! They accepted the chimp and that chimp moved on. As we do. This is not an isolated event.

The reason why we bury our dead is also a practical one. When someone dies, they body decomposes. It is only right that the body be disposed of, for the good of the tribe. Those tribes that did not bury their dead, they would be more succeptable to disease, which reduced their chances of survival.

You calim that I am seeking the truth, in a way I and everyone else is. You go for the easy way out, the 'God did it' excuse. I on the other hand do not require Faith or even a belief, but I work with evidence, something you and your arguments severaly lack.

I see you continue to disregard all my point and rather than offer a rebuttal, you simply spout default religous doctrine. That is not debating, that is sticking your fingers in your ear and closing your eyes and screaming at the top of your voice 'Jesus Love Me!!! Jesus Loves Me!!!'

Now a challenge for you and Nathan. I took this from Christopher Hitchens, and he too has not been given an answer to it. Here goes:

Name a moral action performed, or a moral statement made, by a believer that could not be performed or said by a non-believer?

To Nathan:

Sorry but I must begin by commenting on your description of yourself.

I think 'an intellectually honest' Christian is a contradiction in terms, much like 'Liberation Theology'.

But hey...

What term best describes your beliefs about the existence or non existence of God? Atheist, agnostic etc.

I think it is up to you to call me whatever you will. I don't think ther should be a word for someone who does not believe in the supernatural. For example, at the early part of the 20th century, in the southern states of America, the lynching of blacks occured almost daily. With clergymen, doctors, police, politicians and even children in attendance. Throughout the 20th century the black civil rights movement strived to overcome the segregation and racisim, not such events in the US are minimal, but indeed they do still occur. But
tell me this, do your know someone to openly claims to be an anti-racist? Or anti-astrologist, anti-Alchemist? You see, these words should not even be used. Reasonable people hold these views by default

Another problem with your question is that you assume I 'believe'. Well, what is belief? In order to believe something, you need to lack some sort of evidence. I do not 'believe' in evolution, but I accept it as fact. Why? Because all of the evidence avalible points to it's conclusion. If at some point it
is proved wrong and evidence is there to suggest it is wrong, then I will no longer accept. If I said to you 'I believe it was Shakesphere who wrote: 'Methinks it is like a weasel'' I only say believe because I am not certain he did, but put Hamlet in font of me and I will then say 'Shakesphere worte 'Methinks...'. So that explains my position on belief.

[quote]Which theory do you think best explains the origins of the world and man?[quote]

By world I assume you mean the cosmos. Well I will be honest and say, regarding the cosmos, I don't know. I am not well read enough in cosmology, astronomy and physics enough to possibly provide a sound comment. However, as much as I am unsure of the origins of the cosmos, I am – based on the evidence at hand – confident enough to say that it was not created supernaturally by and Abrahamic God. If pushed, and knowing about the laws of Thermodynamics, especially the 1st law (mentioned in a previous post), I would vere toward the Big Bang theory. (And before you or Dave say anything about the word 'Theroy' please look it's scientific definition up!).

Now on to the origins of man. I need to be careful here to make it clear that evolution does not explain the origin of life, but rather the process that life goes through. So the origins of life....I don't know.

The origins of man, well that was through a process known as natural selection. I would prefer to stay away from a debate on evolution, simply because me and Dave spent countless hours bickering over the fact that he copied and pasted the whole content of christiananswers.net rather than have a debate. Needless to say he didn't even read wht he was copying, nor did he
understand it. (Remember the Thermodynamics week?)

Dave, I have gone well over the 1,000 word limit but forgive me as I had two posts to reply to.

William,

What is your justification for saying that an intellectually honest Christian is a contradiction in terms? One can hardly assert that there are no Christians who are of the highest intellectual caliber - either in history or today. Clearly, there are. (St. Augustine, Pascal etc.) Your assertion is similar to that of some Christian apologists (Lee Strobel may be an example), who assert that most atheists are such because of the moral implications of belief in God. Such is clearly untrue.

Is your definition of 'believe' not a little pedantic? One dictionary definition is, "accept to be true; take to be true" which is the sense in which I meant it.

I tend to agree with Augustine's 'unity of truth' - that God is the author of all truth, and therefore it agrees. This in essence, you do not deny (at least the possibility of). You assert rather emphatically, "evolution is a fact." However, you then say, "If at some point it is proved wrong and evidence is there to suggest it is wrong, then I will no longer accept." This is clearly at the very heart of understanding science. What you believe now, scientists may very well prove entirely wrong within a relatively short space of time. This forces you to say, quite frequently, "I don't know." This grants that even though at the present time, the apparent 'facts' of science seem in conflict with Scripture, they could, eventually, be found in perfect unison - as Augustine claimed. So, are the 'facts-which-may-not-be-facts-tomorrow' legitimate weapons to train on someone's belief in God?

Furthermore, you speak of natural selection as one of these 'facts'. While cause and effect are sometimes difficult to prove in situations of such great complexity, it appears one can be justified in making the allegation that Darwinian thought has unleashed a bloody and devastating ideology upon our world. It is said that Mao's two favorite books were by evolutionists Darwin and Huxley. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/blood.asp) Trotsky is quoted as saying of Darwin, “I was intoxicated with his minute, precise, conscientious and at the same time powerful, thought.” (same as before)

In light of your belief in natural selection, can you tell me what was morally wrong with Hitler or Stalin slaughtering so many people? In fact, can you give me a basis for morality?



Like I said before, you have studied this much more than me, and so I expect to be pulled apart on many things.

What I can honestly say, it that I will never know if there is a God or not. However, all of the evidence (including scripture) leads me to the conclusion that (at least) the Abrahamic God does not exist. DO I need a purpose in my life? I think not. That does not for one second suggest that I fart about doing
nothing or feel depressed. I enjoy my life, obviously I don't want it to end, but I know I'm going to die, so why not enjoy myself, without hurting anyone else.

Yeh but you forget that when you die your going to have to give an account to God for your life.

Again, True! Just look at suicide bombers. They 'know' where they are going.

They thought they knew where they where going.

This is a question that cannot be answered, only opinionated. You challenge me to come up with a reason for living? Well I can only give you my reason. All of the evidence in this planet, solar system and cosmos does not point to anything supernatural. No book can tell me how to live. All the evidence leads to one conclusion, you only get one life, and you damn lucky if you
get it at all. This about it? How lucky are we to be alive? Think about all the countless possible people, beings that could be in my place. I am lucky, I want to make the best of it. Why waste my only life worring about the 'supposed' next? Whay waste my time fearing death? Why not enjoy every moment, every sunrise and sunset? Why not sit back and listen to the music of Beethoven and Motzart and Led Zeppelin? Why not strive to help others, not because your think you will be rewarded later but because you want the help? Why give blood? I don't give blood to buy happiness, after I am not losing a pint, but rather someone is gaining one. I regain my blood within the hour. It is an allround satisfactory transaction.

Actually when you look at this earth it just doesn't look evolved or man made. Therefore that points to an outside force involved; a supernatural God.

Correct you only get one life. Thats why you need to make it counts because your life choices on this earth have eternal significance. And about lucky to be alive? Actually we are very blessed to be alive. God designed the whole world and created humans. Very nice of God to do that. If He hadn't, then we wouldn't be here having this debate; we wouldn't exist. You should worry about where your going after death, because you don't want to go to hell. Hell is a terrible place.

Name a moral action performed, or a moral statement made, by a believer that could not be performed or said by a non-believer?

Can you forgive your enemies? Like the forgiveness that Jesus asked for when He was dieing on the cross;

Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

If you don't believe in God and are living on this Earth for yourself (enjoy life, do what you like etc...) then why would you show forgiveness to your enemies? What higher purpose would you have to do that? You wouldn't. To me, without God in a person's life, enemy forgiving is very difficult. Maybe not impossible, but very difficult.

What is your justification for saying that an intellectually honest Christian is a contradiction in terms?

Christianity has been void of any intellectualism for centuries now. Just look at Creationism and it’s younger, but just as un-intelligent, clone ‘Intelligent Design’.

One can hardly assert that there are no Christians who are of the highest intellectual caliber - either in history or today. Clearly, there are. (St. Augustine, Pascal etc.)

Indeed, just look at Sir Isaac Newton. However, as intelligent as this man was, he believed that he could turn lead into gold. He was a alchemist, does that give credence to the study of alchemy? Today, however is a different matter. Indeed intelligent men exist who also believe in a supernatural God, again this does not lend credence to their belief. Most of these intelligent men compartmentalize their belief, especially if they work within science. Every difficult question that is raised, they by default, claim God did it. This is not intellectual, especially when everything in science has disproved any supernatural claim made. I 'believe' that with the evidence we have today, that of Isaac Newton were alive today, he would be a non-believer.

As for Pascal, well as intelligent as he was, his ‘Wager’ severely lacks the stamina to make it relevant in the 21st, even the 20th century. His wager makes the assertion that it is the Christian God who should be gambled on. Not only that he surely thinks that this God is also a fool, and would not recognize a true believer over someone who only believes, to hedge their bets? Besides, how can you make yourself believe? I cannot make myself believe anything. I need evidence. St Augustine, again intelligent, but not
reasonable. He advocated the torture of heretics, essentially – along with Aquinas – laying the foundation for the Inquisition.

Is your definition of 'believe' not a little pedantic? One dictionary definition is, "accept to be true; take to be true" which is the sense in which I meant it.

Maybe so, but you asked what I though and I answered it. The dictionary definition, ‘accept to be true’ may be fine for you, but not for me. There has to be a reason behind the acceptance, mine is evidence yours, seems to be, faith.

I tend to agree with Augustine's 'unity of truth' - that God is the author of all truth, and therefore it agrees.

Do you agree with his treatment of heretics? Thought not. But why not? You freely admit that he was more intelligent that you, and me in the area of theology. What did he see in scripture that you don’t? And what makes your interpretation, more moral than his?

You assert rather emphatically, "evolution is a fact." However, you then say, "If at some point it is proved wrong and evidence is there to suggest it is wrong, then I will no longer accept." This is clearly at the very heart of understanding science. What you believe now, scientists may very well prove entirely wrong within a relatively short space of time. This forces you to say, quite frequently, "I don't know."

Frequently? I think I said it twice, and in regards to scientific theories I do not fully understand. It is a honest statement. However, yes I would change my view on evolution of the evidence were presented. But in the past 150 years, no such evidence has been presented. In fact all evidence collected supports evolution by natural selection.

This grants that even though at the present time, the apparent 'facts' of science seem in conflict with Scripture, they could, eventually, be found in perfect unison - as Augustine claimed…

Science does not conflict with scripture. To say it does implies that scripture has a basis in science. It does not, simply because science has proven, that the dead do not rise, and that parthenogenesis is biologically impossible, seas do not part, and burning bushes do not talk. Therefore scripture is irrelevant.

So, are the 'facts-which-may-not-be-facts-tomorrow' legitimate weapons to train on someone's belief in God.

I don’t dispute your belief in God. I have no doubts you believe in God, that it not what this debate is about. It is about the real world consequences of people like Dave (I do not know if you are a fundamental as he) that this debate centers. Children should not be taught in science class that we were created by a creator who, if we don’t believe in him, he will send us to a place where they will spend eternity burning, crying, screaming, impaled and skinned and this pain will never end. But he loves you!

As a matter of fact, that is not the way the world is. People are dying in Israel and the Middle East in general because of these beliefs. Muslims and Jews fighting over a piece of real estate promised by God in his role as a omniscient real estate broker, or Sunni and Shi’ites in Iraq killing over something as trivial as who should have succeeded Muhammad.

In the real world, real world evidence can be used. So to answer your question, yes they are legitimate weapons for a debate of this nature.

While cause and effect are sometimes difficult to prove in situations of such great complexity, it appears one can be justified in making the allegation that Darwinian thought has unleashed a bloody and devastating ideology upon our world. It is said that Mao's two favorite books were by evolutionists Darwin and Huxley. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/blood.asp)

First of all, may I suggest you research this a bit more. The article that is referenced refers to his physicians claims, not his favorite books. What he is heard to be saying is ‘We have so many people we can afford to lose a few.’ This statement does not refer to evolution, if anything it refers the procreation of the Chinese people. No reference is supplied for his favorite books. So it is merely a claim, not a fact. Not that it matters if they were. I severly doubt that Origin of Species lead him to kill millions. However, do you think Aquinas (whos favorite book we may assume being the bible) advocated the murder of thousands of heretics, because of this book. It is reasonable to assume. But like Mao, he was not a reasonable man.

Trotsky is quoted as saying of Darwin, “I was intoxicated with his minute, precise, conscientious and at the same time powerful, thought.”

And your point being? Your source claims that Trotsky blindly followed Darwinism (uncritical), there is no reference for this, but let us assume it is true, is that much different than blindly accepting the universe was create with you in mind?

In light of your belief in natural selection, can you tell me what was morally wrong with Hitler or Stalin slaughtering so many people? In fact, can you give me a basis for morality?

* Pauses for a moment, as if he has never heard this question before! *

First off, I do not ‘Believe’ in natural selection, I accept it based on the evidence available.

In order for natural selection to continue, the genes must pass from generation to generation. One of the best ways to do this is to ‘make friends’, start a tribe, if you will. This provides many benefits. Namely it ensures the survival of the species. A tribe will survive longer in the wilderness than an individual.

These newly formed groups, help each other out. But if one begins to do thing that are not beneficial to the group, then problems arise. The group are less likely to help that individual, although not an out cast, but the group will become weary of helping this one individual. It is a kind of ‘I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine’ type of situation.

This type of behavior stretched to murder of other group members. The punishment may have been exile from the group, or something along those lines. As the groups got bigger they became societies. The punishments became more regulated. So it was a disadvantage for a society to ‘Do what each individual wanted’. That may be the basis of our morals.

However, when we look at the morals of religion, i.e. the 10 commandments, we see that the first four are not moral at all, but rather ideological. You will admit that, a non-belief in a deity does not constitute an immoral person. Yet, do you think that before Moses and his gang reached Mt Sinai, the Jews thought it was ok to Steal, Lie and Murder?

These morals existed long before any burning bush. No society can prosper without these precepts, if they did not exist, the human species would have died out.

Now for Stalin and Hitler.

These evil men did not commit atrocities in the ‘Name of Atheism’. It is shocking how much involvement the Church had in the Holocaust. On the eve of the 2nd World War, an anti-Nazi, pro Jew pope died, and a pro-Nazi, anti-Jew pope was elected. Not the Catholic doctrine, which no doubt you dismiss, tell us that the pope is chosen by God. If this was the case we can see that God cared little for the Jews at this time. Not only did, the papacy allow the Holocaust, but it signed a treaty with Hitler. Prayers were said in every church in Germany on Hitler’s Birthday, right up until his death. Many of the SS officers were practicing Catholics, may I ask where their morals were when gassing Jewish men women and children? Do you know how many of the Nazi party were excommunicated from the Church? 1, yes one, Himmler, and what was his crime? Marrying a protestant. Hitler often invoked Jesus and God into his speeches, this got the public onside. Weather or not he actually believed in God, is almost irrelevant. We do know that he was into Aryan Blood Myths etc, so to say he was a reasonable man, is ignorance.

Stalin on the other hand was raised in an Orthodox home. He went to a seminary and achieved top marks in all his classes. Robert Service’s book Stalin, gives an amazing insight into the mind of this evil man. Stalin from a very early age did not like to be second, in anything. He always remembered his defeats, so that he could exact his revenge. This carried on to his later life. He knew how powerful the church was, and when he didn’t need it, he persecuted it, but when, like Hitler, he needed the people onside, he used them. There is no doubt, that Stalin was a non-believer, but then again so were you at the moment of birth. But to say he was a reasonable man, is again, shockingly incorrect. Stalin, promoted himself as a God. Of course when the people of Russia are told for thousands of years that the head of state, the Tsar, was just below a god, Stalin, as all good dictators do, took advantage of this. He set up his own Inquisition, with show trials and all. And yes, even performed miracles. Lysenko’s Biology. His claim was that he could increase crop output four fold by genetically modifying the crops. This of course didn’t happen, but that didn’t stop Stalin using it to appease the hungry.

I guess you are trying to suggest that a religous society is better than an atheist one. This is and unfair comparison. A better one would be to compare a religous one with a society based on the teaching of Confucious, Spinoza or Einstein. (A before you say he believed in God, think again, he did not!)

I hope this was not to rambling! But I essentially had to condense, anthropology, history and theology into one post. And I am not surprised to see your research stretches as far a Christiananswers.net, it’s a shame, as you will not find an unbiased account of anything there.

Perhaps you can complete my challenge I set earlier?

Yeh but you forget that when you die your going to have to give an account to God for your life.

Prove it!

They thought they knew where they where going.

Watch their suicide videos and see what they have to say. How arrogant are you to suggest you know the minds of educated Muslims, let alone God.

Actually when you look at this earth it just doesn't look evolved or man made. Therefore that points to an outside force involved; a supernatural God.

Actually it does look evolved, because it has!

Hell is a terrible place.

Describe it, and how do you know? Have you been?

Can you forgive your enemies? Like the forgiveness that Jesus asked for when He was dieing on the cross;

That is not a moral statement or action. So try again!

If you don't believe in God and are living on this Earth for yourself (enjoy life, do what you like etc...) then why would you show forgiveness to your enemies? What higher purpose would you have to do that? You wouldn't. To me, without God in a person's life, enemy forgiving is very difficult. Maybe not impossible, but very difficult.

You make another assumption.

Now Dave, I’m going to say this once:

Re-read all my previous posts, and reply to each question and rebuttal, if you are not going to do that then stop! You are not debating, you are preaching! (And your doing a shit job of it too!)

I think you have already lost the debate, because every piece of ‘evidence’ you have given me, I have rebuked, you have yet to do the same. You give Christians a bad name!

William,

Thanks for your post. You are a v. quick poster.

You allege that:

Most of these intelligent men compartmentalize their belief, especially if they work within science. Every difficult question that is raised, they by default, claim God did it.

This, as you very well know, is a textbook case of the generalization fallacy. To make such a sweeping case as that, you would need to know every intelligent Christian scientist, and every difficult question. I mean, are you honestly saying that there is not one top-notch scientist in the world who believes science supports his belief in Creation? To you the term creationist is synonymous with ignorance, or somthing stronger. Both creationists and evolutionists agree there was a beginning. Evolutionists typically assert that the eternal energy acted randomly, unintelligently and without purpose. Christians genuinely believe that the ‘facts’ suggest it was intelligent and with purpose – and that rather than a big bang, God was the Creator.

Again, your treatment of Augustine is a perfect text-book case of a type of the ad hominem fallacy. Whether or not Augustine was right on other grounds is irrelevant to whether he was right on this one. What relevance has his treatment of heretics got to do with this debate? It matters not who utters truth. If Hitler taught someone that 2+2=4, are they to disbelieve it because he was wrong other grounds? Absolutely no. Are you suggesting that whatever scientist has taught theories with which you agree was perfect on everything he every said? Of course, you are not, emphatically not.

What you said about the others does not have any relevance to whether or not they were intellectually honest Christians, does it?

This is not intellectual, especially when everything in science has disproved any supernatural claim made.

Again a huge claim which one cannot reasonably make. One example – you already claim not to know the origins of life. So, has science disproved that God supernaturally created it? No. Science has not disproved this. You know this. To make this claim you would need to prove the non-existence of God (impossible) to state that He cannot intervene in the way Christians claim. Belief in a transcendent, immanent and personal God makes this possible.

This is all I have time for right now, but I do want to get back to miracles and morality.

Hey, thanks your posts, I appreciate them. btw - can we keep to the rules? thanks.

Re-read all my previous posts, and reply to each question and rebuttal, if you are not going to do that then stop! You are not debating, you are preaching! (And your doing a shit job of it too!)

Ok then....

Moses crossed the ‘sea of Reeds’ not the Red sea (Yam Suph)

The messiah was to be born of a ‘Young Woman’ not Virgin. (Almah)

First off, there is proof that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea;

http://bibleprobe.com/exodus.htm

I quote, in relation to the discovery of bones and chariot wheels in the Red Sea;

Aaron Sen has dived on several occasions at this site, and can
testify to the validity of the discovery. In March 1998, he photographed the remains of a four spoke chariot wheel, and has taken up human bones of which there are 'dozens' scattered on the sea bed. One specimen was taken to the Department of Osteology at Stockholm University, and tested, proving to be a human, male,
right side femur. Although it cannot be dated, it was evidently from ancient times. The man's height was estimated at 165-170cm (5.4-5.5 feet), and the bones had been replaced by minerals. Tiny amounts of coral were growing off the mineral replacement. Aaron has seen the drop off of the southern end of the underwater land bridge. He has also seen a pathway that the Israelites would have cleared in order to cross the Red Sea, leading from the shore, descending into the sea. The Israelites would have had to push the stones and rocks aside in order to allow access for their wagons.

So if the Israelites didn't cross the Red Sea, would there be chariot wheels and bones of the Egyptians who died, in the Red Sea?

About the Virgin birth;

I quote (from here: http://www.angelfire.com/mt/tabor/Christmas.2.html ):

The Hebrew word for "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 is ALMAH. This Hebrew word is used for a virgin and a young woman. Skeptics of the Bible always refer to this word in an attempt to prove that there was no virgin birth, but that the concept of the virgin birth was invented by the Christian religion. But God never leaves His people in the dark about important issues. He always gives them the answers when they need them. In Matthew 1:22-23 it says, "Now all of this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, (Matthew now quotes Isaiah 7:14). "Behold, a VIRGIN shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
The Greek word for virgin is PARTHENOS, and means "a virgin, and nothing but a virgin." The Greek word for young woman is NEOS in the femenine gender. So even though the Hebrew can be interpreted to be a "young woman," God clarified this issue to the skeptics when He had the New Testment written in Greek. A language that is far superior than the Hebrew when it comes to clarifying issues. We should also note that when the Jewish scholars translated the Old Testament Hebrew into Greek about 200 years before the birth of Jesus (the Greek Old Testament is known as the Septuagint) they used the Greek word PARTHENOS to translate the Hebrew word ALMAH. This tells us that the ancient Jewish scholars knew and understood that the Messiah would be virgin born.

I also quote from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah

Almah seems to be the only word in the Biblical Hebrew language which unequivocally signifies an unmarried woman[4] and children born to an almah would be illegitimate.[5] The English word that corresponds most closely to this concept is maiden or maid which means "an unmarried girl (especially a virgin)".[6] As with "maid", the word almah does not certainly mean "virgin" but, in cultural context, it would be abnormal for an almah to be anything other than a virgin.

And a quote from here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/PARTHENOS

Par·then·os an epithet of Athena, meaning “virgin.”

So in old Testament Hebrew Almah means a girl who is most likely a virgin, whilst the Greek PARTHENOS mentioned in the New Testament is definitely a virgin. So we can say, with more probability, that Jesus was born of a virgin than we can that He was born of just a young women.

To make such a sweeping case as that, you would need to know every intelligent Christian scientist, and every difficult question. I mean, are you honestly saying that there is not one top-notch scientist in the world who believes science supports his belief in Creation?

Ok I admit that the first part of this statement is true, I do not know every intelligent Christian. However, top-notch scientist, who believes in Creation? I am confident that none exist, can you present me with one?

To you the term creationist is synonymous with ignorance, or somthing stronger. Both creationists and evolutionists agree there was a beginning.

Well when you ignore all the evidence, and still promote a fallacy, then that is ignorance. And no, evolutions do not agree there was a beginning. If you know what evolution was you would not make that mistake. Evolution stays within its boundary of biology, not interfere with physics and astronomy. So you make an ignorant assumption, which renders the rest of the paragraph void of any relevance.

Again, your treatment of Augustine is a perfect text-book case of a type of the ad hominem fallacy. Whether or not Augustine was right on other grounds is irrelevant to whether he was right on this one. What relevance has his treatment of heretics got to do with this debate?

It was relevant, to your morality question. And I was also showing that intelligence does not, by default, mean a person is reasonable.

If Hitler taught someone that 2+2=4, are they to disbelieve it because he was wrong other grounds? Absolutely no.

But if Isaac Newton discovers the laws of gravity, should we also believe him when he talks about alchemy? Absolutely not! The evidence is severely lacking.

Are you suggesting that whatever scientist has taught theories with which you agree was perfect on everything he every said? Of course, you are not, emphatically not.

Correct! But if the theories he taught are supported by evidence, then it doesn’t matter what else he believes. Again I refer to Professor Robert Winston. He was made amazing, groundbreaking research into the field of human fertility, yet he is a practicing Jew. His work stands on it own, no faith required. However, he understands that the evidence does not support a young Earth, nor biblical ‘Creation’. This is where compartmentalization happens. He still believes in God, despite his holy book being proved wrong. Granted science cannot disprove God, no more than Christians prove its existence. But the burden of proof is on the Christians. As it is impossible to prove a negative.

Again a huge claim which one cannot reasonably make. One example – you already claim not to know the origins of life. So, has science disproved that God supernaturally created it? No. Science has not disproved this. You know this. To make this claim you would need to prove the non-existence of God (impossible) to state that He cannot intervene in the way Christians claim. Belief in a transcendent, immanent and personal God makes this possible.

As I mentioned above, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove God. You cannot do that, but if your evidence for God lies within the physical realm (i.e. this world) then it can, and has, been put to the test. And, I’m sorry, but it fails. As for God answering the question, I’m sorry, but it actually begs the question, Who/What created God? If your claim was that he is eternal, then why be so hostile to the laws of thermodynamics, which stat that energy is eternal? You are simply answering an unknown with another unknown.

This is all I have time for right now, but I do want to get back to miracles and morality.

Before you do, can you beat my challenge?

can we keep to the rules? thanks.

I think you are referring to the post length? Well if you took the time to do some research, then I would not have to condense several different fields of study into a 1,000 word post. Not even God could do that ;-)