The Four Silver Bullets (I)

» _Boanerges_ - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clause one

Atheist101... if you would review the thread discussion, the point that [Job] was making was that even the dark space is something... So then, what is dark matter? Or, better put, what is that black space that astronomers call, nothing!.. So then, what is there to argue? You wanted to offer points unrelated to the bottom line! Aside from that, if you folks do not welcome (or want) a conversation, why bother having one? I really could care less actually... If I recall, the discussion was brought up by something Franc mentioned, as I haven't thought about it since! But now that you have re-mentioned it, maybe you might want to explain what black 'nothingness', is?... Otherwise, I'm not interested in your understanding of the Book of Job. Why? For one, one who does not believe Job to be true, yet wants to offer his interpretation of it, tells me right off that they present a fallacious argument. I suppose you want me to teach to you why that is true? (rhetorical)... Forget it, I'm not you logic teacher... As I said, who really cares? I don't.. I'm sure that no one else does as well...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» Craig93 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clause one

G'day Wendell,

Forget it, I'm not you logic teacher... As I said, who really cares? I don't.. I'm sure that no one else does as well...

I for one do actually care, thats why I post here, if they really believe what they do, they should truly care what christians think, so that they can explain to them why they are wrong, to prevent them from wasting so much of their time.

I wonder if they would treat their wives with so much disrespect if they said something they differed with?

I cannot help though to think that it must be a lonely position to truly uphold the atheistic stance that they do, as Atheism and Agnosticism is so much outdated and out of fashion these days these days, that they don't realise they are a dying breed.

Which is why there are so few of them posting on this forum, I would have thought that they would have enjoyed at least the acknowledgement that people did care enough to read and to respond to what they write, even if they do disagree with it.

Obviously I must be wrong.

craig

-- posted by Craig93

» humorous_sage - Question

Hank

-- posted by humorous_sage

» _Boanerges_ - Re: Question

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Hank!.. Good to see you...
Uhmm.. I think the question would be, what do you mean by; pin

Craig.. No doubt!.. But still, why argue with a dead corpse?

<--- Elvis has left the building...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» atheist101 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clause one

For the millionth time Craig has demonstrated that all he can do in this forum is to avoid questions and jump from topic to topic (this is a point I have established even at the early stages with respect to Craig). It is very because that he cannot answer my questions. But I can answer any of his questions. If Craig denies this point, I can present him with a list of questions that has evaded. Will Craig let us know at least whether he is going to answer the questions that I have asked form him? If he is not going to answer the questions then could he kindly explain his purpose of getting involved in a discussion?

I have posed some questions, which Craig has not been able to answer until this point. So the readers of this forum can determine whether I have explained to them why they are wrong. If they think that they are correct then they should be able to answer my questions that I have asked. If Craig really wants to find out whether he is correct or not all I have to tell him is to follow the following five simple steps:

Step 1: Take your copy of Bible
Step 2: Read from Mar 16:17 to Mar 16:18 (these I have reproduced below and even Craig himself has added it as a “signature” to his postings)
Step 3: Drink some deadly poison (do not cheat – drink some substantial quantity)
Step 4: Wait for a few minutes
Step 5: If you still think that you are not wrong then, I DO AGREE, that you are not wrong

Mar 16:17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
Mar 16:18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

You know this is what we call science – verifiable propositions, experiments, observations, conclusions (or to be correct further verifiable propositions).

If you are not willing to verify, then readers can determine who is wrong and who is correct. I do not have to waste my time like this.

If you want to further verify the proposition then please place your hands on sick people and check whether you can heal them – but I do not encourage you to do this because I am a bit scared that pharmaceutical manufactures may assassinate you.

You know this is what we call science – verifiable propositions, experiments, observations, conclusions (or to be correct further verifiable propositions).

If you are not willing to verify, then readers can determine who is wrong and who is correct. I do not have to waste my time like this.

I hope now at least the readers can find out who is the one who believes in one’s arguments (let alone making others’ believe in them).

Then again demonstrating the lack of scientific training that Christians have received, Craig has displayed his pitiable way of arriving at conclusions. To find out whether the atheists are a “dying breed” or not what he uses is the number of posts in online forums. For that he does not need reports from Census and Statistics departments. If you go by such comprehensive reports you can see how the numbers of church-goers are reducing in the countries where education, science, culture, etc. are flourishing. Now Christianity is moving to Asia and even in Asia what they are targeting is the remote villages where education, media, etc are very rare and the missionaries can give away some free stuff to the poor and uneducated masses and get them converted into a religion, which is being rejected in the countries where those missionaries come form. So what we can see is educated people who are trained in logical thinking reject god (as a general pattern). Uneducated people in Asia convert when they receive material benefits (again as a general pattern). What a way to spread Jesus’ message. In Europe where science is thriving and people are appreciating the beauty of rational thinking and comfortable with consistent ideas, churches are being closed down. Congregations are being combined, number of priests are being brought down, Churches thus vacating are being sold, money is being moved to Asia, (Consequently many Asian countries are forced to enact new laws to monitor flow of funds and activities of certain missionaries) money thus brought into countries like India, where millions of poor people are living, is being converted into material benefits and used to convert people into Christianity, and lost faith in educated societies is being converted into newly gained faith in uneducated societies and Christianity is still surviving through the power of its wealth, which Jesus resented.

-- posted by atheist101

» atheist101 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clause one

Atheist101... if you would review the thread discussion, the point that [Job] was making was that even the dark space is something... So then, what is dark matter?

Dark space is not dark matter.

Or, better put, what is that black space that astronomers call, nothing!..

The black space that that astronomers call nothing is not dark matter

Dark matter can cause gravitational effects. Dark matter can change the curvatures in space-time, which “dark space” surrounding our earth cannot. Dark matter is not undefined “something”, which can be taken as anything you like. It has known properties. So is “dark space”, which, I think, you have called “black-nothingness”. If these respective properties do not match, then only a first rate idiot can keep on arguing that dark space and dark matter are the same. If there is dark matter near earth then its gravity should be felt by us (meaning our instruments.)

You wanted to offer points unrelated to the bottom line!

Please be kind enough to explain what they are.

Why? For one, one who does not believe Job to be true, yet wants to offer his interpretation of it, tells me right off that they present a fallacious argument.

In a judicial proceeding, a counsel for one party may talk about evidence given by the other party even though the counsel does not believe in that evidence. It is necessary for him/her to give his/her interpretation on those other party’s evidence (which he/she does not believe at all) to explain why the judge should also discard them. The fact that counsel does not believe in the evidence given by the other does not imply that counsel cannot offer his/her interpretation on those evidences (or he/she should refrain form commenting on them). In certain cases (if the counsel’s interpretations are correct) judges also acknowledge the counsels interpretation of the other party’s false evidence and accordingly throw away those bogus evidences thus demonstrating that giving one’s interpretation on something that one does not believe in is not fallacy.

I am really interested in knowing who taught you logic.

-- posted by atheist101

» Craig93 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clause one

G'day Atheist.

Are you saying that there are no Christian Scientists in the world whatso ever.

If you are, then you are clearly wrong.

In fact one of Australias leading nuclear phyiscists is a Christian, who works in our only nuclear plant, there are many Christian as well as non Christian scientists accross the states who have been working on many projects, such as the intelligent design theory,

http://127.0.0.1:4664/redir?url=http%3A%...

http://127.0.0.1:4664/redir?url=http%3A%...

http://127.0.0.1:4664/redir?url=http%3A%...

http://127.0.0.1:4664/redir?url=http%3A%...

Also I am not a scientist, I am a cleaner as well as a preacher, I actually owm my own cleaning business, and my scientific training is very little, apart from not mixing chlorine with break fluid and holding the bottle or breath in the gas.

I do however have clients and friends who are doctors, scientists, inventors, highly trained nuclear lab technicians, surgeons etc who are Christians and are considered to be some of best in their field and whose level of scientific training, knowledge and expertise would be more than your own.

Now as to taking into account the experiement you have mentioned. Indeed I have done exactly that, not in your way though, but in the way those verses are meant to be interpreted.

Do you know what anaphylaxis reactions are, do oyu know what can cause them, and do you know how dangerous they can be to those who suffer from them?

We I do, two stories for you. having in 2001 5 near death experiences where I was literally only seconds away from dying when the ambos where called.

I was put on this very strict elimination diet to find out what it was that was poisioning my ststem, at the time my wife was heavily pregant.

I was praying about this diet and found a scripture where Paul said all food is good to eat through the prayer of thanksgiving, to cut a long story short, I went of that diet, always give thanks for my food and apart from one slight episode 3 months later where I did start to get the symptoms of a reaction, itchy grion, hands and feet, arm pits etc, I stood up, hands to the air saying - Lord your word says this, I have prayed a prayer of thanksgivng over this food, and so it is pure and good to eat and therefore my body cannot be poisioned by this food and it stopped and have had no trouble ever since.

I also mentioned my wife who was heavily pregnant, do you know what preclampsia is, do you know what it does to pregant women, are you aware that it is ireversible?

My wife had it and was very close to dying and the doctors were monitoring her at hospital, we started to pray and indeed many Christians through out our whole community rang me to say they were. The next day the doctors did some more tests saying to my wife, we don't get what is happening, it is a medical impossibility, your liver counts are coming down, with preclampsia it always goes up - never down and so it continued to do so untill my wife was able to naturally deliver a healthy bouncing boy.

blessings craig

-- posted by Craig93

» atheist101 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clause one

Are you saying that there are no Christian Scientists in the world whatso ever.
If you are, then you are clearly wrong.

It is no secret that there are many Christians who are working as scientists. Statistics prove it. But it is also no secret that many of these scientists are Christians because they were born into Christian families and since then most of them have not bothered to verify their beliefs and they are just continuing the tradition (without taking any interesting to find out the truthfulness of them). We have to admit that the culture plays a big role here. The scientists may call themselves Christians but how many of them believe in bible as a hundred percent correct book written by people inspired by an almighty omniscient all-loving god (i.e in the same way that a devoted Christian think of the bible) is undoubtedly questionable.

Even though my above paragraph is sufficient, I would like to comment about the related sociology for the sake of interesting readers. Scientists do experiments but not in all fields. A rocket scientist will do experiments in rocket science but not with cooking. A non-scientist may experiment with cooking. There are lot of scientists who do cooking without bothering to verify what they have been told to do. If they are told to add two eggs, they will do so. I do not think a scientist, who is not interested cooking, will ever bother to find out what type of results they would get with one egg or three eggs. The same goes for religion.

Not all Christian scientists will ever bother to critically analyse religious teachings simply because they are not interested in religion. You and I may like to spend time like this to talk about religion among our busy schedules but I do not think at least one percent of the scientist will find these discussions interesting. Most of them believe that religions are wrong and science is correct but again not because they have been bothered about these things and able to find out what it is exactly, but because during their education in schools and colleges they have been exposed to such modernist ideas that science is superior to religion. Again this is something that prevents scientist taking some interest in religion other than their cultural habits. Only a scientist who is deeply interested in Christianity will spend time to check whether science is actually superior to religion. They may call themselves scientists but it does not mean that scientists are a set of people who are interested in verifying every idea that they come across in life. In normal life simply it does not happen and basically there is no enough time for it.

Again there are many scientists who believe that science is superior to religion but they go to church as well. More often than not, they are cultural habits. Even there are scientists who do not go to church regularly but will pray when they are in trouble. This may look like a contradiction (or hypocrisy) to a devoted Christian, but not in the eyes of those scientists. Anybody who is familiar with the concept of personal god, which was a result of the modernity, can understand these types of behaviours and related pragmatism. For them god is not the almighty, all-loving, omniscient holy person that devoted Christians believe in but some sort of a person (or thing), which you can turn to when you are in trouble. A religious Christian may criticise this type of behaviours as using a holy concept for worldly and mundane purposes. But in this modernist world, the concept of almighty, all-loving, omniscient god has been reduced to a tool, which can be used when you want. But for this humans cannot be blamed. Only “god” should be blamed. When not all-prayers are being answered, and when even a deserving prayer is ignored it is natural in this age of reason, people convert the Christian concept of god (or the theist concept of god for that matter) into something which they can rationally explain (read my comments towards the end of this posting for more details). Even the people who pray (not only scientists) do not really bother whether the god is actually almighty, omniscient, all-loving in the strictest Christian sense. Their approach to god is not a holy one a devoted Christian is having but rather a very pragmatic one. If the god can help them, even if he (god) is not almighty then it is sufficient for them. Whether the bible is true, whether there is a heaven for you to go after death, etc. is not their concern. All they want is whether they can receive some help when they need (from somebody). If culturally they are told that such a person, who can help you, exists, then it is natural that they will try that too (especially when they are trouble).

The scientists are a set of people who struggle with knowledge and almost always looking for new-knowledge. But whether they admit or not, at least at one point of their life time, they have turned to god praying him to guide them towards the solution they look for because culturally they have been told that god is omniscient – someone who knows all. But when those prayers are not answered it is not reasonable to expect those scientists (who are highly trained in rationalist thinking, unlike other people) to believe in the Christian concept of god (or the theist concept of god for that matter) anymore. They may still be praying when they are in trouble – this is a psychological thing; you cannot expect people to act rationally always, under all circumstances; not just god, even if you take a human who have refused to help you once, there are instances that you ask for help from the same person again especially when you are in real trouble – but it does not mean what they have in mind is the Christian concept of god (or the theist concept of god for that matter), which is inevitably connected with the ideas of almighty, all-loving, omniscient, etc. Especially Christian ideas like ‘god created world’, ‘god created man’, followed by many other bible stories are least important of them. (Just look at the recent statistics about how little people know about Noah, etc these days) Because of the culture some of the people (not only scientists) may be still going to Christian churches, or even the ones who do not attend churches may be holding a bible when they are in trouble but it does not mean that what they have in mind is the Christian concept of god. Their pragmatic attitudes do not require them to do it. And just thinking that all people who pray (not only scientists) believe in the Christian concept of god (or the theist concept of god, for that matter) is wrong.

In fact one of Australias leading nuclear phyiscists is a Christian, who works in our only nuclear plant, there are many Christian as well as non Christian scientists accross the states who have been working on many projects, such as the intelligent design theory,
Web link 1
Web link 2
Web link 3
Web link 4
I do however have clients and friends who are doctors, scientists, inventors, highly trained nuclear lab technicians, surgeons etc who are Christians and are considered to be some of best in their field and whose level of scientific training, knowledge and expertise would be more than your own.

These do not make much sense because what they follow is not the scientific method but the Christian method – accepting just because you are told or just because somebody else has accepted. I have already mentioned that I am not going to discuss what is in other websites. If somebody wants to discuss those matters (I other websites) then he or she should present them in their own words so that I can comment on them (if they are worthy of talking about and if I have time)

Now as to taking into account the experiement you have mentioned. Indeed I have done exactly that, not in your way though, but in the way those verses are meant to be interpreted………………..

For me, it does not sound like that what you have done is anything related to Mark 16:17-18 because it is not clear whether those “anaphylaxis reactions“ are due to any poisoning or not (though what you have done may be something else described in some other script by Paul or somebody as you have mentioned). So if I am wrong I apologies, please correct me.

Nobody can interpret a document the ways that he or she wants. Same goes for Bible. Bible does not say that if you drink (or happen to drink) poison you can have a near death experience but you will not die. It specifically says that you will not be hurt even if you drink deadly poison provided you are a believer. The bible writer (here Mark as supposed) is giving several signs that will be accompanied by the believers. Read Mark’s own words. And these signs will accompany those who believe And the sign that is pertaining to people who have drank deadly poison is “not hurt”. If somebody is hurt (no need to die – hurting in someway is sufficient – the word that Mark has used is not death but hurt) after drinking deadly poison then it can be concluded that either that person is not a believer or the bible is wrong (in the case that the person is a believer).

When you drink deadly poison many things can happen. At one end it is death. At the other end it is no change at all. In between these two extremes, we can have many other points like mild pain, severe pain, near death, etc. Out of all these points what Mark has specifically selected is one of the two extremes. Not hurt means “no change at all” point. So when interpreting bible, it is what we should pay attention to, why Mark specifically selected that end when he could have selected any of the above other points. (Drinking poison is not the only thing that Mark has talked about. Placing hands on sick people is another. Now how are we to interpret that one? place their hands on sick people, and they will get well If “not hurt” means “near death without dying” then “will get well” should be again something horrible.) Again going back to the previous point of interpreting, almighty god should not have any problem of ensuring “no change at all” instead of “near death without dying”, when he is all-loving. If god has planned this (when he was creating the universe) in such a manner that believers will get near death experiences (including sever pains & all) and only the non-believers die then this god cannot be all-loving. Even if understand the killing of non believers, how can we understand a god who is giving terrible near death experiences to his own believers? So your interpretation is wrong. I repeat, for me, it does not sound like that what you have done is anything related to Mark 16:17-18 because it is not clear whether those “anaphylaxis reactions“ are due to any poisoning or not (though what you have done may be something else described in some other script by Paul or somebody as you have mentioned). So all I can say is this: If you say that you were hurt (in whatever way near death or whatever) after taking poison (accidentally or purposefully) and if you are believer then all I can say is that Bible is not correct, which proves that you are wrong. If you have not done according to Mark16:17-18 then why not act soon?

Regarding those so called miracles, all I can say is that since they are unverifiable and unrepeatable (at least as far as I am concerned), I am unable to comment on them. If we are unable to build a complete consisting story to explain these miracles, then these claims of miracles are useless even if they are genuine. Prayers are being answered is one thing but why only a selected set of people are made to pray is completely another thing. For our story to be complete it should explain why such bad things happen to good people also (not only bad people) and only to a selected set of good people (not all good people either). However if all these miracle stories, which you start narrating with details whenever you have been asked questions which you cannot answer, are all true, I indeed consider yourself to be a very lucky guy.

Since that Craig has talked about miracles, I can say the following. Certain people (not me) are suggesting to devise a new concept of a god, who is not almighty (have only limited powers), not omniscient (knows little), not all-loving (loves only selected people or loves only when he/she/it wants) then it will be possible to explain those so called irregular (sporadic / intermittent) miracles. These people argue that many features associated with those so called miracles as claimed by the Christians themselves (not atheists) like not all prayers are answered (some are totally ignored), not all prayers are answered fully (some are only partially answered), if god listens today he is deaf tomorrow (lack of repeatability), etc. etc. can be explained with such a downscaled god. They further suggest that many other problems that the Christians have failed to explain will be solved with such a concept. Interested Christians can ponder even though I am not bothering about this. For me, all I can say is that I am not interested in spending time on that mainly because even if we accept such concept of a god, still we will not be able to verify it.

Christians …………………………….. whose level of scientific training, knowledge and expertise would be more than your own.

Only a person like you can have the audacity to comment about things, which you do not know.

-- posted by atheist101

» Craig93 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clause one

G'day Atheist101

Christians …………………………….. whose level of scientific training, knowledge and expertise would be more than your own. Only a person like you can have the audacity to comment about things, which you do not know.

What is your level of scientific training and in what area of expertise are you in?

Also for many of the Christian Doctors, scientists I mentioned in my previous post, they became christians later in life while they were working in there field, and were not brought up in a Christian home, some were, most not.

craig

-- posted by Craig93

» atheist101 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clause one

What is your level of scientific training and in what area of expertise are you in?

This is totally irrelevant and unnecessarily personal. Readers judge whether what I say is correct or not, based on the merit of what I write here and not depending on who I am or what I am doing or what I have learned.

Also for many of the Christian Doctors, scientists I mentioned in my previous post, they became christians later in life while they were working in there field, and were not brought up in a Christian home, some were, most not.

Most of the scientific fields are flourishing in the countries, which were directly affected by the modernity, i.e. Continental Europe and other Anglo Saxon countries like UK, North America and Australia, which happen to be Christian countries. The other two major Christian continents, Latin America and Africa (southern regions) were not directly affected by the modernity and therefore what they have is only a reflection of what is in the previously mentioned countries. When science is thriving in the countries where Christians are the majority it is only natural to have Christians as scientists. I have already explained why most of them are counted as Christians. I have spent time on this only because there are certain Christians who try to use the fact that “there are many Christians who are working as scientists” to create the wrong impression that “there is no big difference between science and Christianity as atheists try to show”. In that discussion what I have considered is the whole scientific community and not a handful of people who are personally known to me.

My arguments do not depend on whether the scientists are counted as Christians or not. The fact remains the even those so called Christian scientists cannot meet my arguments.
Whether a certain scientist became a Christian or not is not relevant for me because my arguments do not depend on such things. And more importantly it is not the scientific method to find out whether something is true. In scientific method, we do not bother about what others think. What we bother about is whether the empirical observations are consistent with the theoretical predications. During the time of Galileo, the Church enjoyed the place that is held by science today. What Church’s thinking and feelings were not important for Galileo.

The vast majority of the Christians (including many of the scientists) are Christians because they do not bother to critically analyse Christianity & Bible and not because certain scientist have embraced that religion. It is equally true that nobody will expect those Christians to change the religion if any one or some or all of those so called Christian scientists change their religion. Irrespective of whether you are a scientist or not and irrespective of whether you are a Christian or not you can use what I have said in this forum to understand why Bible is fallacy provided you find it an interesting exercise and ready to spend some time on that.

I do not know whether what you say is true or not but even if we accept that there are certain number of such scientists (but certainly not the majority of the scientists) who were born into non-Christian families and later embraced Christianity, all I can say regarding them is that they too can use the questions that I have raised in this forum to verify the truthfulness of Bible. Even if we accept those people (not only scientists) who became Christians later, we do not know to what extent they have critically analysed the Bible before becoming a Christian. Somebody (even a scientist) may decide to become a Christian because of mistakenly perceived “miracle”, etc. but when they do it, normally what happens is not critically analysing Christianity and Bible before converting but choosing Christianity because most of the people in the society they live (i.e their friends, etc) who believe in those “miracles” are Christians. If they happen to live in a different society (say Islamic) there is more chance for them to embrace Islam because in that case most of the people who believe in those “miracles” in that society would be followers of Allah. Here the point I want to repeat is religion of most of the people in modernist societies is limited to worldly and mundane things. Most of their “religions” are basically consisting of praying and getting prayers answered most of the time irregularly (I am yet to meet a Christian who can claim that all of his/her prayers have been answered) and even those prayers are more often than not related to worldly and mundane stuff (& leading some sort of a moral life by some of them). As anybody can see this is far from Christianity, which believes in an almighty, omniscient & all-loving god who created the earth and heaven and inspired some humans to write the book called Bible. The modernist concept of personal god can exist without Christianity.

As a matter of fact it can be stated that world’s most brilliant minds are not of Christians. Generally they belong to Jews. Just look at the lists of winners of Nobel Prize for Physics and Mathematics, which are dominated by the physicists and mathematicians of Jewish origin (who reject Jesus). But again for me, what is important to accept or reject Jesus is not whether somebody else is accepting him or rejecting him but other facts.

Please do not expect me to allow you to remain in this discussion without being forced to answer the questions that I have asked from you and you have evaded. As you know very well, this is something I have done with you previously also. At least I have to be fair by the readers who are waiting to see a fruitful discussion where issues taken up are resolved without leaving behind. What is necessary is not to create a long list of issues that are pertaining to Christianity and Bile but to debate and resolve at least a few of them. IF ONE THINKS THAT BEING ABLE TO POST A MEDIOCRE MESSAGE AFTER EACH OF MY POSTINGS IS SUFFICIENT TO SURVIVE IN THIS DISCUSSION THEN ONE IS ONLY GOING TO ASK ME TO PREPARE A LIST OF POINTS THAT ONE HAS NOT ANSWERED IN THIS FORUM.

-- posted by atheist101