tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post5292329769698091419..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: What Does the Bible Really Say? It doesn't matter if we don't have reasons to think it's true.Matt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-83098922983942215772008-11-04T10:35:00.000-08:002008-11-04T10:35:00.000-08:00MattI really was not attacking you. So if I came ...Matt<BR/>I really was not attacking you. So if I came across that way, I apologize. I'm not preoccupied with your motives and goals, just wondering what makes you continue to write page after page about a subject that you don't believe in. I guess what I was asking, and you partially answered, is what are you in favor of? And as you talk about beliefs, what is 'true'? What is 'well justified'?<BR/><BR/>I read this quote today that I think is relevant. Its from Robert Anton Wilson, a real free thinker. It deals with the accuracy of perceptions and vantage points:<BR/><BR/>"Now the argument is that maybe my perceptions are inaccurate, but somewhere there is accuracy... the scientists have it with their instruments. That’s how we can find out what’s really real! But relativity and quantum mechanics have demonstrated clearly that what you find out with instruments is true relative only to the instrument you’re using and where that instrument is located in space time. So there is no vantage point from which real reality can be seen. We’re all looking from the point of view of our own reality tunnels. And when we begin to realize that we are all looking from the point of view of our own reality tunnels, we find it is much easier to understand where other people are coming from."<BR/>http://relaxedfocus.blogspot.com/2008/10/robert-anton-wilson-explains-quantum.html<BR/><BR/>Anyways, getting back to the basic question, does God exist? Your blog is replete with posts about this, so I'm not asking you to answer that. But if you had proof that He exists, would you really do as you say:<BR/>"If the evidence indicates it, then I would be perfectly willing to change my mind."Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12935856786211723015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-69183230968606152452008-11-04T09:16:00.000-08:002008-11-04T09:16:00.000-08:00If a reasonable person who considers all the alter...If a reasonable person who considers all the alternatives thought they saw Jesus walk into their living room, they should at least consider the possibility that it's a hallucination. There's a difference between authentic and inauthentic visions--even the faithful insist on that. But if you'll take a look at a lot of my posts I have always been very clear about this: The essential condition of being a reasonable person is a willingness to revise one's beliefs in the light of new information. If the evidence indicates it, then I would be perfectly willing to change my mind. What amazes me is that so many people are so enamored with the idea of being religious and believing that they will accept so little or let such flimsy evidence count as sufficient to justify their believing on such an important matter. The question of God's existence is simply one of the most important things that humans have ever considered, but so many people are give it so little thought and reflect on it so little. They are willing to let the shoddiest reasoning suffice when so much is at stake. And then, ironically, they are preoccupied, like you seem to be, with my motives and my goals, instead of actually addressing the issue. I get a lot of ad hominem attacks and hateful abuse of me because of the hard puzzles and objections I raise instead of serious efforts to address the question of God's existence. <BR/><BR/>MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-19667374560430386372008-11-04T08:06:00.000-08:002008-11-04T08:06:00.000-08:00Matt Thanks for the response. I like your opennes...Matt <BR/>Thanks for the response. I like your openness and candidness (is that a word). I appreciate that you ask hard questions and make people think. <BR/><BR/>At the same time I feel that no amount of evidence or proof would be acceptable to you. Even if Jesus walked into your living room and said, "Here I am!" you might chalk it up as a hallucination or something like that. Or you might think it was a prank. I don't know that you are 100% locked into your belief system and unwilling to budge on it, but some of your writings make it seem that way. <BR/><BR/>I don't believe the Bible is a magical book. You can rip it up, burn it, urinate on it, or whatever. It doesn't affect the material itself. That just reveals a Nazi-like disrespect for the book and the traditions. <BR/><BR/>Tom<BR/>Great points. Most Christians don't know enough about the Bible to make heads or tails of the 'tough' passages. Sadly, if your goal is to win an argument or make a Christian look foolish, you don't even have to attack the book, just ask questions. If your goal is real dialogue and not just 'one-up-manship', a different tactic would be better.Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12935856786211723015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-20377560818896837812008-11-03T12:15:00.000-08:002008-11-03T12:15:00.000-08:00I think it's a great point, Tom and it's right on ...I think it's a great point, Tom and it's right on the money. Yes, the non-believer should know enough to be able to point out the gross internal problems with the story that Bible believers are telling. But I have noticed lots of non-believers falling into the trap of treating the book with undue respect and being too eager to acknowledge that it is a great book full of beautiful, deep, and important insights. THat's a product of the general background attitude towards it as a magical object--hence our swearing with our hands on it in court--and people's senstivity to it's being defiled. You can create a shit storm of controversy by tearing one up publicly. I bet that even lots of non-believers would be hesitant to throw one away, burn one, or tear one up in public, like burning a flag. Yes, non-believers should know their way around all the problems of the Bible, but they should keep it very clear in their minds what it is: a loose collection of Iron Age stories that has little merit beyond historical interest. <BR/><BR/>MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-72855534024808598172008-11-03T11:46:00.000-08:002008-11-03T11:46:00.000-08:00Hi Matt,What do you think about this response: it ...Hi Matt,<BR/>What do you think about this response: it matters for the non-believer to engage in the discourse of "what the Bible really says" because doing so shifts the discourse in a beneficial way - namely, it helps the non-believer prove his point that the Bible is full of violence, sexism, inconsistencies, and very weird stories; in other words, he is more likely to convince believers that the non-believer's interpretation of the text is the correct one. <BR/><BR/>For instance, non-believers could focus their efforts on defending the claim that Abraham's intention to sacrifice his son is best interpreted as an immoral action. Or that 1 Corinthians 11:7 ("a woman is the reflection of man's glory")is simply a sexist precept, and moreover that the correct interpretation of this passage is that it is sexist. <BR/><BR/>Maybe engaging in this kind of talk has some merit for the non-believer. Attacking the Bible, or other holy scriptures, attacks the basis of religious claims. If you have positive reasons for thinking that the Bible is bullshit, although there still may be a god, it would undermine the use of the holy book as basis for action (going to church, praying, etc). What I'm saying is, maybe it's just easier to convince the Christian that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, than it is to convince him that the fine-tuning or design argument is unsound.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05614641518805431869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-27415490905988115202008-11-03T11:31:00.000-08:002008-11-03T11:31:00.000-08:00Having true, well-justified beliefs matters. Iron...Having true, well-justified beliefs matters. Iron Age superstitions are dangerous. Humans are highly prone to get swept up in irrational movements/institutions/ideologies because of complicated psychological and neurological factors. Humanity is capable of acheiving great things through intellect, reason, education, and enlightenment. All the best indicators, as far as I can tell, are that the existence of God does not fit with what we know about the world. So believing is unreasonable. There's the nutshell. <BR/><BR/>MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-21319814779630266362008-11-03T08:53:00.000-08:002008-11-03T08:53:00.000-08:00Matt:What's your bottom line? What is the goal of...Matt:<BR/>What's your bottom line? What is the goal of your discussions/ blog/ life, etc? Would you be happiest or experience great benefits if faith and organized religion died? Would you prefer that humans had no faith or would you prefer disorganized religion? Just curious.Jamiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12935856786211723015noreply@blogger.com