One question for Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

Here's some light reading for you:

Talk Origins: Problems with the Flood

You should look up the term “elephant hurling” in regards to debate. The handy thing is, whenever you hurl an elephant, I am perfectly justified in hurling one back at you, here’s a refutation (some light reading) of the article you referenced….

http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

You mean you think they were out to prove the Bible was wrong when they were dating the earth? Do you know how many creationists out there won't even touch the Young Earth Theory with a 10 foot pole? It's simply ludicrous to think that the Earth is only 6000 years old. You're allowed to believe it, but I can't take you seriously if you haven't done the research on the facts.

Did you read what I posted? If you assume the Bible is wrong, you’ll arrive at old ages for the Earth, that is true, however that does nothing to prove the Bible is actually wrong or that the Earth is actually that old. If you assume the Bible is true it’s easy to arrive at young ages for the Earth. Both sides have to assume the very thing they are trying to prove.

One hundred percent. And I never said nothing in science is absolute.

Interesting…

“The thing about science is since it is changing all the time, it never claims to be absolutely correct.”- You in Post 334.

Sitting at my computer desk, I know for a certainty that gravity will cause a pen to fall to the ground every time I release it from my grip. That's an absolute in science. That fact will never change. The only future changes in the physics of gravity we will ever get are going to be supplemental; they won't rewrite the entire science book.

Now this is about to get really interesting…

How does gravity cause the pen to fall?

You seem to be assuming that future trials will yield results that are similar to the results of past trials under similar conditions, how do you know this is true?

You can't justify what you don't know. For all we can tell god created a giant firefly in the sky to light the world for that day.

Sure, but that would still give us days without the Sun, so what’s your point?

According to what we know about standards of evidence, you are doing quite the opposite. Think of a standard like a threshold. Once that line has been crossed, then it's okay for that individual to believe in whatever claim was on the other side. You have not crossed the thresholds of Al-Quran, for instance, because you still do not believe in it. My standards of evidence are very high for outrageous claims; this is why I still do not believe in the Loch Ness monster.

I am not talking about standards of evidence; I am talking about standards of scrutiny. I apply more scrutiny to the Bible than any other Holy Book, which means I hold it to a higher standard of evidence. It passes that standard easily.

I hope that clarifies what I was a talking about. (I'm saying it's not a bad thing that you have a high standard of evidence for the other holy books, but that you should have that same standard for the Bible. If you think you do, that's all well and good -- I simply don't agree that you do, is all.)

I have a lower standard of evidence for other books and yet they do not even meet it. That’s what I am saying.

Um...first of all, that's a passage about predestination. More on that later if you feel the need to discuss it. However, what I really want to say is that it's scary how you're okay knowing that God is cool with murdering his creations.

It’s not murder if He’s justified in doing it, and He is. I am fully aware of what Romans 9 is about, and Paul is saying God is justified in building Pharaoh up only to destroy Him. The potter has the right over the clay.

Sandwiches are demonstrably real; that's the kicker here. That's why the analogy works. (And the man's name was Jimmy, thank you. At least I remembered your boys Science and...well, whoever that other guy was, I remember him .)

Very funny, but for billions of people God is demonstrable as well.

Also, I think you'd be surprised at how many normal people in mainstream society believe in aliens, ghosts, and other things that are unseen but talked about.

Yes, interestingly enough most atheists believe in aliens even though there’s no proof they exist (a bit of special pleading). However, we were talking about people believing they had been abducted by aliens, and those people make up a meniscal amount of the total population.

Too true I was ostracized by my father for a time after I resigned...until he was found committing adultery and got ex-communicated from the Mormon Church! Oh the irony.

You sound like you’ve got an interesting story, I’d love to hear it someday.

I can't demonstrably prove that he's not real, but I have reason to believe that society could potentially be better off without religion. There are many working models as to how a society bereft of religion might look, but I don't subscribe to any one model at the moment as what truly might happen if there were fewer systems of belief (or none at all) in the world.

The soviets tried this, and it didn’t work out all too well.

Have you seen pictures? Do we have telescopes? The evidence for the existence of the above-named celestial bodies is still demonstrable.

I have also seen alleged pictures of Bigfoot and “Nessy”. It seems like your standards are a bit arbitrary for what you accept as evidence and what you reject as evidence.

Just as there's no one way to eat a Reeses (yuk yuk) there's no one reason for why people believe in God. People may claim to have evidence to support their beliefs, and some people may be able to accept that evidence, but just don't see it as demonstrable. Huge numbers is not demonstrable...it just means there are a lot of believers in something that's not seen. I just want to be more responsible with my beliefs before I jump off the lemmings' cliff (or sit on that rotten tree branch of yours).

You’re on the branch with me whether or not you like it, I am afraid my friend. I am just trying to pin you down on why you believe it’s ok to believe in some things that are unseen but not others. Do you believe in aliens?

I can see that you have a lot of reason to mistrust science (and thank you for providing good, valid reasons). But the differences/changes you are talking about that will occur 50 years ago do not render all science invalid.

I am aware of that, but the scientific understandings that seem to conflict with scripture are precisely the types of scientific theories that change the most and that we are the most unsure about, I do not think that’s a mere coincidence at all.

I think what's not being said here is that my atheism actually isn't based in science at all. My atheism is based in doubt. Scientific theories help me understand the world better, but my doubt remains. (Doubt is also what helps improve science, believe it or not.) I can give you scientific evidence that proves the Bible wrong all day long, but I don't need that in order to disbelieve the Bible. I simply don't see a reason to believe it, the same as I don't believe in the tale told by Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings.

So if this doubt is not based upon anything evidenced would you concede that your atheism is a faith based position?