Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)

[Mister Agenda]

Density comes to mind.

Thanks... But that was entirely in helpful

Have you considered reflecting on the post in which you were describing the flaws you perceived in the post by Veritas and seeing if any of them were emanating from your own post? That seems like an obvious first step in analyzing my remark.

[SteveII]

1. The contradiction of the gospels are minor and expected. If there were no contradictions that would be evidence against them being true. Most scholars (including non-Christian) believe that Jesus existed, was baptized, and was crucified. The biggest piece of evidence that atheist constantly ignore is the fact there was a thriving church all across the Roman Empire within 20 years of Jesus who understood the claims of Jesus to be true--before the NT was even written. But that really doesn't matter because you said "obviously untrue". There could have been any other historical event with NO written evidence and you would have not used the phrase "obviously untrue". What did you mean? 

I would agree there is a good chance that at least one Jesus character existed, actually there are accounts of many very similar legendary preachers and saviours around at the time. But does that mean what he said was true? No. Does it mean he was the son of a God? No - and first you'd have to demonstrate that there is a God. Mormonism and Scientology spread like wildfire, does that make them true? No, they are both crazy cults. 

---

So, you are backing off your "obviously untrue"? Do you realize you are arguing in a circle? The NT is not evidence that God exists because you didn't prove that God exists!!

[SteveII]

2. Why isn't the NT evidence that God exists? If you believe the facts of the NT, it is more than reasonable to conclude God exists. 

OK, technically you can call it 'evidence' but it is bad evidence, hopelessly bad. All we have in the Bible is supposed eye-witness testimony, from accounts that don't match up, which are copies of copies of translations of copies with no originals, relating to events taking place 2000 years ago - from a time and culture with a world view so narrow that you'll struggle to find a person alive today who is as ignorant as the most educated person then. You can get eye-witnesses alive today who will tell you about their UFO abductions, you can have multiple witnesses with stories that match up. It doesn't mean there are aliens visiting the planet! It doesn't prove a thing. 

So, people in the first century were ignorant and could not understand what they saw?  Or is it that eyewitness testimony is to be automatically dismissed? Tell me why the events of Jesus' life are not the most documented and attested series of events in ancient history. You are dismissing them because of their content because you a priori decided that miracles cannot happen--which is circular.

[SteveII]

6. Your problems are with people. The NT is the basis for Christianity (which is the only religion I will defend). Anything not in there was added by men. And regarding those teachings, they might very well bring conflict  of opinion (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but they don't, in themselves, bring suffering. If suffering results, it is because of men's actions and/or a failure to apply the other teachings of the NT properly.On the other hand, the good Christianity has done in the last two millennium is incalculable.

I completely disagree. This is what I've recently learned is the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. You can't tell me that those thing had nothing to do with Christianity, because who are you to say that they aren't 'real Christians'? They would disagree with you. The Bible instructs all of those things that I listed, it is the literal word of God. Are you saying you know better than your God? They aren't doing this in the name of  religion, they are doing it as a doctrinal teaching mandated by the holy scriptures of the religion.

The God in your Bible explicitly instructs human beings to commit genocide, to commit murder, that they can enslave other people and own them as property [Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6 & 20-21] that they should kill gay men [Leviticus 20:13], witches, wizards, adulterers [Leviticus 20:10], unbelievers [2 Chronicles 15:12-13. The same God wipes out most of the world's population [Noah's flood]. This is EVIL.

To qualify as a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, the definition of Christian has to be vague or non-existent. That is not the case here. The criteria for Christian action is very clearly laid out. 

Regarding your list "The Bible instructs all of those things that I listed, it is the literal word of God." (which I reposted so you can be reminded what you claim) :

6. Concrete examples of harm caused by religion I assume you mean? Excluding Islamic Jihad? Ok:
 - The Catholic Church - sheltering pedophile priests from legal justice; allying with the Nazi party and fascism in the 20th Century - the Konkordat; their stance on abortion and contraception in AIDs riddled Africa saying condoms are worse than AIDs or that they help spread it. 
- The Archbishop of Cantebury, the Pope and other religious leaders world wide who, when people were murdered on the streets of Paris, said the problem was with Blasphemy - for SHAME. 
- Christians in the USA trying to teach Intelligent Design psydoscientific creationist garbage to children in schools
- The forced genital mutilation of children in Jewish and Muslim communities
- Homophobia of the kind that inspires a repressed homosexual to shoot up a gay club, of which religion is the main source...

I don't even know where to begin pointing out the absurdity of your first point. I am not aware the NT has a chapter on contraception. 

Regarding the Pope and Archbishop--they can justify their own remarks. I can say however that this concept is not found in the NT. 

Besides the fact that ID and Creationism are not the same thing, you got me there. Well, except the harm part. If a science class describes other theories that are believed by literally billions, I can't quite connect how additional knowledge harms. 

NT does not teach circumcision. Certainly not female mutilation. 

The NT quite clearly states that we are to love everyone. Can't see how the NT causes people to shoot gay people.

[LastPoet]

ID, that is just creationism on a labcoat trying to portray knowledge is nothing of the sort. Many biological facts falsify it.

[Veritas_Vincit]

To qualify as a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, the definition of Christian has to be vague or non-existent. That is not the case here. The criteria for Christian action is very clearly laid out. 

Regarding your list "The Bible instructs all of those things that I listed, it is the literal word of God." (which I reposted so you can be reminded what you claim) :

6. Concrete examples of harm caused by religion I assume you mean? Excluding Islamic Jihad? Ok:
 - The Catholic Church - sheltering pedophile priests from legal justice; allying with the Nazi party and fascism in the 20th Century - the Konkordat; their stance on abortion and contraception in AIDs riddled Africa saying condoms are worse than AIDs or that they help spread it. 
- The Archbishop of Cantebury, the Pope and other religious leaders world wide who, when people were murdered on the streets of Paris, said the problem was with Blasphemy - for SHAME. 
- Christians in the USA trying to teach Intelligent Design psydoscientific creationist garbage to children in schools
- The forced genital mutilation of children in Jewish and Muslim communities
- Homophobia of the kind that inspires a repressed homosexual to shoot up a gay club, of which religion is the main source...

I don't even know where to begin pointing out the absurdity of your first point. I am not aware the NT has a chapter on contraception. 

Regarding the Pope and Archbishop--they can justify their own remarks. I can say however that this concept is not found in the NT. 

Besides the fact that ID and Creationism are not the same thing, you got me there. Well, except the harm part. If a science class describes other theories that are believed by literally billions, I can't quite connect how additional knowledge harms. 

NT does not teach circumcision. Certainly not female mutilation. 

The NT quite clearly states that we are to love everyone. Can't see how the NT causes people to shoot gay people.

I think you got two lists I gave confused: The things I said were mandated by the Bible are those I listed above and gave chapter and verse for. That list, as it says, are evils caused directly by religion, but I think you got the lists confused. 

Your definition of a Christian may be clearly laid out to you, but from an outside perspective there are so many hundreds of denominations and sects as to make it really, really hazy. 

Why would anyone only care about just the New Testament? Jesus clearly states that "not one jot or tittle of the law can change until all has come to pass" and "I have not come to replace the law but to fulfill it" - IE If you throw out the Old Testament you lose Biblical authority. and you're just picking a la carte from the Bible, plus you loose the 10 commandments and the prophecy that makes Jesus the Messiah in the first place, so I find your exclusive focus on the New Testament odd. You can't have the new Testament without the old without going against what Jesus explicitly instructed in the New. "He does not observe the law shall be considered least in the kingdom of heaven."

ID is creationism in a cheep suit, it's the same pseudoscientific unfounded rubbish than runs contrary to ALL of science. The harm is that there are teachers who talk about Evolution as though it's some conspiracy, when it is scientific fact, stultifying the minds of thousands of children. They might as well be teaching children in Geography class that the world may in fact be flat.

[SteveII]

I think you got two lists I gave confused: The things I said were mandated by the Bible are those I listed above and gave chapter and verse for. That list, as it says, are evils caused directly by religion, but I think you got the lists confused. 

Your definition of a Christian may be clearly laid out to you, but from an outside perspective there are so many hundreds of denominations and sects as to make it really, really hazy. 

Why would anyone only care about just the New Testament? Jesus clearly states that "not one jot or tittle of the law can change until all has come to pass" and "I have not come to replace the law but to fulfill it" - IE If you throw out the Old Testament you lose Biblical authority. and you're just picking a la carte from the Bible, plus you loose the 10 commandments and the prophecy that makes Jesus the Messiah in the first place, so I find your exclusive focus on the New Testament odd. You can't have the new Testament without the old without going against what Jesus explicitly instructed in the New. "He does not observe the law shall be considered least in the kingdom of heaven."

ID is creationism in a cheep suit, it's the same pseudoscientific unfounded rubbish than runs contrary to ALL of science. The harm is that there are teachers who talk about Evolution as though it's some conspiracy, when it is scientific fact, stultifying the minds of thousands of children. They might as well be teaching children in Geography class that the world may in fact be flat.

Sorry if I was confused with your lists.

Differences among denominations are not necessarily weaknesses. Differences come from cultural, social, and doctrinal variations but you are going to have to adhere to the basic NT teachings to be called Christian. Anything added on top of that is man-made.

The reason I mention the NT most is because it is 1) evidence that God exists, 2) provides everything you need to live worthy of God and 3) is what the entire OT was looking forward to and preparing for. 

You seem convinced that evolution has answered everything. It has big gaping holes that you can drive a truck through but it is your only option since it is the best naturalistic explanation. Theism has the flexibility to go where the science leads us no matter what and I think that is the far better position to be in.

[Veritas_Vincit]

Thanks for your reply - taking your points in reverse order:

Your view of evolution is common among people who haven't studied science - I don't mean to be rude, it's actually a complex issue. What you're saying is "Look, evolution doesn't explain everything, therefore you can't disprove Creationism/ID." But, the way science approaches it, evolution isn't all or nothing, but it based in fact. Evolution isn't true because it disproves creationism, it's true because is based on observed facts and many types of evidence - check out this short video: https://youtu.be/lIEoO5KdPvg I also highly recommend Professor Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene or The Greatest Show On Earth.

In Science, the word 'Theory' is used differently than in colloquial use, it doesn't mean just some possible explanation - this would be called a Hypothesis. The theory of something in science is the current best model of how all of the observed facts go together to create a model that is consistent and reliable and produces results - e.g Quantum theory. The "theory" of Evolution By Natural Selection is a model of how it works, but common ancestry and change over time are observable facts.

When you have two possible explanations for something, you have to look at the evidence for each to know which if either is correct. However, just because you disprove one, you haven't necessarily proven the other - it too could be wrong, and you should reserve belief until it has been demonstrated in its own right. Even if evolution were proved wrong tomorrow (which is impossible) it wouldn't mean creationism or ID is true - they would still need to be demonstrated. Otherwise the correct answer isn't one or the other, it's "I don't know." At the moment, the evidence for ID is non-existent, and mostly to the contrary.

---

You say the NT is evidence that God exists - and you are correct. But consider what quality of evidence it is. The New Testament was written down decades after the life of Jesus by anonymous authors. All we have 2000 years later is copies of copies of translations of copies with no originals, made up of a collection of books which were arbitrarily combined when others were omitted, with evidence of mistranslations and tampering. Moreover there is no mention of Jesus in recorded history outside of the Bible (Josephus is regarded as an interpolation by scholars.) The evidence is about as weak as you can get.

By analogy, take the evidence for UFOs and alien abductions. You can go and talk to people alive today who can give you first accounts of their abduction experience. Many of these stories are consistent with other abductees' stories. Does that mean you believe them? Hopefully not, but why? Common sense - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and we know that something as crazy as alien a fictions would need some real proof, not just eyewitness testimony. People lie, people misinterpret experiences, memory is very fallible. Have you considered that the evidence for UFOs is many, many times stronger than the evidence for God and Jesus in the Bible?

Whilst it is evidence in a lose sense, it is such poor evidence I reject out of hand, and nobody should believe it on that basis. And it's a good thing too, because I have studied the Bible and as I have explained the God presented there is evil, and quite the contrary of being something we need to "live worthy" of, I say he isn't worthy of you or me or mankind. He is beneath contempt.

[Expired]

I think you got two lists I gave confused: The things I said were mandated by the Bible are those I listed above and gave chapter and verse for. That list, as it says, are evils caused directly by religion, but I think you got the lists confused. 

Your definition of a Christian may be clearly laid out to you, but from an outside perspective there are so many hundreds of denominations and sects as to make it really, really hazy. 

Why would anyone only care about just the New Testament? Jesus clearly states that "not one jot or tittle of the law can change until all has come to pass" and "I have not come to replace the law but to fulfill it" - IE If you throw out the Old Testament you lose Biblical authority. and you're just picking a la carte from the Bible, plus you loose the 10 commandments and the prophecy that makes Jesus the Messiah in the first place, so I find your exclusive focus on the New Testament odd. You can't have the new Testament without the old without going against what Jesus explicitly instructed in the New. "He does not observe the law shall be considered least in the kingdom of heaven."

ID is creationism in a cheep suit, it's the same pseudoscientific unfounded rubbish than runs contrary to ALL of science. The harm is that there are teachers who talk about Evolution as though it's some conspiracy, when it is scientific fact, stultifying the minds of thousands of children. They might as well be teaching children in Geography class that the world may in fact be flat.

Sorry if I was confused with your lists.

Differences among denominations are not necessarily weaknesses. Differences come from cultural, social, and doctrinal variations but you are going to have to adhere to the basic NT teachings to be called Christian. Anything added on top of that is man-made.

The reason I mention the NT most is because it is 1) evidence that God exists, 2) provides everything you need to live worthy of God and 3) is what the entire OT was looking forward to and preparing for. 

You seem convinced that evolution has answered everything. It has big gaping holes that you can drive a truck through but it is your only option since it is the best naturalistic explanation. Theism has the flexibility to go where the science leads us no matter what and I think that is the far better position to be in.

Flexibility Lol. You mean when something is proven wrong just change your story to fit in with it?

[SteveII]

Thanks for your reply - taking your points in reverse order:

Your view of evolution is common among people who haven't studied science - I don't mean to be rude, it's actually a complex issue. What you're saying is "Look, evolution doesn't explain everything, therefore you can't disprove Creationism/ID." But, the way science approaches it, evolution isn't all or nothing, but it based in fact. Evolution isn't true because it disproves creationism, it's true because is based on observed facts and many types of evidence - check out this short video:  I also highly recommend Professor Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene or The Greatest Show On Earth.

In Science, the word 'Theory' is used differently than in colloquial use, it doesn't mean just some possible explanation - this would be called a Hypothesis. The theory of something in science is the current best model of how all of the observed facts go together to create a model that is consistent and reliable and produces results - e.g Quantum theory. The "theory" of Evolution By Natural Selection is a model of how it works, but common ancestry and change over time are observable facts.

When you have two possible explanations for something, you have to look at the evidence for each to know which if either is correct. However, just because you disprove one, you haven't necessarily proven the other - it too could be wrong, and you should reserve belief until it has been demonstrated in its own right. Even if evolution were proved wrong tomorrow (which is impossible) it wouldn't mean creationism or ID is true - they would still need to be demonstrated. Otherwise the correct answer isn't one or the other, it's "I don't know." At the moment, the evidence for ID is non-existent, and mostly to the contrary.

For an atheist, evolution is all or nothing. The problem is "evolution" can have multiple meanings that you can use at will to make sentences like "Evolution isn't true because it disproves creationism, it's true because is based on observed facts and many types of evidence"

What observed facts prove the mechanism that went from single cell to complex systems? 

What observed facts prove that all life evolved from a common ancestor?

Don't spout theories, you said there were observable facts that prove evolution.