Comments on: “Top 10 Reasons To [Not] Be A Christian”

By: Robert Edwards

Robert Edwards — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:22:28 +0000

If he did or does exist then I have a lot of complaining to do – him or her and his or her discipleship have reeked nothing but hatred in the world – there are a few good people that are disillusioned but in the main it has been nothing but killing and hatred. I’m sorry but proof is in the pudding…..

By: Tom Reynolds

Tom Reynolds — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:14:02 +0000

Interesting but have been stated many time in ages past. The most critical factor is what we observe via our satellite telescope system which makes it plain that this creation has a central starting point and is now expanding very dramatically. The issue that comes to the front is WHAT IS THIS EXPANDING INTO AND WHERE DID IT COME FROM??. Vast beyond belief. That that alone is a factor that says there is a God or it could not be a fact as nothing exist that could have caused it to occur. Hell exist as Heaven exist but they are what you might call the East and West of truth. If one is so the other is so. The question that comes out to the front is Jesus Christ. History says that he should have NEVER gained the power that his name holds but HE DID. HOW? Only answer if God. No one can deny the effect this man has brought to this world and if you will notice success follows any Nation that uses his name and practice faith. No other has in the past.
By the Way Jesus was not a Rabbi. He was NOT A LEVITE!! Paul did not invent him. He invented Paul who was originally called SAUL. Think it over.

By: Andrew Lobb

Andrew Lobb — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 07:04:13 +0000

I don’t really come around here much anymore, but I think you’re missing something Justin.

Let us look at what science can prove. In the absolute terms you seem to require:

Nothing.

Thats right science can prove *nothing* absolutely. All we can say is the balance of human experience is shared. In other words science and math are human constructs, and are true if and only human experience matches the real state of affairs. On balance of probability (all our models of the universe rely on “balance of probability”), we can say human experience does match the real state of affairs, but we don’t know for sure. So proof or disproof of religion by science can’t work. The act of a supernatural being might be (to someone not looking for it) indistinguishable from statistical noise. Because your “human experience” does not match mine, we are having this discussion. You can not prove absolutely yours is correct, neither can I prove mine.

Additionally, your arguments against religion rely on a completely literal interpretation of the texts in question, which is a rather silly idea, and the authors of those texts might take exception to it.

To sum it up, don’t confuse the philosophy of science with actual science. And don’t assume that in order to be religious we must take the translation of an ancient book out of context and completely literally on all points.

I hope this clears it up a bit.

Cheers

By: perrymarshall

perrymarshall — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 04:15:36 +0000

The reason 93% of National Academy of Sciences members are irreligious is that the Academy has a well-known, well-publicized anti-religious agenda. Using them as the basis for your position isn’t much different than me saying “93% of the members of the Catholic Scientists Society DO believe in God.”

A more trustworthy study is the one by Ecklund and Scheitle, “Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics” at http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/sp.2007.54.2.289 which indicates religious disbelief hovers around 31% for all academics and 40% for those in physics and biology.

Which means some variety of belief in God is held by the majority of scientists.

In any case, you shouldn’t let your opinion be determined by some kind of “vote” or survey. You should think for yourself.

“On your statement that science is not a counter-argument to religion. Let’s just look at evolution, and the age of the universe I think you may find that your statemnt is not true.”

You’re uninformed about informed Christian beliefs about both evolution and the age of the universe. See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com, or http://www.biologos.org, or reasons.org, or any one of hundreds of websites and books that discuss these issues from a Christian perspective. You may be pleasantly surprised.

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:44:35 +0000

Oh why do I keep coming back here??? I really do have a lot better things to be doing.

Apologies for not initially providing proof about my claim that academics are mainly atheist or at best agnostics. I really thought this was a well-known fact. I could ask you to take it all on faith but you probably wouldn’t believe me.

I also realised that the term academic is slightly broad because you would class someone teaching theology as an academic. I should have been more specific and said people in the scientific, biological and mathematics fields. You know the really smart people that have given us useful stuff like computers, advanced medicine, physics, space travel etc.

Here is a website that lists a number of studies from reputable sources that show the correlation between scientists (and intelligence) and religious beliefs. The website itself isn’t too slick but the studies and sources listed are genuine and accurate.

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20%26%20religion.htm

On your statement that science is not a counter-argument to religion. Let’s just look at evolution, and the age of the universe I think you may find that your statemnt is not true.

Please stop responding with butchered philosophy. Give me some hard evidence. The problem is that this site is trying to provide a forum where we can discuss the two sides of the argument. In order for that to succeed we need to be able to compare apples with apples. Unfortunately we are failing to even compare apples with pears. In a rational, logical, “scientific”, provable context, religion isn’t even a fruit.

By: Caleb Neff

Caleb Neff — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 19:23:14 +0000

In my defense, Justin, you say that I will never accept a rational argument. Why can’t I say the same for you? Your only argument is not definitive, and begs the question against the people you intend to use it against. How is that rational or logical?
You say that I have never devised my own argument. First, this is false, but my arguments are not for apologetic purposes, so are irrelevant anyway. Second, even if this were true, what would it prove? The ones I’ve put on the table are obviously holding up against their detractors!
You assert that theism is an insult to mankind’s intellect. So tell me, how is saying that your reasoning capacity an accident LESS insulting?? Accepting a self-defeating position is an insult to the intellect, not my position.
In an attempt to reinforce this assertion, you say that this is why most scholars are atheists. Let me clue you in on a little secret: science is not a counter-argument to religion. That anybody believes this is rather telling about our education, not the relationship between science and religion.
Your so-called `rebuttal` hinges entirely on those three rhetorical decorations, all of which are flawed.

It would be better if you actually tried to refute the other position, rather than calling them irrational. I beg of you to practice Mr. Marshall’s advice (I certainly benefited from it!). If not, that’s beyond our control.

By: perrymarshall

perrymarshall — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 06:55:26 +0000

If you wish to have a dialogue here, I suggest you actually read the article you are responding to.

After that, I suggest you come forward with rational arguments of your own rather than merely claiming without evidence that most academics believe the way you do.

When you are ready to contribute to a real discussion instead of casting insults, we’re here.

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 18:48:01 +0000

Well, like you seem to do with most of your arguments, I could also quote other philosophers who contradict “your” philosophers views. But what’s the point. You are standing on the backs of giants to make your point without having conjured up a logical or rational argument of your own. The concept of religion and God is an insult to intelligence, which is why most academics are atheist or at best agnostic. Let’s be honest with each other, you will never accept a rational or logical argument, and I think you enjoy the conflict whereby your only goal is to find some sliver of contradiction regardless of how tenuous it may be in order to continue this cyclical “argument”. My only consolation is that as science gets stronger, religion is fading away. Hopefully in a few hundred years time there will only be a few religious people left who will be looked upon much the same way that we view people who believe in tasseography today.

By: Caleb Neff

Caleb Neff — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 22:00:44 +0000

You may want to consider what I have given to Mr. Williams before you continue, Mrs. Williams.

If Jesus is God, then God was simply denying your request.
Question: how can someone be absolved if they are unrepentant?

By: Caleb Neff

Caleb Neff — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 21:32:17 +0000

Actually, God has an explanation, though it is one that most (if not all people) have a hard time wrapping their minds around: God contains the sufficient reason for His existence within Himself. This is how Spinoza came to Proposition#7 in his Ethics.

The universe, as far as modern science seems to imply, is composed entirely of contingent things. Contra David Hume, an infinite regression of explanations doesn’t explain anything, since it follows that we must ask why there is an infinite regression.