Atheists are debating the wrong thing.

[Clarence E. Causey III]

ooberman wrote: Yet, the apologist wants to convince the atheist that they have a reason to believe the Bible is true?

If by "apologist" you are referring to me, I can assure you I have no real desire to convince you of anything.  You can believe whatever you wish.  I kind of like that idea that Michael Crichton came up with, about not trying to talk anyone out of their beliefs, whether it's global warming, UFOs or atheism.  *You* might be here on the equivalent of an atheist crusade, I don't know, but I'm not your opposite number.

[Alexander]

gleaner63 wrote:

If you agree with so many of these statements why do drag them out for 3 posts as if you don't agree?

Because you don't understand subtle points.  On the issue of Noah's Ark; I don't agree 100% with your position or 100% with the standard Christian position.  There's a middle ground.  I agree with you there are problems with the story, geologically, for one.  *But*, that doesn't mean I don't think that issue can, or might be, one day in the future, resolved.  On UFOs. I'm an open-minded skeptic.  *Some* UFOs *might* be vehicles from another world (as Stanton Freidman likes to say. *Some*.  Underline *some* about 100 million times, as Stanton likes to say.  You seem to think there is an either/or.

But I don't think you have provided any support for these positions. You have merely asked questions about mine, and I think I provided sound answers to your objections.

[Clarence E. Causey III]

gleaner63 wrote: Because you don't understand subtle points.  On the issue of Noah's Ark; I don't agree 100% with your position or 100% with the standard Christian position.  There's a middle ground.  I agree with you there are problems with the story, geologically, for one.  *But*, that doesn't mean I don't think that issue can, or might be, one day in the future, resolved.  On UFOs. I'm an open-minded skeptic.  *Some* UFOs *might* be vehicles from another world (as Stanton Freidman likes to say. *Some*.  Underline *some* about 100 million times, as Stanton likes to say.  You seem to think there is an either/or.

Alexander wrote: But I don't think you have provided any support for these positions. You have merely asked questions about mine, and I think I provided sound answers to your objections.

Many things that were initially proposed were rejected at the time they were first proposed.  The theory of continental drift is a good example of that.  I think the idea of meteorites is another good example (as least so far as Western scientists were concerned).  See the book "Rain of Fire and Ice" for a good history of the latter.  So again, I take a plausible middle ground, on UFOs, between the true believers (Stanton Friedman) and true disbelievers (Michael Shermer).

[Alexander]

gleaner63 wrote:

Because you don't understand subtle points.  On the issue of Noah's Ark; I don't agree 100% with your position or 100% with the standard Christian position.  There's a middle ground.  I agree with you there are problems with the story, geologically, for one.  *But*, that doesn't mean I don't think that issue can, or might be, one day in the future, resolved.  On UFOs. I'm an open-minded skeptic.  *Some* UFOs *might* be vehicles from another world (as Stanton Freidman likes to say. *Some*.  Underline *some* about 100 million times, as Stanton likes to say.  You seem to think there is an either/or.

Alexander wrote: But I don't think you have provided any support for these positions. You have merely asked questions about mine, and I think I provided sound answers to your objections.

Many things that were initially proposed were rejected at the time they were first proposed.  The theory of continental drift is a good example of that.  I think the idea of meteorites is another good example (as least so far as Western scientists were concerned).  See the book "Rain of Fire and Ice" for a good history of the latter.  So again, I take a plausible middle ground, on UFOs, between the true believers (Stanton Friedman) and true disbelievers (Michael Shermer).

Sure...but you aren't giving me any reason to believe them now or to say that they are as likely as being true. I wouldn't call Michael Shermer a "true disbeliever" just because he doesn't believe in various things that don't have good evidence in their favor.

[Clarence E. Causey III]

Alexander wrote: ...Sure...but you aren't giving me any reason to believe them now or to say that they are as likely as being true. I wouldn't call Michael Shermer a "true disbeliever" just because he doesn't believe in various things that don't have good evidence in their favor.

The reason I sometimes refer to Michael Shermer as a "true-disbeliever" is because he is sometimes guilty of what he accuses other of (especially a true believer).  He often says that UFO buffs have a built in thing called a "confirmatory bias", which I think is the fairly simple idea that once having convinced yourself of something, any evidence that supports your version of events can be made to fit, and anything that doesn't fit, you can find a way to toss it out.  My heartbreak with that is that he seems to think it works in only one direction; basically it affects anyone whom he has a disgreement with.  However, when it's something *he* believes, the confirmatory bias suddenly becomes impotent.  He escapes it, those whom he disagrees with have it in spades.  Now don't get me wrong, I'm not taking a shot at his character; personally I think Shermer's a good guy, the kind of bright chap you could go out with and have a beer, and he comes across as very respectful in all of the debates I watched him in.  Just an opinion of course.

[Alexander]

gleaner63 wrote:

The reason I sometimes refer to Michael Shermer as a "true-disbeliever" is because he is sometimes guilty of what he accuses other of (especially a true believer).  He often says that UFO buffs have a built in thing called a "confirmatory bias", which I think is the fairly simple idea that once having convinced yourself of something, any evidence that supports your version of events can be made to fit, and anything that doesn't fit, you can find a way to toss it out.

He rightfully criticizes this.

 

My heartbreak with that is that he seems to think it works in only one direction; basically it affects anyone whom he has a disgreement with.  However, when it's something *he* believes, the confirmatory bias suddenly becomes impotent.  He escapes it, those whom he disagrees with have it in spades.  Now don't get me wrong, I'm not taking a shot at his character; personally I think Shermer's a good guy, the kind of bright chap you could go out with and have a beer, and he comes across as very respectful in all of the debates I watched him in.  Just an opinion of course.

The view he espouses, rational skepticism, does not work this way. People aren't perfect so of course this doesn't apply to everyone, but if you use rational skepticism in the manner he promotes then this isn't a problem. He disagrees with these conspiracy theories not because he wants to disagree with them, he disagrees with them because they don't have sufficient evidence to support their claims and he demonstrates this in his magazine and his books.  

[Chase 200 mph]

First off let me be honest here…..I haven’t listen to his debate. I don’t have to…you see while one may enter into a formal or informal debate on whether evidence exists for the argument there is or is not a Christian god, one cannot debate god exists because there is no evidence to examine, and what one “FEELS” exists or is meant in scripture/doctrine is irrelevant as this cannot be debated. An old example I found some time ago: logic is not a set of rules which govern human behavior. Humans may have logically conflicting goals.

John wishes to speak to whoever is in charge.

The person in charge is Steve.

Therefore John wishes to speak to Steve.

The Christian argument relies complete on loosely placed strings of conditional statements that beg the question. Evidence of this is demonstrated when a Christian believer moves the goal post by trying to deferring to a deist argument having not been able to defend his or her own position.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (Argument from ignorance) This fallacy is based on an invalid argument which has no bases of support because there is no supporting evidence to be had.

More to the point….”no evidence exists of god” and further more “no evidence exists of a Christian god”, end of story. In 2000 years of Chris trinity no ‘valid’ evidence has ever been presented. There are no artifacts, there are no historical accounts, and the bible is not a historical rendering and even if it was, there are over 38000 denominational depicts that stand between any single or even collective belief. What this means is this…the bible doesn’t support your belief in god because the remaining majority believes interpret the bible to mean something completely different….in short, the bible contradicts itself completely and if this were NOT SO, then Christianity would agree on how to interprets the bible and there would be only one bible to interpret.

Rational Faith….this too is an oxymoron. Faith is merely an irrational belief in something that presents no evidence to support the belief in question. Before anyone jumps on their high horse here and enters into a battle on semantics, this is the original Christian depiction and usage of the term.

Have a great day.....

[brent arnesen]

<strong>oober<font size=1></font>mann wrote:</strong> I think this highlights a real problem for the Apologist.

1. This is kind of a Red Herring.  The basic question is "is there evidence for a global flood?".  Gleaner doesn't answer (there isn't), but tries to show that even if there was (there isn't) it wouldn't convince the atheist.  That's true.

Thanks for the admission about your real motives.  That was the first point I made in this thread.

So we are in agreement, but why, then, do people claim the Flood is evidence for God - because it's in the Bible and everything in there is evidence for God?

I'm trying to understand how presuppers think.

[Howling Winds]

<strong>oober<font size=1></font>mann wrote:</strong> I think this highlights a real problem for the Apologist.

1. This is kind of a Red Herring.  The basic question is "is there evidence for a global flood?".  Gleaner doesn't answer (there isn't), but tries to show that even if there was (there isn't) it wouldn't convince the atheist.  That's true.

Thanks for the admission about your real motives.  That was the first point I made in this thread.

So we are in agreement, but why, then, do people claim the Flood is evidence for God - because it's in the Bible and everything in there is evidence for God?

I'm trying to understand how presuppers think.

I agree Brent;  I've been trying to fathom how *you* think and I'm not any further along than I was a year ago.......

[jayceeii]

To a Being capable of creating the universe out of nothing, causing a world-wide flood would be child's play in comparison.

God is subject to the laws of His own creation. Another way to say this is that creation can only be brought about in certain ways, therefore one cannot compare the different acts of creation on a raw level as easy versus hard, or trivial versus non-trivial. I singled out this sentence since it codifies so well the entire ramp of wrong-thinking about God. You think God can do anything He desires, but in this you are thinking only of yourself.

Importantly God needed help and cooperation from the creatures, but was unable to ask for it because of man’s inherently cantankerous, stubborn and rebellious nature. Men were not taken as serious entities by the religions, instead it was acknowledged they could only think in a cartoonish way about existence, even their own. Judgment if it comes will be with no doors opened to show humans how God might’ve been pleased.