One government-document which this article refers to, warns against religious educators inappropriately informing children about the historical existence of child-sacrifices:

Well, sending your beloved children to be indoctrinated by the state is one of the worst forms of child-sacrifice! To the wrong god even!

What else could parents who do this expect, other than to find their children spiritually-dead?!

Shades of Big Brother and 1984!
Alan B.

to think that Al Gore's fantasy movie was shown in so many schools! The true believers still have no shame for spreading so many lies.

There is no reason to discuss religion in our schools where facts are taught. This should be the job of churches where fairy tales and fiction can be taught.
Do not pray in our schools and we wont think in your churches.

Dear Atheist,

«Do not pray in our schools and we wont think in your churches.»

No problem, but as you admit that these are YOUR schools, please don't force others to attend them or pay for them.

Yuyutsu,

You benefit from the fact that people are forced to get an education. We all do. Your libertarian/anarchist hybrid worldview would send humanity back to hunter/gatherer times, dying from our teeth, within a few short generations.

There is nothing noble or enlightened about the naive and extreme principles you hold.

anyone who can't see that the atheist religion and creed has led to total dsyfunction and perversion is not interested in truth or science.

what is an atheist religion?
To my mind society lost any and all social cohesion when respect was removed in favour of zero responsibility so let's not start with lack of religion being the cause.
Children have a right to ask questions period! Where they ask them is a matter of judgment

Dear Ilmessaggio,

«what is an atheist religion?»

I also considered replying to Runner about this, but having thought twice and thrice, I hesitated:

Is atheism a religion?

At first I thought that Runner is mistaken and wanted to correct him: how can atheism lead to God? For if it doesn't lead to God then it is indeed a creed, but not a religion. But having thought further, I could not discard the possibility that there are some people around whose atheism does lead them to God.

Say an atheist constantly repeats the mantra: "God does not exist" with full concentration and dedication, then they end up thinking about God all the time and if they do so even at their point of death, surely they will attain salvation!

So while atheism in general may not be a religion, there could be some people for whom it is, so I left it at that.

«To my mind society lost any and all social cohesion when respect was removed in favour of zero responsibility»

Nice observation, but was it genuine respect - or was it fear, which held society together? If foundation is corrupt, then it better be removed so it can be replaced by a stronger foundation.

Mr. runner (around in circles again)
There is no dysfunction caused by atheism.
Only dysfunction caused by religious stupidity.
Keep this dysfunction out of our schools.

Dear Atheist,

"Dysfunction" is always relative to the functionality that you try to achieve. A fork for example, would be dysfunctional when attempting to open an electric device, where a screwdriver would suit better.

Religion is for achieving a specific function (reaching God) while your type of school is meant for achieving a different function (worldly/economic success*). I therefore agree with you that it would be stupid to try and use religion for worldly success.

So each to their own and let schools be separated according to the different priorities of different families.

---
[*] Currently, state schools fail to achieve the objective of helping their students to worldly/economic success: rather they are being used mainly for national and/or politically-correct indoctrination. That however, takes us away from the topic at hand.

' There is no dysfunction caused by atheism.'

you are right Mr Atheist youth suicide, pregnancy, abortion, perversion. science lies, gw fantasy are now ' normal' for many schools based on atheism.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I made reference to Atheism as a tongue in cheek reference
Atheism to my understanding is a absence of religion whereas agnostic is a spiritual belief but not aligned to any conventional order.
When the introduction and establishment of beliefs are left to entities outside the family core then you are in effect relinquishing strength of family unity.
In todays' day and age the state cannot even maintain rule of law much less social law simply because the is not 'one law for all' and where that does not exist society see 'no law for any' and perceives the rule to be 'whatever you can get away with'
Whether one 'believes' or not, religion does introduce a sense of order with reference points by which one can refer to when seeking a moral compass.
Religion, to my mind, is also the embodiment of personal desires and a sense of belonging or connecting to something of greater strength, wisdom call it what you will.
Whereas I do not share this path I nevertheless see the benefit of its presence in society.
What I believe to be unfortunate is that respect for one's desires and beliefs based on family values, does not exist.
Respect is not a matter of entitlement but a necessity for a progressive society

Runner - You say.
youth suicide, pregnancy, abortion, perversion. science lies, gw fantasy.
"Youth suicide" is mostly caused by religious people not accepting a person for what they are.
"Pregnancy" would be reduced if sexual education was more widely available not regarded as evil by the religious.
"Abortion" It is a woman's right to do with he body as she will.- "Right to life" is nonsense.
"Perversion" Ever heard of the Inquisition, the Holocaust, War in the middle east, Belfast. They are perversions.
"Science Lies" if it is a lie then it is not science.
"GW fantasy" You have me there, I have no idea what this is.

Dear Ilmessaggio,

RESPECT is an important ingredient for ANY society, progressive or otherwise.

What could be more disrespectful for a society than counting disinterested people among its members, subjecting them to its rules without their consent?

Atheism is just the absence of belief in God's existence. As such, even I could be technically classified as an atheist - not even an agnostic.
Atheism shouldn't be mistaken for the lack of religion because belief that God exists is only one religious technique among many.

Regarding family, I completely agree.

Religion may at times introduce a sense of social order, while at other times (as in Jesus' times) it could work against the social-order. At times, religion produces a sense of belonging, connection, strength and wisdom and fulfils personal desires, but at other times it can wipe those off. There are times when religion encourages wilful building and times when religion calls to discard it all and surrender. In the words of Ecclesiastes:[

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
]

Religion is larger than society, larger than life itself: one can avoid beliefs and churches, but one cannot avoid religion any more than one can avoid the force of gravity.

TheAtheist

with no moral base to draw from its no wonder to peddle lies.

Runner - LOL. Religion is all about lies. It's a manipulative con job : "You are born in sin - but guess what, we've got the cure. Believe exactly as we say, blindly and obediently and you will be 'saved.' Question it or break our rules and we will condemn you to hell because our god does exactly as we say."

Morality? The most immoral people I've met are the religious ones. Rules for everyone else and endless excuses for themselves.

Yuyutsu,

<<Is atheism a religion?>>

Atheist physicist, Mano Singham, wrote An Atheist's Creed:

1. I believe in a purely material universe that conforms to naturalistic laws and principles.

2. I believe that the life we have is the only one we will have, that the mind and consciousness are inseparable from the brain, that we cease to exist in any conscious form when we die, and that it is therefore incumbent on us to enable each person to live their one life to the fullest.

3. I believe in the power of science and reason and rationality to further deepen our understanding of everything around us and to eventually overcome superstition and erase the petty divisions sown by religion, race, ethnicity, and nationality.

4. I am in awe of the beauty, vastness, and complexity of nature and the universe, and the fact that all arose purely by the working of natural laws.

5. I believe in the power of ideals such as peace and justice and shared humanity to inspire us to create a free and just world.

6. I believe in kindness, love, and the human spirit and their ability to overcome challenges and adversity and to create a better world.

7. I believe in the necessity for credible and objective evidence to sustain any belief and thus deny, because of the absence of such evidence, the existence of each and every aspect of the supernatural.

8. I refuse to bow, prostrate myself, or otherwise cower before the deities of any religion.

9. I am neither tempted by the fiction of heaven or any other form of eternal life nor fearful of the fiction of hell.

10. I choose to live the dignified and exhilarating life of a free-thinker, able to go wherever knowledge and curiosity takes me, without fear of contradicting any dogma.

My response to this Creed is in, "Does atheism have a creed or a system of beliefs?"

HereNow,

<<Religion is all about lies. It's a manipulative con job>>

You have given us a red herring logical fallacy. You have attempted to move right away from Bill O'Chee's argument that school children have a right to discuss their religious beliefs and speak about Jesus in the playground.

What did you do? You redirected the argument to your presupposition that religion is about lies and is a con job designed to manipulate. If that's the topic you want to discuss, write an article that provides evidence for "Christianity is a lying, manipulative, con job on the ignorant". Then we can discuss your evidence. Here you have avoided the issue Bill wrote about - how the Qld Education Dept tells students what they can and cannot say and think.

Who is doing the manipulation here?

But you want to talk about religion as lies and a con job. That's the fallacious reasoning of a red herring and we can't have a rational discussion when you use this kind of illogic. You have abandoned discussion on Bill's topic to push your bandwagon. You have deliberately diverted attention away from the article about which we are discussing.

Dear Spencer,

Not all atheists follow Mano Singham's ideas, only some.
Those who do, obviously form a creed, but not a religion.
- unless following these 10 principles somehow helps them to come closer to God: I don't discard that theoretical possibility, but I don't see how it would work, so I think it's unlikely.

'My response to this Creed is in, "Does atheism have a creed or a system of beliefs?"'

good question Ozspen although it must take much faith to believe such irrational dogma. Atheist certainly must walk around with their eyes shut. A simpleton knows that design demands a Designer, laws need a Lawmaker and that believing order comes from chaos is nonsense.

Yuyutsu,

One of the definitions of 'religion' given by Oxford Dictionaries online is: 'A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion'. Surely that is what is done by activist atheists.

Yet, you want to associate Mano Singham's An Atheist's Creed with, <<unless following these 10 principles somehow helps them to come closer to God>>. The seems to be your presupposition about religion, but the dictionaries (including Merriam-Webster) refute this as the only definition of religion.

To help people come closer to God is a definition of religion, but it's not the only definition. In fact, the New Testament defines 'pure religion' as 'when widows are in trouble, take care of them. Do the same for children who have no parents. And don’t let the world make you impure' (James 1:27).

Dear Spencer,

The New Testament is correct: the mentioned guidelines indeed brings one closer to God (with rare exceptions that are not worth entering into).

Modern dictionaries were written by those of the sciencist persuasion who wish to denigrate religion. Their aim is to present religion as merely a social phenomena, mock it to consist of certain behaviours of a relative nature, including the entertainment of particular fleeting mental ideas - this is in order to strip the concept of religion from all consistent, real and lasting content.

We know that religion is real, not just a whim, that there are in fact practices that bring one closer to God while other practices take one away from God. While we might not always agree and can debate, for God's sake, which practices achieve this aim and which do not, all lovers of God must rebuke this mockery by dictionaries.

runner,

Thanks for the bogus Teleological argument. That one always draw a little snigger from me.

--

Yuyutsu,

Dictionaries do not determine how we use words; they’re not authorities dictating to us how we must use any given word. Dictionaries merely describe how words are used. That’s it.

But we went through this in excruciating detail at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579&page=0, where you failed to support this paranoid assertion of yours that dictionaries were/are written by godless heathens plotting to distort the definition of 'religion'.

It’s disheartening to see that you learned absolutely nothing from that discussion. It's as though people around here think that an argument grows its credibility back if you just shelve it for a little while.

Your argument, with regards to the definition of religion, is one big Etymological fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

errrrr so does everybody.

What law says I cannot comment on another person’s religion? Why should any law prohibit me from commenting on another person’s religion?

What law says I cannot say something that offends others and why should any law prohibit me from saying something that offends others?

The right to comment on another person’s religion or say something that offends others is a measure of the freedom of speech in any society.

The lack of wisdom in making comments that others might take offence at is a real question to ask but it’s not the issue. Of greater importance is the right to speck one’s mind.

Yuyutsu,

<<Modern dictionaries were written by those of the sciencist (sic) persuasion who wish to denigrate religion.>>

That's your assertion, but you provided no evidence to support your claim.

Oxford Dictionaries online provides these three definitions of religion:

1. 'The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods'.

2. 'A particular system of faith and worship'.

3. 'Pursuit or interest followed with great devotion' (Oxford Dictionaries Online 2017. s v religion)

However, your claim is that <<all lovers of God must rebuke this mockery by dictionaries>>. The Oxford dictionary affirms belief in and worship of a personal God or gods. That is not a mockery but an affirmation of worship of a superhuman [supernatural] personal God. That should bring one closer to God.

O'Chee's article challenges what is happening in some Queensland schools where the Education Department promotes 'inclusive education' but students talking about Jesus, giving out Christmas cards, or sharing their religious beliefs is considered a form of 'discrimination'. Bill rightly calls this perspective 'rubbish' as it is the Education Department (or school principals) who are discriminating against Christian and other religious talk on the playground.

AJ Philips,

You claim: <<Dictionaries do not determine how we use words; they’re not authorities dictating to us how we must use any given word. Dictionaries merely describe how words are used. That’s it.>>

That's not what a leading American dictionary, The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, states.

This dictionary, in giving an extensive explanation of how words are chosen for the dictionary, stated:

"To be included in a Merriam-Webster dictionary, a word must be used in a substantial number of citations that come from a wide range of publications over a considerable period of time. Specifically, the word must have enough citations to allow accurate judgments about its establishment, currency, and meaning".

So this dictionary pursues a procedure that enables it to make judgments about the "meaning" of words. That's why people who don't know the meaning of words turn to a recommended dictionary to determine meaning.

Yes, OzSpen, and the meanings of words are determined by how we use them. Words do not have intrinsic meaning, as Yuyutsu erroneously believes. Words have usages, and we apply meaning to them. The points you've made don't contradict this.

Dear Spencer,

«That's your assertion, but you provided no evidence to support your claim.»

Indeed I have no evidence so I take your point: perhaps we could give dictionaries the benefit of the doubt that their authors operated from ignorance rather than from malice. What is evident, is that sciencists (those who adore science, as opposed to scientists who do science) use those dictionaries to denigrate the religious.

I know what the dictionaries say, but that doesn't mean they have a clue about religion. What they do is to look at some external expressions of religion, then conclude that this is what religion is about.

To illustrate the point, suppose for example that the dictionaries were written in the Middle-East rather than in Europe, where they see Muslims kneeling forward in prayer, then they could write that religion is the act of kneeling forward and finally conclude that camels are also religious because they kneel forward to drink water.

Take "1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power":

While often done in a religious context, if performed instead for the sake of worldly success, then this is rather an act of business, mere bartering with nothing spiritual about it.

Take "2. A particular system of faith and worship":

That would also be true for the North-Korean worship of "Dear Leader".

Take "3. Pursuit or interest followed with great devotion":

That could be about nearly anything, including even child-molestation.

«That is not a mockery but an affirmation of worship of a superhuman [supernatural] personal God. That should bring one closer to God.»

You and I understand, including from personal experience, how worship can bring one closer to God, but the Oxford dictionary makes no such claims. As far as it is concerned, it could just as well be documenting the exotic behaviour of some stupid weirdos who get nowhere but losing their marbles.

Regarding the article, we both agree with the author. Is there any particular reason you mentioned it now?

Yuyutsu,

Or perhaps we could assume that they are simply doing their jobs by defining words according to their usage?

<<… perhaps we could give dictionaries the benefit of the doubt that their authors operated from ignorance rather than from malice.>>

It is not the job of the authors of dictionaries to make value judgements on what religion should be. The word ‘nice’ used to mean ‘stupid’, but the dictionary definition changed only when our use of the word changed. The authors of dictionaries didn't wake up one day and decide that 'nice' was going to mean 'pleasant'.

Furthermore, those of the Abrahamic religions seem quite happy to use the dictionary definition for ‘religion’, which is hardly surprising given that dictionaries simply describe how words are used.

You are the only one how has a problem with the dictionary definition for ‘religion’ because you don't understand how language works. Is it any wonder the dictionaries ignore you?

<<What is evident, is that sciencists … use those dictionaries to denigrate the religious.>>

These so-called “sciencists” are simply adhering to a collectively agreed-upon definition of ‘religion’. What you don’t seem to have a problem with, funnily enough, is the irnonic use of the word ‘religion’ by theists to denigrate the beliefs of people with whom they disagree (hence the third sense of the Oxford’s definition). Take runner, for example...

<<What [dictionaries] do is to look at some external expressions of religion, then conclude that this is what religion is about.>>

No, they simply reflect the common usage of the word. If you don’t like the way the word is used, then throw the label out when discussing religion with others, or qualify what you are referring to. Words have no intrinsic meaning, after all.

<<… suppose for example that the dictionaries were written … where they see Muslims kneeling forward in prayer, then they could write that religion is the act of kneeling forward and finally conclude that camels are also religious...>>

Not unless Middle-Easterners themselves started applying the term in such a way.

You still don’t get it, do you?

runner,

I think that's a bit unkind to state that atheists engage in "irrational dogma". God's view is that they "suppress the truth by their wickedness" (Rom 1:18).

In fact, God does not believe in atheists. How come?

He has told us that the truth about God is plain to all people because God has made it plain. How?

Ever since the world was created, God's qualities of eternal power and the fact he is God, can be seen in what God has made (creation needing a Creator) and creation needing a Sustainer.

Therefore, when people face God at the end of life, they will be "without excuse".

God is crystal clear about what people do: "They knew God. But they didn’t honor him as God. They didn’t thank him. Their thinking became worthless. Their foolish hearts became dark. They claimed to be wise. But they made fools of themselves" (Rom 1:19-22).

I agree with you that order from chaos (or the slime) takes a lot of faith. Seems like a leap of faith to me, especially when God has nailed the problem for all who do not want to believe in God and the consequences for their unbelief (unrighteousness).

Because that’s so much better, isn’t is OzSpen?

<<I think that's a bit unkind to state that atheists engage in "irrational dogma". God's view is that they "suppress the truth by their wickedness" (Rom 1:18).>>

Or perhaps atheists simply reject religious claims as unsupported by the evidence? How did an omniscient god miss that possibility?

<<Ever since the world was created, God's qualities of eternal power and the fact he is God, can be seen in what God has made (creation needing a Creator) and creation needing a Sustainer.>>

Then why are there so many perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanations for so much of what we observe? Why would a god - who has an important message for us all, and wants to share it - want to deceive like that?

The Teleological argument is a fallacy, too, by the way.

<<I agree with you that order from chaos (or the slime) takes a lot of faith.>>

No, it doesn’t any faith at all. All you are doing here is relying on the bogus creationist claim regarding the second law of thermodynamics:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_1.html

At least you acknowledge that faith is belief without evidence, I suppose. When you’re denigrating others, at least. Apply the term to religious belief, and suddenly faith becomes mere confidence.

Isn’t that right, OzSpen?

AJ Philips:

<<Or perhaps atheists simply reject religious claims as unsupported by the evidence? How did an omniscient god miss that possibility?>>

That's not God's view because the truth is that unbelievers are suppressing God's truth in their unbelief, wickedness - depravity (Rom 1:18). If you knew historical science, you'd know that Christianity is an historical religion that is supported by many historical facts. An omniscient God didn't miss your possibility. You have missed what He states is the core issue.

You can blame lack of evidence but that is not factually correct historically and it is refuted by the evidence before your eyes: "The heavens tell about the glory of God. The skies show that his hands created them. Day after day they speak about it. Night after night they make it known" (Psalm 19:1-2).

Therefore, God tells what is correct: the unbelievers suppress the truth because of their sinfulness. There's a word that might make you cringe but that's how God sees your and my sinful condition before Him.

<<The Teleological argument is a fallacy, too, by the way.>>

That statement is a joke. You're the one who is talking about evidence and you give not one shred of evidence to support your assertion about the Teleological Argument for the existence of God.

<<At least you acknowledge that faith is belief without evidence, I suppose. When you’re denigrating others, at least. Apply the term to religious belief, and suddenly faith becomes mere confidence. Isn’t that right, OzSpen?>>

That's your Strawman Fallacy of my view. Nowhere have I stated that faith is belief without evidence. Nowhere! It's your invention. I would not believe in the historical Jesus who lived, died and rose again without evidence to support His claims. Faith is not confidence without evidence. That's your concoction. You have substituted my actual position on Jesus and Christianity with a distorted and misrepresented interpretation of my views.

TheAtheist,

<<There is no reason to discuss religion in our schools where facts are taught. This should be the job of churches where fairy tales and fiction can be taught.>>

You have committed an Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy. You have presented the argument that Christianity is a teaching based on "fairy tales and fiction" and schools are where "facts are taught".

Here you tried to make what is taught in churches look laughable by misrepresenting the argument through the exaggeration of the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy.

You should have presented evidence that Christianity contains fairy tales and fiction. Instead, you have dumped your presuppositions on us.

Christianity should be taught in public schools because it is a factual faith supported by plenty of historical and contemporary evidence.

Do not force your conjectures onto public schools and the churches will provide evidence for the Almighty God and the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.

AJ knows that the big bang/evolution is a scientific fraud lacking any evidence. Instead he sees fit to critize the obvious. At one stage the evolution fraudsters were teaching that we are evolving into more morally upright people. They fail every scientific test and still push their faith based fantasies in schools and uni. You can understand kids being fooled by the professors are outright dishonest.

Do you have any evidence for this claim, OzSpen?

<<<That's not God's view because the truth is that unbelievers are suppressing God's truth in their unbelief, wickedness ...>>

Quoting the Bible isn’t very good evidence. How do you know the Bible is right?

<<... Christianity is an historical religion that is supported by many historical facts.>>

Please, do tell.

<<You have missed what [God] states is the core issue.>>

No, I didn’t miss that. I simply understand that there is no reason to believe that he said that, or that he even exists to begin with.

<<You can blame lack of evidence but that is not factually correct historically and it is refuted by the evidence before your eyes: …>>

Such as?

<<Therefore, God tells what is correct: …>>

Yeah, according to the Bible. But how do you know the Bible’s right?

<<You're the one who is talking about evidence and you give not one shred of evidence to support your assertion about the Teleological Argument for the existence of God.>>

Yes, we have limited words to work with. Try utilising Google. You can start here:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design

I take it you’re not familiar with the problems regarding the Watchmaker fallacy?

<<That's your Strawman Fallacy of my view. Nowhere have I stated that faith is belief without evidence.>>

You implied it in what you said. There was no Straw man:

“I agree with you that order from chaos (or the slime) takes a lot of faith. Seems like a leap of faith to me …” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19198#341271).

<<I would not believe in the historical Jesus … without evidence to support His claims.>>

His alleged claims are not evidence of his existence. Anyone could have made the claims. Who said anything about an historical Jesus specifically, anyway?

<<Faith is not confidence without evidence.>>

Faith:
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith)

<<You have substituted my actual position on Jesus and Christianity with a distorted and misrepresented interpretation of my views.>>

I didn't say anything about your position on either of those topics.

AJ
You appear to be a reasoning man, so tell me, we know that if we put all the parts for a Blown Chevy into a box, put the box on a perpetual device and tumble it for a million year that the parts will grind themselves in dust, they will never come out of the box as an engine with a Blower atop it.

And yet you believe life, in every one of it's formes, sea, air and on the ground formed themselves, perfectly formed for their circumstances? And then for every male, a female formed at exactly the same instant in time and the Earth exploded into existence from nothing?

The Creation itself screams for a designer/creator and the evidence surrounds you and you, willfully, refuse to see what is infront f your eyes.

Welcome to the forum, th1b.taylor.

I don’t usually welcome new posters to the forum, because they’re often just sock puppets or re-incarnations of older previous posters. I can tell that this isn’t the case with you, however, because the points you’ve raised are basic ones that I have addressed many times over the years. Why, I just addressed your first point last week:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19189#341060

You’ll forgive me if I’m brief, though, won’t you? I don’t have much time for creationists anymore. I’ve done the evolution-creation debate to death, and it is exceedingly obvious that creationists have absolutely nothing.

<<… we know that if we put all the parts for a Blown Chevy into a box, put the box on a perpetual device and tumble it for a million year that the parts will grind themselves in dust, they will never come out of the box as an engine with a Blower atop it.>>

Yes, but nature doesn’t do that with chemicals or life. This is in no way analogous to abiogenesis or evolution. All this demonstrates is that you do not understand either field of science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

<<And yet you believe life, in every one of it's formes, sea, air and on the ground formed themselves, perfectly formed for their circumstances?>>

No, I don’t believe they formed themselves. They evolved over billions of years guided by the process of natural selection. Furthermore, they are far from perfect. Take the many flaws in the human body, for example…

<<And then for every male, a female formed at exactly the same instant in time …>>

Where do evolutionary biologists make such a claim? Clearly you have no idea how evolution works.

<<… and the Earth exploded into existence from nothing?>>

No, it was formed by gravity and collisions involving increasingly large bodies of elements.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_timeline/earth_formed

<<The Creation itself screams for a designer/creator and the evidence surrounds you and you, willfully, refuse to see what is infront f your eyes.>>

This is the Watchmaker fallacy. If everything is designed, then how can you tell what is and what is not designed?

AJ Philips,

You ask: <<Quoting the Bible isn’t very good evidence. How do you know the Bible is right?>>

It's superb evidence because both OT and NT have been demonstrated to be reliable documents by highly qualified researchers.

F F Bruce, "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" (online)
Craig Blomberg, "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels". There is a helpful article online with this same title by Patrick Zukeran.
Kenneth Kitchen, "On the Reliability of the Old Testament".

An example from F F Bruce demonstrates how archaeology has confirmed the authenticity of the NT:

"Other New Testament incidents have been illuminated by archaeological discoveries in and around Jerusalem. The pool of Bethesda, described in John v. 2, has been located in the northeast quarter of the old city of Jerusalem, the quarter which was called Bezetha, or 'New Town', in the first century AD. In 1888 excavations near St. Anne's Church, in that quarter, revealed the remains of an ancient church building. Beneath this lay a crypt, with its north wall divided into five compartments in imitation of arches; on this wall there could also be distinguished traces of an old fresco representing the angel troubling the water. Clearly those who built this structure believed that it marked the site of the pool of Bethesda. And subsequent excavations below the crypt showed that they were right; a flight of steps was uncovered leading down to a pool with five shallow porticoes on its north side, directly underneath the five imitation arches on the north wall of the crypt. There are few sites in Jerusalem, mentioned in the Gospels, which can be identified so confidently".

Your denigration of the Bible as "good evidence" is based on your anti-Bible presuppositions that do not want to have Christianity affirmed as a an historical religion that is NOT a fairy tale or fiction.

I stated: "Christianity is an historical religion that is supported by many historical facts". Your response was, <<Please, do tell>>

Read the 3 books named above that are loaded with historical facts about Christianity and Judaism in OT & NT.

AJ Philips,

th1b.taylor wrote: "and the Earth exploded into existence from nothing?"

Your response was: <<No, it was formed by gravity and collisions involving increasingly large bodies of elements.>>

So the earth was formed by gravity. Who made the gravity for the earth to be created?

The earth was formed by collisions of large bodies of elements, you say. Where did the 'elements' come from?

Your arguments are futile here as your explanations have holes in them that are so big a planet could be blown through them. It is not sound evidence to say that the earth can be formed from elements that have already been created and you don't identify the creator of gravity and other elements.

You eventually have to go back to someone or something that created the first atom.

On the contrary, OzSpen, the Bible appears to be terribly inaccurate.

<<It's superb evidence because both OT and NT have been demonstrated to be reliable documents ...>>

There is no evidence for the creation story, the flood, the exodus, or damn near any event described in the Bible.

But even if the Bible were historically reliable, one cannot therefore be justified in believing that any of the reported miracles happened, which is what I’m primarily concerned with.

<<An example from F F Bruce demonstrates how archaeology has confirmed the authenticity of the NT: …>>

Yeah, and New York exists too, but that doesn’t mean Spiderman is real.

That the Bible describes some real places and events in history is hardly surprising, and anything that could qualify as a god would understand this. So, what does that say for a god who relies on copies of copies of translations of copies of books written by anonymous authors, with no originals?

It certainly doesn’t sound like a god who has an important message and wants to share it.

<<Your denigration of the Bible … is based on your anti-Bible presuppositions that do not want to have Christianity affirmed as a an historical religion ...>>

That’s rather presumptuous of you. Particularly for someone who hasn’t provided any reliable reason to accept the central claims of the Bible. I have no reason to cling to disbelief. Disbelief cannot be an emotional crutch the way religious belief clearly is to many.

<<Who made the gravity for the earth to be created?>>

Why do you assume it was a ‘who’?

<<Where did the 'elements' come from?>>

I don’t know. They may be eternal. ‘Nothing’ may be impossible. What I do know, however, is that it is irrational to assume that a god must’ve done it.

There is nothing wrong with tentatively saying ‘I don’t know.’ In fact, such a position leaves me open to finding or accepting evidence-based answers instead of closing myself off to real answers by assuming that I already have them all.

You are fallaciously appealing to ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

AJ Philips,

You and I both look at the same facts from the past and the present, but all of those facts are viewed in the present. We come to different conclusions. Why is that? Interpretation of these facts is based on the presuppositions of our worldviews.

My presuppositions are based on "fear of the Lord is the foundation of true wisdom" (Ps 111:10) and "the person without the Spirit doesn’t accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. These things are foolish to them. They can’t understand them. In fact, such things can’t be understood without the Spirit’s help" (1 Cor 2:14).

You wrote: <<There is no evidence for the creation story, the flood, the exodus, or damn near any event described in the Bible>>.

That's your assertion. Duane Gish has provided "a Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation ( Part 1 & II)". There is evidence for creation but you don't want to accept it. It's not because of lack of evidence.

As for Noah's flood, creationist scientists have provided "startling evidence for Noah's flood" (Snelling & Austin).

Archaeologist, William Albright, has refuted your view of no evidence for the Exodus:

"Perfecting modern excavation techniques, [William] Albright and others discovered cities in Judah whose destruction layers seemed to support the biblical accounts of the Babylonian exile. Pottery inscriptions revealed the existence of a Sea People called the Philistines. And thirteenth-century devastation layers at a site believed to be biblical Bethel were interpreted by Albright's student G. Ernest Wright to be the work of Joshua's army.

"Eventually, even many liberal scholars began to accept the general outline of biblical history proposed by the "Albright-Wright synthesis." So influential in the middle years of this [20th] century was their biblical archaeology, as it came to be called, that as recently as 1981 Old Testament scholar John Bright could state, "There can really be little doubt that ancestors of Israel had been slaves in Egypt and had escaped in some marvelous way. Almost no one today would question it." ("Did the Exodus Never Happen?" Kevin Miller)

AJ Philips,

<<But even if the Bible were historically reliable, one cannot therefore be justified in believing that any of the reported miracles happened, which is what I’m primarily concerned with.>>

Here is one of your major presuppositional problems: You doubt miracles can happen. Why could that be? When you deny the existence of the Almighty God of creation,Sustainer of the universe, and the One who can perform miracles such as with the Exodus, you will join the company of Hermann Reimarus and David Strauss who denied miracles.

I said that your denigration of the Bible was related to your anti-Bible presuppositions. You called that "rather preposterous" of me to make that claim. I hope I've shown some of your anti-biblical worldview presuppositions in these two posts.

When I asked you where the "elements" came from, your response was:

<<I don’t know. They may be eternal. ‘Nothing’ may be impossible. What I do know, however, is that it is irrational to assume that a god must’ve done it.>>

To the contrary, the God who made rational human beings who can interact on this forum is not into being irrational. The Second Law of Thermodynamics refutes your idea of the "elements" being eternal.

Yes, I’ve heard that from creationists many times before, OzSpen.

<<Interpretation of these facts is based on the presuppositions of our worldviews.>>

That’s why we have the scientific method and peer review: to eliminate as much bias as possible. We are not hopelessly trapped by our worldview.

<<My presuppositions are based on [Ps 111:10 and 1 Cor 2:14].>>

But before that, your presupposition is that the Bible is the word of a god.

<<There is evidence for creation ...>>

Well, I can hardly address everything Gish said here, so how about you give me what you think is his most convincing argument, and we’ll go from there?

<<As for Noah's flood ...>>

As above. What do you think is their most convincing argument?

Do you realise that I was a Christian for twenty-something years, and immersed myself in Christian/creationist apologetics? I can assure you that there is nothing from Gish et al. you can cite that I haven’t already heard.

<<Archaeologist, William Albright, has refuted your view of no evidence for the Exodus:>>

And how exactly is this evidence for the exodus? How do these findings “seem to support” the Exodus?

Contrary to your claims, archaeological findings refute the Exodus:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus#Archeological_digs_dispute_Exodus

That many people wandering the desert for 40 years would have left an abundance of evidence lying around.

<<Here is one of your major presuppositional problems: You doubt miracles can happen.>>

That’s not a presuppositional problem. That’s a healthy scepticism. The burden of proof there still lies with theists.

<<When you deny the existence of the Almighty God …>>

Until you can point to reliable evidence for your god, you don’t get to claim that I am “denying” anything.

<<I hope I've shown some of your anti-biblical worldview presuppositions in these two posts.>>

I’m afraid not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you have provided virtually nothing.

<<… the God who made rational human beings who can interact on this forum is not into being irrational.>>

I didn’t say anything about God’s rationality.

<<The Second Law of Thermodynamics refutes your idea of the "elements" being eternal.>>

Really? Do tell.

Oh, one point of clarification, OzSpen.

When I said, “They may be eternal.”, in my post a couple of days ago, I was more referring to matter, not elements specifically. The form always changes, but it is impossible to destroy matter. So, the idea that matter could be eternal is not all that far fetched.

That being said, you have still demonstrated that you have no idea what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is. Creationists never do. They’ve usually just read about it in a church pamphlet or something else equally unreliable.

AJ Philips,

<<You have still demonstrated that you have no idea what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is. Creationists never do. They’ve usually just read about it in a church pamphlet or something else equally unreliable.>>

Again you have used an Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy. It is fallacious reasoning as you've not given evidence to support your claims, but have resorted to ridicule to replace evidence.

A Hyperphysics website gives this explanation of entropy associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html:

Second Law: Entropy

"Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.
Entropy: a state variable whose change is defined for a reversible process at T where Q is the heat absorbed.
Entropy: a measure of the amount of energy which is unavailable to do work.
Entropy: a measure of the disorder of a system.
Entropy: a measure of the multiplicity of a system.

"Since entropy gives information about the evolution of an isolated system with time, it is said to give us the direction of "time's arrow" . If snapshots of a system at two different times shows one state which is more disordered, then it could be implied that this state came later in time. For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state".

While entropy (amount of disorder) can be increased or remain the same, it cannot be decreased, according to the Second Law. It applies to the entire universe, i.e. disorder in the universe is increasing. Since the universe is increasing in entropy, it seems to point to the universe not being eternal. Surely the universe has had ample time to run down completely (maximum entropy). It is not at that state, so the Second Law of Thermodynamics points to a universe that was created (had a beginning) and is not eternal.

AJ Philips,

<<That’s why we have the scientific method and peer review: to eliminate as much bias as possible. We are not hopelessly trapped by our worldview. >>

What a joke! When I pursued my PhD dissertation on the historical Jesus in historical science, there was no empirical scientific method ( except testing hypotheses) and there were 3 peer reviewers of the dissertation and 3 different verbal examiners. Then articles for academic journals in NT and theology require peer review. So it's not restricted to the empirical sciences.

<<But before that, your presupposition is that the Bible is the word of a god.>>

That's because it's historically reliable, trustworthy (demonstrated by research) and one of the tests of reliability for any book is internal consistency.

<<Well, I can hardly address everything Gish said here, so how about you give me what you think is his most convincing argument, and we’ll go from there?>>

You really know how to use logical fallacies to divert attention from the topic. Here you've used a Red Herring.

<< What do you think is their most convincing argument? [for Noah's Flood]>>

There's not just one, the evidence from the Grand Canyon fossils is significant to confirm a world wide flood.

<<Do you realise that I was a Christian for twenty-something years, and immersed myself in Christian/creationist apologetics? I can assure you that there is nothing from Gish et al. you can cite that I haven’t already heard.>>

Another red herring, without evidence. So have you committed apostasy?

<<Contrary to your claims, archaeological findings refute the Exodus:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus#Archeological_digs_dispute_Exodus>>

You go to rationalwiki for your evidence to refute the Exodus and I referred you to one of the greatest archaeologists, William Albright, who confirmed the Exodus through evidence.

<<That many people wandering the desert for 40 years would have left an abundance of evidence lying around.>>

Argument from Silence is another logical fallacy you use here.

Your extensive use of logical fallacies, which demonstrate erroneous reasoning, detract from your arguments and my having a rational conversation with you.

This is my first post ever so a little introduction before I make any comments. I'm a follower of Jesus and have taught for over 28 years. I'm recently retired. I'll make some brief comments as I wade into the discussion.

Is it true students are banned from talking about Jesus? Students should be able to discuss matters of faith with other willing participants.

Education should be in the business not to teach students what to think, but how to think. Since the culture at large does engage in religious activities and matters of faith, such conversations in schools, where appropriate (not during math!) should be encouraged.

I wouldn't go so far as to initiate such discussion as there are many other things important to learn and discuss in the classroom and that's not my role as a teacher. But where such discussions happened on their own initiative.

IF the government is actually forbidding such discussion, then I think they do violate the following:

"Article 19 goes even further. It states: "Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.""

It's funny that the government takes the position that such conversations lead to discrimination so their response is to silence speech. This fits the very definition of discrimination.

The world has gone mad with concerns over political correctness. You have to watch what you say and how you say it. If you say something innocently that offends someone, you are the one at fault. People who are easily offended are called snowflakes by some. I think it's fitting. We can't have honest discussions if we have to watch our every word.

If you favor the government controlling some unwanted speech, because what you wish for. Should the opposing party get into power, they will impose on you things you find you can't live with. Better for a free society to learn to get along with our differences.

I live in the USA and we have similar problems here. I'll go take a look now at the 45 plus comments and make further comments if necessary. PZ

No, I haven’t used any fallacies, OzSpen.

<<Again you have used an Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy.>>

I suggest you read up on what the Appeal to Ridicule fallacy is:

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/42/Appeal-to-Ridicule

If you’re going to fire off accusations of fallacies left, right, and centre, then you need to ensure that you a least get them right. You just look foolish, otherwise.

And what do you mean by “again”?

<<It is fallacious reasoning as you've not given evidence to support your claims, but have resorted to ridicule to replace evidence.>>

Evidence for what claims? You are the only one who bears a burden of proof thus far.

I’ll tell you what is a fallacy, though. Shifting the burden of proof.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

<<While entropy … can be increased or remain the same, it cannot be decreased, according to the Second Law.>>

Actually, it can:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_1.html

<<Since the universe is increasing in entropy, it seems to point to the universe not being eternal.>>

I wasn’t talking about the universe, I was talking about matter.

<<Surely the universe has had ample time to run down completely …>>

Wow. That’s a bold claim. How did you determine this?

<<… the Second Law of Thermodynamics points to a universe that was created (had a beginning) and is not eternal.>>

The universe as we know it had a beginning, yes. The Big Bang theory suggests this. However, this has nothing to do with whether matter is eternal.

<<[The scientific method and peer review are] not restricted to the empirical sciences.>>

At no point did I suggest that they were. My point, that we are not hopelessly trapped by our worldviews, still stands.

<<That's because [the Bible is] historically reliable …>>

You have not yet demonstrated this.

<<… and one of the tests of reliability for any book is internal consistency.>>

You’ve got to be kidding me! The Bible contains more inconsistencies than you can poke a stick at.

http://bibviz.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

But, please, tell me what these internal consistencies are that you speak of?

Continued…

…Continued

<<Here you've used a Red Herring.>>

How is asking for an example of convincing evidence from Gish a red herring? You referenced him for evidence of the creation story, therefore, asking for an example of his evidence is entirely relevant to the discussion.

<<There's not just one, the evidence from the Grand Canyon fossils is significant to confirm a world wide flood.>>

Firstly, I never suggested there was only one argument. I asked for what you thought was the best argument.

Secondly, no, they’re not evidence of a worldwide flood:

http://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/top-five-creationist-claims-grand-canyon-5-fossil-footprint-0015205

Interesting that you felt an answer was justified in this this instance, though. How was my question not a red herring in this instance when it was the same as the question that came before it?

<<Another red herring, without evidence.>>

Nope, still not a red herring. Do you even know what a red herring is?

There was nothing misleading or distracting about what I said. I was noting my past as a Christian, creationist, and an apologist in an attempt to save us both time, for there seems to be this assumption on your behalf you that I am just some naive fool who has charged in, guns blazing, armed with nothing more than a few baseless assumptions and presuppositions.

<<So have you committed apostasy?>>

Correct.

<<You go to rationalwiki for your evidence to refute the Exodus …>>

No, it was just a quick and convenient link. The paragraph I linked you to had more scholarly references.

<<… and I referred you to one of the greatest archaeologists, William Albright, who confirmed the Exodus through evidence.>>

He hardly confirmed it, going by what you provided.

<<Argument from Silence is another logical fallacy you use here.>>

No, I suggest you read up on what the Argument from Silence is:

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/57/Argument-from-Silence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

That there is no evidence for the Exodus, when it should be abundant, is telling - even if it is not conclusive evidence that it never happened.

Still no fallacies. You need to put a little more effort into identifying them correctly.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7732#237838

Welcome Papa Zoom,

«Is it true students are banned from talking about Jesus?»

I don't think so - not according to the article anyway: the decrees are against religious educators, forbidding them to encourage children to speak about Jesus. As far as I can tell, the regime does not currently attack the children directly, nor would it find it easy.

If parents stand behind, back and support their children, telling them to defy the school authorities, I can't see how the children could be stopped - in North Korea yes, but not in Australia. I don't think it would come to that here, but if parents instructed their child to keep up the faith even if the government-school burns them at the stake, then I believe that the government would blink first.

So you are an American and I hear that in America, Trump wants to do away with state-run schools - that's great news for you!

AJ Philips,

For every logical fallacy I accused you of using, I checked with the largest online fallacy list that you recommend: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies

Every one of your fallacies used was confirmed by that website and the labels I gave - every one.

I hope you realise that you committed another fallacy with your statement, <<Still no fallacies. You need to put a little more effort into identifying them correctly.>>

This is an Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy: http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Appeal-to-Ignorance.html. This Fallacy states that,

"This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim".

You have argued that you have used no fallacies and that I need to spend more effort on identifying logical fallacies correctly. For you, that conclusion must be true, but this has shifted the burden of proof away from AJ to OzSpen. You have committed the Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy.

Yuyutsu,

Papa Zoom asked: <<Is it true students are banned from talking about Jesus?>> Your response was: <<I don't think so - not according to the article anyway: the decrees are against religious educators, forbidding them to encourage children to speak about Jesus.>>

This is false. I do wish you would have read Bill O'Chee's article carefully. Read it again, please!

The first paragraph states:

"Recent attempts by Queensland's Education Department to ban students talking about Jesus with other students are absurd, and frankly disturbing. However, closer examination of the policy documents used by the Department shows that this is just the tip of the iceberg".

It has nothing to do with religious education but students talking about Jesus to other students.

O'Chee also wrote in the article, "Instead, the Education Department thinks it better to strictly control the right to religion and to censor what children are allowed to tell each other". Again, no mention of religious education on the State school campus.

I have been told of a school child in a public school who has been disciplined for mentioning the name of Jesus.

So you don't even know what the Argument from Ignorance is then, OzSpen?

<<This is an Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy …>>

No, it was not the argument from ignorance because I did not appeal to your inability to point out a fallacy on my behalf as evidence that I had committed one. I was simply stating that I had not yet committed a fallacy.

<<"This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim".>>

Correct. At no point did I do that. According to your loose idea of what the Argument from Ignorance is, no one would be able to claim that they have not done something without fallaciously appealing to ignorance.

Once again, you demonstrate that your ability to identify fallacies is abysmal, and that your application of them is, in itself, fallacious.

<<You have argued that you have used no fallacies …>>

Correct. You have not yet identified one, because I have not yet committed one.

<<... and that I need to spend more effort on identifying logical fallacies correctly.>>

Yes, that was a friendly bit of advice. For you to turn that around on me by suggesting that I think that your ability to identify fallacies was the determinant for whether or not I have committed one, is dishonest.

<<... this has shifted the burden of proof away from AJ to OzSpen.>>

You are the one who has claimed that I have committed a fallacy, therefore, you are the one who bears the burden of proof for that claim. I have not shifted the burden of proof.

Dear Spencer,

Regarding religious educators, I was referring to the "Recruiting" paragraphs in the article's two PDF attachments. It was therefore my impression that the governments' strategy is to hit at that level, rather than at individual children.

I understand that you have further evidence.

Of course the whole thing is very disturbing, yet it's a war: I find it hard to understand why would any parent send their tender children behind enemy lines. Nevertheless, if a child is indeed well prepared and armed by their parents, I can't see how a child who knows which side they are on could be "disciplined" - in some countries they would be physically beaten or even killed, but in Australia? What if the child in response turns the other cheek? What if they defiantly march around the schoolyard shouting "Jesus lives!"? With the parents behind, what is there to be afraid of?

AJ Philips,

Here you go again with your denial: <<No, it was not the argument from ignorance because I did not appeal to your inability to point out a fallacy on my behalf as evidence that I had committed one. I was simply stating that I had not yet committed a fallacy>>.

You appealed to my ignorance in not knowing the meaning of certain fallacies, but you gave no examples. You definitely committed the Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy.

Why don't we get back to the topic of this article? Is it right under Human Rights Conventions to discriminate against children who speak the name of Jesus? Bill O'Chee wrote:

"The real problem is that the Education Department is on a dunderheaded crusade that puts it in breach of at least two international human rights treaties. At the core is the idea the Department will tell pupils what they can and cannot say or think. This is contrary to every tenet of Australian political freedom.... restrictions on freedom of speech are generally kept to an absolute minimum.

"This is in line with the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18 of which provides: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom… to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching."

"Article 19 goes even further. It states: 'Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference'"

Therefore the censorship of Christian talk on Qld school campuses is not only against Civil and Political Rights, but also in contravention of international human rights' treaties. The Qld govt should support these conventions and not allow the promotion of Christian censorship on the school grounds.

So now I'm in denial, OzSpen?

<<You appealed to my ignorance in not knowing the meaning of certain fallacies, but you gave no examples.>>

No I didn’t. I simply pointed out that your understanding of, and ability to identify, the common fallacies was atrocious. At no point did I appeal to it as evidence of anything.

To support your claim, you need to explain how I relied on your ignorance. Simply applying your own subjective interpretation of why I noted your scatter-gun approach to identifying fallacies isn't enough. Worse still, it's dishonest.

According to your loose understanding of the Argument from Ignorance, anyone who simply points out another's the lack of knowledge on a topic is guilty of the fallacy. Such a broad scope would render the fallacy meaningless.

<<Why don't we get back to the topic of this article?>>

You’re welcome to, and I can see why you’d be eager to. Personally, I think it’s been adequately addressed. So, unless you want to provide me with some evidence for your god, I’m done here.

Just an observation, so far the conversation stems along the lines of

1). The actual article defending the religous right to speak. (Defended quite well since none of the original article is actually quoted to critique or counterpoint. That should be noted in it's merit)
2). Those who disagree with religion in general, and think of it as a con job, poison, or otherwise thing it should be shunned and removed from schools and society.
3). And the commenters who defend the rights for religion, as well as those who hold and share their beliefs in their religion as part of the discussion.

With that in mind, if this article is true that Australia is considering changing it's policies with religion and schools, then there is one more point to address. It's whether such a change holds any merrit and is worth restricting the children from their freedom of speach or the community around the school from observing their faiths.

This goes into more then just an umbrella approach of clustering all religions together, because if there is a merited reason for this change and the harm it proposes then there has to be a greater harm among those religions. A danger to society to people in general or something of a nefarious nature. Though I can not speak for other religions, I can say that my experience as a Christian does not meet the type of censorship that could be reserved for dangourous orginizations, removing gangs, or national security.

Again there could be an argument for a different religion, but in my experience churches do what they can to help their community. For the poor, the widowed, the homeless, the sick, the imprisoned, and those who are in a bad place in their life. In fact there are bible teachings to act in such ways.

For such a community builder to be scrunitinized in a school setting where children should be free to speak freely, there needs to be a counter threat worth removing that freedom in the school Systems.

One last observation. People are taking sides for religion or against religion. Instead of seeing rights and liberties taken because you are unhappy with the people, or their beliefs. The only reason to volunteerily remove our rights and liberties are if there is a harm or a danger, such as gang activity, terrorists and national security or something else on that nature. As far as I'm aware religion does not meet that standard.

' but in my experience churches do what they can to help their community. For the poor, the widowed, the homeless, the sick, the imprisoned, and those who are in a bad place in their life. In fact there are bible teachings to act in such ways. '

I suspect that is most people's experience Not_Now.Soon.

Compare that with the bullies whose world is one of self absorption, sexual perversion and wanting those opposed to their sick world view silenced and even taken to court. This has been the experience of many in countries that have gone down this sick path. The slogan 'love wins'is just another perversion of language.

AJ Philips,

<<You’re welcome to [Go back to topic of article], and I can see why you’d be eager to. Personally, I think it’s been adequately addressed. So, unless you want to provide me with some evidence for your god, I’m done here.>>

Evidence for the Lord God Almighty who created the heavens and the earth? I've already done that in this thread. Read Romans 1:18ff and Psalm 19:1-6.

God does not believe in atheists or people who deny his existence. However, you've admitted you have committed apostasy. Unless the Holy Spirit opens your heart to evidence for God's existence, I will be wasting my time providing further evidence. You seem to be hardened against Christianity.

So are you a fortune teller that you "can see why you’d be eager to [go back to the title of the thread]". Let me tell you the only reason, get it - only reason. The topic has wandered so far from its original intent, based on the Bill O'Chee article.

We've moved to discussion of logical fallacies when we should be discussing a child's right to discuss Jesus, Muhammed, Gandhi, Hitler, Almighty God, and Islamic State on the school grounds.

Any god would do, OzSpen.

<<Evidence for the Lord God Almighty who created the heavens and the earth?>>

You don’t even have to get that specific.

<<I've already done that in this thread. Read Romans 1:18ff and Psalm 19:1-6.>>

Yes, I read them. I’ve read the Bible.

Once again, how do you know the Bible is right? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there was nothing extraordinary about the evidence you provided before.

<<God does not believe in atheists or people who deny his existence.>>

How do you know the Bible is right about this? So what if the Bible might have gotten a few mundane details of geography and history correct? If I make ten claims and nine of them turn out to be true, does that mean the tenth claim is true?

<<However, you've admitted you have committed apostasy.>>

Yes. So what? All atheists, who used to be religious, have.

<<Unless the Holy Spirit opens your heart to evidence for God's existence, I will be wasting my time providing further evidence.>>

So, in other words, I need to want to believe before I will believe? Fake it til I make it? Sounds like self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

Here’s the thing, OzSpen: if your god exists, then it would know what it would take to convince me of its existence, yet apparently it refuses to do this. Furthermore, an omnipotent and omniscient god would have chosen a reality in which I became an atheist, when it could have chosen a different reality. Now, why would it do that?

<<You seem to be hardened against Christianity.>>

No, I’m just not gullible, and would prefer that my beliefs be rationally justifiable.

<<So are you a fortune teller that you "can see why you’d be eager to [go back to the title of the thread]".>>

One doesn’t need to be a fortune teller to envisage a possible motivation. What an absurd thing to say.

AJ, would any evidance for God do? Personal experiences included? There are plenty of personal experiences with regard to prayer, feeling God is near, answered prayers, and some strange observations that look like miracles, or experiences with angels.

If you don't mind me saying so, I'd say stastically speaking there's quite a bit of evidance for God that is outright ignored. On top of the stastically element finding someone with some kind of experience is usually less then a stone throw away. Friends, family, coworkers, people you probabley trust in other aspects of life and know as reasonable and rationel have had some experience that supports the existence of God or at least someone like God being there.

If personal experience will do then I'm sure you can easily find that kind of evidance. Many would probabley volunteer their experiences if it meant you could find what they have found.

Just some thoughts.

Welcome Not_Now.Soon,

Those who oppose religion do believe that religion is dangerous. At the bottom line, they fear that it would endanger their personal freedom, most commonly their sexual freedom. They tend to dress it up in big words, including atheism, but this is what it really comes down to.

Sadly, this has a rational basis because historically, religious people as well as those claiming to be religious, have made this mistake of restricting others' freedoms. Some still do (especially in Islam).

Religion is about bringing YOURSELF closer to God - even with the best of intentions you cannot drag others with you, certainly not kicking and screaming: that's wrong and sinful, it's not God's way. The only way one can rise above their animal nature is through free choice. Everyone will eventually reach God, but the timing is up to each one of us, we have absolutely no right to interfere in the timing of others.

' Religion is about bringing YOURSELF closer to God - even with the best of intentions you cannot drag others with you, certainly not kicking and screaming'

you are right on this Yuyutsu but one would be totally blind not to acknowledge that what ideologies kids are taught and modelled will more often than not bring blessing or cursing on their life. Look at the poor kids these days who are denied a father, fed filth by the 'safe' schools deviants and prevented from hearing the truth as to what is right and wrong. This is the world that the bullies from the SSM campaign want. They are to self absobed to see where it leads. Yes everyone should be given a free will but its hard to choose when you only get fed secular lies.

That you for the welcome Yuyutsu. Your right on point saying that people think religion is dangerous. I think there a lot of harm combining all religions together when critizing religion, because the specifics get muddied over and the danger (if any) is lost in the rhetoric. If we do this the actual dangers will not be resolved.

Welcome, Not_Now.Soon

<<... would any evidance for God do?>>

I’d prefer reliable evidence.

<<Personal experiences included?>>

Generally not. They're not very reliable given that there always seems to be rational explanations for them.

<<There are plenty of personal experiences with regard to prayer…>>

Prayer has been demonstrated to not have any effect beyond that of a placebo, and is useless if an omniscient god exists.

“Your will be done.”

<<... feeling God is near …>>

Yes, I had all the usual personal experiences like these, too, and would sometimes exchange stories with fellow congregation members, so I’ve heard about the personal experiences of many others, too. It's usually mundane and scientifically-explainable stuff such as the euphoric feeling Christians get at church, which they assume is the Holy Spirit.

<<... and some strange observations that look like miracles ...>>

I'd like to see evidence for that. It's hardly surprising that God won't heal amputees, don’t you think?

<<... answered prayers …>>

Yes, and if they’re not answered they they didn’t have enough faith or God is working in mysterious ways. It's set up so that the belief can never be challenged.

<<... finding someone with some kind of experience is usually less then a stone throw away.>>

How do they know it's God? If they'd never heard of God, would they interpret the feelings as being the work of God?

Incidentally, what kind of a god gives Paul a definitive revelation and then plays silly buggers with the rest of us like that?

AJ Philips,

<<Once again, how do you know the Bible is right? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and there was nothing extraordinary about the evidence you provided before.>>

The extraordinary claims have been demonstrated by:

1. Those who have tested the reliability of Scripture and have found it to be accurate and authentic. Read Jason Jackson's, "Luke, the Beloved Historian" at: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1196-luke-the-beloved-historian.

2. Human history pivots on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why is it 2017 this year? Thanks to Jesus extraordinary feats.

3. Changed lives from druggies to saints, criminals to upright citizens have demonstrated the change that Jesus brings in a person's life. John Newton, William Wilberforce and Chuck Colson were radically changed through spiritual rebirth.

From that incredible life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Christianity has grown worldwide to 2.2 billion adherents.

I'd call these factors 'extraordinary evidence' but I don't expect you to endorse that assessment.

OzSpen,

None of your so-called evidence is particularly extraordinary. Certainly not extraordinary enough to believe that the miracles in the Bible actually happened as reported. That’s some pretty mundane stuff you’re provided me with, actually.

1. I saw nothing compelling here at all. Perhaps you could tell me what you thought was so compelling about it? Worse still, the page even appears to claim that the Gospel of Luke was actually written by Luke.

2. The fact that the numbering system for our years is based on the alleged birth of Jesus is not evidence of anything other than the fact that those who came up with the numbering system thought that his birthday would be a good reference point.

3. So, Christianity provides an emotional crutch? A lot of religions do. So what? A lie can still provide meaning to an individual’s life. That it does says nothing about the truth behind its claims. This is a non sequitur.

You’re right, I don’t find your evidence very compelling at all. Perhaps if your god would reveal himself to me in a way that a belief in him could be rationally justifiable, then you’d have a convert on your hands. Since he hasn’t, I can only conclude that either he doesn’t care to, or that he doesn’t exist.

Thank you for the welcome AJ Philips. I'm sorry you've had some experience that you've discarded. If I might, I have a thought concerning similar findings. There's a parable that I know as the parable of four soils. It's one of the parables that is given and then also explained to the disciples. But it gives four reactions to hearing the gospel. The first one is hearing the word, and not understanding it. In that parable the seed of the word falls on a hard path and is latter taken away before it can take root. If I'm not mistaken this is exactly what you've described. Discarding even your own experiences as well as those you've known from people you know.

On experiences I can tell you that I've found prayers to be real. But my experiences are of little value because you don't know me, so how could you trust me. On experiences I can tell you that God does act. Miracles and the such are real. Even mundane actions that reach us. I've found bits of both and heard the same from others, that had nothing to gain to share their experiences to me, so I assume there's no reason to lie or question their rational state of mind. I'm telling you this because I think there's danger in casual discarding other people's experiences (or your own). Especially if they are common enough occurrences.

Regarding unanswered prayer...

<<if they’re not answered they they didn’t have enough faith or God is working in mysterious ways. It's set up so that the belief can never be challenged.>>

I hate hearing the idea of unanswered prayer to be a measure of faith. Sometimes the answer is simply a "no." Not that God needs to give a reason or that the person praying lacks faith or otherwise has short comings. Those could be a reason, or they could simply be that God says no to the prayer.

AJ Philip as to your other points...

Regarding people having experiences in some way with God...

<<How do they know it's God? If they'd never heard of God, would they interpret the feelings as being the work of God?,

Incidentally, what kind of a god gives Paul a definitive revelation and then plays silly buggers with the rest of us like that?>>

I don't know God's reasons, nor do I know that one person's interpretations is God's last work in their lives or even if they are always from God. Because of this I actually hold experience as highly valuable, but interpretations of experiences are not always as easy to hold. I hope you can relate.

As for Paul, I'm not sure of how many people would want his life. From what the bible's says after his revelation he held his guilt heavily calling himself the worse of sinners. He was persecuted by leaders of towns both Jewish religious leaders and Gentiles who had a market to lose with their selling idols. Paul was stoned at least once, on the run several times, put to court at least once, and according to tradition eventually died by Romans. His revelation might have been there to strengthen him. But then again who knows.

AJ Philips,

<<None of your so-called evidence is particularly extraordinary. Certainly not extraordinary enough to believe that the miracles in the Bible actually happened as reported. That’s some pretty mundane stuff you’re provided me with, actually.>>

That's your personal, subjective opinion with no more authority than autonomous projections.

Not_Now.Soon,

Your parable isn’t relevant to me. I was a Christians for twenty-something years and was actively involved in my church. I assisted with Sunday school, was briefly a Youth Group leader, and would attend the weekly Bible study sessions. I lost my faith because I eventually realised that I couldn’t rationally justify my beliefs.

<<But my experiences are of little value because you don't know me, so how could you trust me.>>

Your experiences mean little to me not because I don’t know you (I believe that you are convinced of everything you say), but because they likely have other rational explanations (going by my experiences, and the reported experiences I’ve heard from others).

<<… I think there's danger in casual discarding other people's experiences (or your own).>>

If there is danger in it, then it is God’s responsibility to provide reliable evidence for his existence, instead of playing silly buggers.

<<Regarding unanswered prayer … Sometimes the answer is simply a "no.">>

Or it could be that God doesn’t exist. If you never consider this possibility, then you will never be able to trust the conclusions you arrive at.

As I said before, though, prayer is useless if God is omniscient, because he already knows what will happen and that can’t change without creating a paradox. It astonishes me how many Christians have never considered this. I never did, either.

<<As for Paul, I'm not sure of how many people would want his life.>>

This is beside the point. Furthermore, the suggestion that God revealing himself in a reliable way would inevitably result in what happened to Paul is absurd. Even if it were an inevitability, though, it sounds like it would be a small price to pay compared to what God is going to do to us if we don’t believe in him.

--

OzSpen,

No, it’s not just my personal opinion. I provided reasoning as to why your argument wasn’t compelling, too. Brushing it off as mere personal opinion, without explaining why my reasoning isn’t sufficient, is fallacious.

AJ Philips, with respect I owe you an apology. No one usually likes to be psychoanalized, expecially by those who are not psychologists when it wasn't asked for. However I have to disagree with you.

<<Your parable isn’t relevant to me. I was a Christians for twenty-something years and was actively involved in my church. I assisted with Sunday school, was briefly a Youth Group leader, and would attend the weekly Bible study sessions. I lost my faith because I eventually realised that I couldn’t rationally justify my beliefs.>>

In your confusion of what you believed (or thought you believed) you tossed them away as a conclusion that they weren't rational. This seems to meet up the closest with that part of the parable as opposed to the other two soils the seed fell on. I hope you can forgive my saying so, but I do not see my point as being wrong.

<<Or it could be that God doesn’t exist. If you never consider this possibility, then you will never be able to trust the conclusions you arrive at.

As I said before, though, prayer is useless if God is omniscient, because he already knows what will happen and that can’t change without creating a paradox. It astonishes me how many Christians have never considered this. I never did, either.>>

You asked earlier about unanswered prayers. My answer was based on that. But if unanswered prayers add to the point that God doesn't exist, then doesn't answered prayers exclaime the point that God exists. In this way I can tell you a foundation of my faith being rational. It's the same rationality as Thomas who is known for his doubting. Jesus is said to have returned again when Thomas was there and then Thomas believed. Likewise my observations are my steadfast proof. Seeing is believing, is part of my foundation because God has answered some of my prayers. The same foundation as doubting Thomas.

What more can I say? Would it matter? I would hope that it would, but it's been my experience on forums that with regard to spiritual experiences, those who doubt them eventually come to simular conclusions. Whether they say it politely like it wasn't my fault, or aggressively to leave a sting, the conclusions are that I am not reliable even to myself. In other words crazy, deranged, and ignorant of my own condition. As said before it's usually never appreciated to be psychoanalized by those who don't know any better and get it wrong anyways.

This is why I gave the recommendation to consider the people you've known instead of someone you don't. That way you can identify how rationel they are or whether they have twisted discernment. I'm sorry to hear you've never met anyone who's had an experience that goes beyond just a feeling they get regarding God.

If you would like, I can tell you some of mine own. Though I'm sure you will say they are mundane. Even the one where I am still alive from prayers. They aren't entertainment pieces, nor impressive feats like growing back a limb. But they have shown me that God listens, responds, and sometimes even answers in a recoginizable way that it is from Him and not another reason.

No need to apologise, Not_Now.Soon.

<<No one usually likes to be psychoanalized …>>

It was nothing, compared to some of the offensive psychoanalysis I’m used to from one notorious regular on OLO. I'm sure you will receive one of his diagnoses eventually, too. Many of us have.

<<In your confusion of what you believed (or thought you believed) you tossed them away as a conclusion that they weren't rational.>>

Kind of. It might not be important, but to clarify, I disregarded them after I realised that I couldn’t rationally justify a belief in a god. I didn’t stop believing after I realised that the experiences had more rational explanations.

<<… if unanswered prayers add to the point that God doesn't exist, then doesn't answered prayers exclaime the point that God exists.>>

Logically, yes. But how can you know that a god did indeed answer the prayer? How did you rule out co-incidence? That’s the problem.

<<It's the same rationality as Thomas who is known for his doubting.>>

There’s a big difference between that which can be more rationally explained by co-incidence (no matter how bizarre), and seeing a person you saw killed rise again.

Have you experienced anything that could be akin to seeing a person, who had been dead for three days, rise again? Even if you had, how could you know that it was the work of a god? Not only are we susceptible to hallucination, but any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. How could you rule out either of these two?

Then there’s also the issue of how bad our memories are, which change over time. Especially if we want to believe that what we saw was miraculous.

<<… I can tell you some of mine own [experiences] … Even the one where I am still alive from prayers.>>

Feel free to go into more detail. No pressure, though. But if you just prayed and got better after being sick, or were rescued in hopeless conditions, then I’m unlikely to find it very compelling.

It might take a day or two (or three). But I'll try to give you a few things I have to offer. They aren't that impressive. But to me they are more then enough. I'll try to explain at least a few.

When I was almost two years old, I had a head injury, was in the hospital, and after doctors worked to save my life I was in a coma. Though I wasn't part of the prayers I am told that family and friends of my parents, and two faith communities had the accident in their prayers. After two weeks I woke up. According to my parents I said something that I would say back then. Because of that they knew I was still the same boy, and was ok. I do take this as an answer to my parents prayers, and I also think God was involved with the doctors when they performed surgery to relieve swelling, as well as any of the other medical needs that happened.

Some time later when I was still young, I was down. And though I can't remember the details of why, I do remember a prayer that God would take my life. Instead I got a different reaction. The feelings I had were overcome by a feeling of love and compassion. In a way it's like the feeling you get when hugged on a really bad day, only exaggerate that feeling. The bible talks about the peace and love from God. I think this was it. Since then while still growing up whenever I felt depressed and prayed for God's help he gave me that kind of love and peacefulness. I know you said earlier that a feeling from God isn't what you'd call as anything, but let me tell you, these feelings are worth noting to a person who held occasional episodes of mild depression. They were not my own feelings because those were already there just getting me down. There are other times and other kinds of feelings I've gotten, for now though keep in mind the kind of answers a that deal on a feeling. Your experiences and others might have more merit then you give them.

(Continued)

Highschool drama of a relationship coupled with an idealistic mindset for what love is eventually set me up to an emotionally negative aftermath when the relationship ended. I had prayed for God to help me and that I didn't want that kind of anger to continue to grow inside me. He answered. Not just a feeling like an emotion. But a sensation none the less in my head. The best I can explain it is that after the prayer, and the following day, I held all the memories I had before regarding the relationship I was in, and I could think about why I should be angry about it. But instead there wasn't an emotion there. It was like God had given me a blank slate regarding the relationship. I didn't try to regain the anger.

There are a few times that I know God answered a prayer request. Many of those are probably mundane. I'd like to share two of those anyways. One was after a wedding celebration driving home, I was tired and scared of falling asleep at the wheel or drive dangerously I said a quick prayer, and like a shot of coffee I was awake and alert for the rest of the drive as well as an hour or so afterwards. The other is a prayer for my mom when she started her own house cleaning business and worked for my grandma. Mom's relationship with my grandma was becoming strained. One day I asked her how it was going and she said it was doing fine. Nothing had changed, but she felt ok with my grandma anyways. These two prayers I share because they show

1). Praying can create physical changes not just feelings
And 2). That prayers for other people also work, so it's not an observation of believing and deceiving ourself to think it really happened.

AJ Philips. If you read the above experiences, then hear me out once more. You had said that if there's any other explaination to explain the prayers being answered then we should take that explaination. No matter how strange. There is a problem with this outlook that makes people discard their experiences and others. The danger is that our philosophy and our understanding should not be the highest authority when discerning the truth. If we do not let experience (our own or others) have a higher authority, then our experiences can not correct or support our current views or past views.

Therefore take my experiences and judge them on the merrit you would judge me on. If I am rationel, sensible, and show no signs that warrant a mistrust; then hold my experiences in that same light. This judgement call would be easier with someone you know face to face. But as a general rule, for me or anyone else consider that whoever tells you about their life, they have just as good discernment as you do, better then you do in fact when it comes to their own experiences. Unless there are tell tell signs that say otherwise, or there is motivation to lie such as when money is involved or a favor being asked, take the experiences told at face value with little or no reason to doubt them.

This is my advise that I hope you take and consider. Thankyou for reading.

Thanks for sharing your experiences, Not_Now.Soon. Our suspicions were right, I don’t find them very compelling, sorry. Again, the problem is that they all have other, more rational explanations.

<<You had said that if there's any other explaination to explain the prayers being answered then we should take that explaination.>>

Only if the other explanation is more rational, and a naturalistic explanation is always going to be more rational. Then there’s Occam’s Razor, too.

<<There is a problem with this outlook that makes people discard their experiences and others.>>

Then God needs to provide better evidence for his existence. He would know what it would take to convince each individual of his existence, yet he chooses not to do that in many circumstances.

<<Therefore take my experiences and judge them on the merrit you would judge me on. If I am rationel, sensible, and show no signs that warrant a mistrust; then hold my experiences in that same light.>>

No can do, sorry. Rational and intelligent people can still believe irrational things.

Do you believe in an omniscient god and, if so, how do you reconcile this with a god that answers prayer?

AJ Philips, I think we would come to odds when measuring what is more rational. But that's not a good point to follow. (Too much philosophizing with little to no foundation to back up the reasons outside of their own arguments). I will say this though. The problem I get from my life is that in order to believe that God doesn't exist, I need to first discard the evidance of Him being in my life. It's not rational in my opinion to discard what's set in front of you, in order to satisfy one conclusion or another. For you it might not be rational to believe a conclusion without evidence, but I hope you agree that discarding evidance is not rational either.

No worries about whether my experiences were convincing to you or not. But I did want to give you a variety of experiences, so that you could know it wasn't one explaination to justify the experiences to be in error or somehow delusional. In my life God justified my faith. Gave me a variety of experiences to hold up against caution and doubt. And I do have both caution and doubt. Too many philosophies and theologies inside Christianity and outside Christianity to not have been burdened with doubt. My Occam's Razor for this is not to look for the simplist answer, but to cut through it with a solid foundation of experience and bible knowledge. (I know that's not Occam's razor, but I don't have a name for that kind of method to cut through the muck.)

AJ Phillips you said earlier:

<<Then God needs to provide better evidence for his existence. He would know what it would take to convince each individual of his existence, yet he chooses not to do that in many circumstances.>>

It seems like you want to be wowed more then come to the truth. God being powerful can do this and should do this for you, is the kind of logic I get out of your perspective. But the problem is that He had done it for Isreal in it's exodus from Egypt yet they still turned away. Through Isreal's history God set a standard that is used at least a few times. Seek God and He will come. Turn from God and He will (eventually) leave you. Perhaps there's merrit for this in today's world as well?

<<Do you believe in an omniscient god and, if so, how do you reconcile this with a god that answers prayer?>>

I believe in God, the God. As for prayer it doesn't need reconciliation because it has been observed. Since you've asked though I'll give you my conclusions. God is like a father with his children. Watching his kids the dad probably knows when they need help with something and is ready to help at any time with it, but for this father he still waits for the children to ask. This answers for prayers that request something. For other prayers I think God likes to have us talk to Him. Like a father is over-joyed when his kids want to talk to him. God knows what we need and what we will ask, even when we will ask it. But he still waits for us to pray because it's how He wants to have a relationship with Him.

This is my rational. It stems from Jesus's calling God father and telling us to do the same, and from observations looking back from my own dad. I would still say though that conclusions are second to the reality set forth from experience. Even if there's no conclusions why something occurs, experience trumps philosophy.

Not_Now.Soon,

Yes, but you’re assuming that it is indeed evidence of a god.

<<… in order to believe that God doesn't exist, I need to first discard the evidance of Him being in my life.>>

Without a means of verifying if your experiences are indeed evidence for a god, then all you can do is take it on faith - which is what most theists seem happy enough to do.

You don’t need to discard your experiences, but it is a considerable leap to conclude that they are indeed evidence for a god.

<<It's not rational in my opinion to discard what's set in front of you …>>

No, but it is irrational to assume that it is evidence of a god when there are simpler, more rational explanations.

<<It seems like you want to be wowed more then come to the truth.>>

No, I’m definitely more interested in the truth than being wowed. In this instance, however, being wowed should naturally accompany any evidence that I would find convincing, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

<<God being powerful can do this and should do this for you, is the kind of logic I get out of your perspective.>>

Yes, anything that could qualify as a god should know what it takes to convince me; and a god that has an important message for us all and wants to share it, should do it.

<<But the problem is that He had done it for Isreal in it's exodus from Egypt yet they still turned away.>>

This is not a reason to accept or expect less-extraordinary evidence, even if we could know that this really did happen.

<<Seek God and He will come.>>

Of course. This is a given. If one wants to believe strongly enough, then naturally one is going be convinced that they found evidence or witnessed a sign, eventually - whether or not a god exists. And it always seems to be the god(s) most predominant in one’s culture, too.

Continued…

…Continued

<<I believe in God, the God.>>

This sidesteps my question. Unless, of course, you’re referring to the classic Christian omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god, in which case, I’d take that as a ‘yes’.

<<As for prayer it doesn't need reconciliation because it has been observed.>>

Yes, it does need to be reconciled. An omniscient god would know what was going to happen in the future, therefore, He could not stray from what He already knew was going to happen without creating a paradox. Therefore, prayer cannot change anything. Unless you’re conceding that the prayer part is redundant, your father-children analogy doesn’t get around this paradox, either.

This paradox is a legitimate problem for Christianity. So much so, in fact, that Christian apologists have started referring to God as “maximally powerful”. Which, in this instance, would mean that God would not know what was going to happen in the future.

Oh AJ Phillips, what would it take? You say God would know what it would take to convince you He is real, but do you know? I have told you a small diverse experiences. They are not alone, but these experiences are enough for me to know. I've been rescued from death and coma, felt God's love in prayer, and felt sadness from prayers. I've prayed for both myself and others and even without fireworks attached God answered. I've found a God to be real and so AI searched for Him by His teachings. Hoping to find something from Him in some religion because I know I've found Him in prayer. And guess what? Reading the bible I felt God's presence simular to when I prayed in my young downer times. It was like God was reading it with me, helping me read it. Both the old Testiment which confirmed my views that at least Jewish faith was real and New Testiment to confirm Jesus's gospels are right as well.

I understand that I've moved on from the search of "if God exists" to "What God wants, and how to follow Him." It is not a question for me to fathom if God exists. It's more of a wonder of how His existance isn't as obvious to everyone else. What would it take to convince you? What would it take to show you? Do you even know? You say what I have is not enough. HA! If only you really knew! You don't need my experiences, and by how you're approaching them I'd assume your own experiences wouldn't be enough. What it seems like you need is for someone to convince you. Battle your philosophy that you think is reasonable, with something undeniable. But would you still deny it? Is there something that is enough? Something that can cut through the muck?

...continued...

...continued...

I'll give you another theory. Consider I ask you. At one time Jesus and His disciples went across water in a boat. And when they arrived on the other side religious leader waited on the other side saying for Jesus to prove Himself. Then in their greed they said Moses provided Mana from Heaven, what would Jesus offer to convince them. Make note that Jesus had just come providing a miracle, and everywhere he went people came to be healed and they were healed. So proof was already there. What they wanted was more. More more and then even more. Jesus left them calling them for what they were. Greedy and selfish, not actually caring about Jesus or finding out the truth.

I hope your motives are not like this, but I feel you should be warned. What are you looking for? The truth of God existing? An all powerful genie to grant your entertainment or your whims or you will disbelieve Him again? Or do you only want to be right? And care not for finding anything more. Indeed if you found it you would discard it, because "it was not enough." Take my works and heed their critism AJ Phillips. Search your motivations and discern within yourself. What should it take, and would it ever be enough?

Enough philosophy and cares about paradoxes. Those can be fathomed and wondered about things that we see and find in front of us. Philosophers and comedians can make common things complex paradoxes, yet they still exist. Us swayed by wit or clever sight. So what value are they if they do not reveal the truth? If I answer your question on God answering prayers would that be enough? Do you even know if anything will be enough?

No, I don’t know what it would take to convince me, Not_Now.Soon.

<<You say God would know what it would take to convince you He is real, but do you know?>>

I think it would be arrogant of me to assume that I knew. Even if a god presented themselves to me visually, and then performed a miracle, how do I know that I wasn’t hallucinating? How do I know that I’m not just seeing some advanced alien technology? Again, sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic.

All I know is that anything that could qualify as a god WOULD know what it would take to convince me.

<<I have told you a small diverse experiences. They are not alone …>>

For so long as there are more rational explanations, I don’t think it matters how numerous the experiences are.

<<Reading the bible I felt God's presence simular to when I prayed in my young downer times.>>

Yes, such feelings are quite understandable, especially if one is looking for a god or some guidance. But how can you verify that it’s the presence of a god when we have no other gods to compare it to?

Prayer can help people to feel much better. In a situation where one was, say, trapped in a mine shaft, it may even help them to survive long enough to be rescued if it slows their breathing rate down. No god is required for prayer to work in such a situation. There is a perfectly rational explanation for the increased chance of survival.

<<Both the old Testiment which confirmed my views that at least Jewish faith was real and New Testiment to confirm Jesus's gospels are right as well.>>

And if you lived in the Middle-East, you’d probably be saying the same about the Qur’an.

<<You say what I have is not enough. HA! If only you really knew!>>

Going by what you’ve told me, yes. It might be enough for you, but it’s not enough for me, because there is no way to rule out more rational explanations.

Continued…

…Continued

Even if you could rule out all the other more rational explanations, though, all that leaves you with is a mystery. There is no way to rationally conclude that any of it was the work of a god.

<<… [going] by how you're approaching them I'd assume your own experiences wouldn't be enough.>>

Correct. My experiences were much the same as what you described: stuff that can be explained by co-incidence and the psychological effects of prayer.

<<Then in their greed they said Moses provided Mana from Heaven, what would Jesus offer to convince them.>>

Yes, John 6. No, that is in no way analogous to my situation or any other sceptic that I am aware of.

My belief started to wane when I realised that evolution was a fact and that the Bible got it all so wrong, not because I didn't get what I wanted. My atheism snowballed from there. What kind of a deceitful god makes everything in a way such that he appears to not have been needed at all, and then recounts the events so woefully wrong in his own book?!

Now, had Jesus provided us with scientific information that no-one could have possibly known back then, instead of performing gimmicky miracles that we have no way of verifying actually happened, then THAT would be something! Perhaps some useful information such as: a bath at least once a week will help reduce disease. But, no, instead, he perpetuated myths about demonic possession which resulted in hundred of years of deadly superstition.

<<Philosophers and comedians can make common things complex paradoxes, yet they still exist.>>

Really? Do you have an example?

<<If I answer your question on God answering prayers would that be enough?>>

I don’t think you could, to be honest. One cannot resolve a paradox. The best you could do would be to downgrade God to ‘maximally powerful’. Which makes him a little impotent, in my opinion.

Evolutional? Really AJ Phillips? You've said you've had all the simular experiences that I've had, and evolution cornered it out of you? I'm doubting your words AJ Phillips. This sounds like an argument for creating credibility where it's not really there. But regardless of my doubts, your untold experiences are your own just as mine are my own. Hearing about mine won't convince you. Your unwilling to hear them. If what you say is true though, and you've had accounts in your life that God reached out to you, or you thought He did, but later you deny their being real. Then let me assure you, your experiences were not like mine. And hearing mine apparently won't replace those weak feeling. So I'll move on.

Evolution. What part of evolution had you lose faith? Was it micro evolution where we see changes in a species from one family to another. Was it macro evolution that has one species turn into another. A split of a species into two other kinds long long ago? Or is it the pervasive use of evolution that convinced you? Instead of changing times it's that times are evolving. Instead of growth it's how we evolved as individuals. Instead of being a biological term evolution even is quoted as a topic of social and socitial growth and change. The term has become so loose that quoting it as a means to disregard your faith becomes a swampland where the ever growing talk of evolution takes place of other real sciences. Replaces them and takes credit for their discoveries. Then spin off theories of evolution are swamped in as if part of the same theory (if there's only one) to lay claim from observations of simular characteristics between species to the origins of life on earth.

I give you this swath of a discription so you can order stand how deceptive it has become. Things don't have to hold merrit or be observed and scrunitinized scientifically if it is under the paradigm of evolution.

Let me try another approach before moving to other points you've given. In Christianity there are many theories, philosophies, theologies, and such. So when going through any of that it's good to have a solid foundation to start from to discern the rest and value what is true and what is muck. In science, innovation, or engineering you need the same thing. A solid foundation so science isn't garbled by errors or the want for more grant funding. A foundation so that an invention is real and not a con like snakeskin oil. Or a foundation so that when building something to last an engineer is not swayed by costs and theories made to cut corners for their profit, or just junk ideas, they can measure it by what they already know, the foundation that is tested and true. In evolution theories this is a much needed element that I see is slack in it's theories. Don't be taken by any of the muck until you have a solid foundation to stand on and consider the merits of everything else.

As for the aspects of the evolutionary theories that I've seen hold merrit. And the exciting new discoveries that are claimed under evolutionary paradigms. I've not found any that would cause me to question my faith. So I highly recommend you not get lost in the muck of any subject matter. Seek a solid foundation to start from then go from there.

That’s correct, Not_Now.Soon.

<<You've said you've had all the simular experiences that I've had, and evolution cornered it out of you?>>

That was what got the ball rolling, at least. As I said before, what kind of a god would be deceitful like that? And, again, the experiences all have very simple and rational explanations.

<<This sounds like an argument for creating credibility where it's not really there.>>

How do you mean?

<<Your unwilling to hear [the experiences].>>

No, I’m happy to hear them. I’m just not going to jump to the conclusion that a god is behind them all when they can all be explained in more rational ways.

<<Then let me assure you, your experiences were not like mine.>>

Going by what you told me, they were VERY much like yours.

<<What part of evolution had you lose faith?>>

I already explained that in my last post.

Further to what I had said, I tried to reconcile it with my faith at first, but this would have meant believing that for around 198,000 years, God sat back with total indifference and watched humans being born (many dying in the process, including the mother), then only living to about 25 years old, which they then died in horrendous and painful ways as the result of war, famine, their teeth, or microorganisms which they didn’t know existed; only for us to then make some small progress towards the end of it all with immense suffering and labour. Then, after 198,000 years, God finally decides that it’s time to intervene, and the only way he can think of to do this, is to come down in human form and offer himself in a filthy sacrifice in a remote and illiterate part of Palestine; the news of which has still not completely penetrated the rest of the world.

Why kind of a god works in such a negligent and half-arsed way?

<<Was it micro evolution … Was it macro evolution ...>>

Both. The only meaningful distinction here is time. These terms are only used by creationists.

Continued…

…Continued

<<I give you this swath of a discription so you can order stand how deceptive it has become.>>

I don’t see how you’ve done that, sorry. All you seem to be saying is that ‘evolution’ is a word which can apply to many things, therefore, the concept is now too vague to be something to lose one's faith over. But this would be a silly thing to say, because we’re only talking about it in reference to biology, and in this context, the idea is very distinct.

<<In evolution theories this is a much needed element that I see is slack in it's theories.>>

What do you mean by its “theories”? Evolution is one theory. You don’t seem to understand what 'theory' means in the scientific sense. It seems to me like you’re confusing 'theory' with 'hypothesis'.

Evolution is not lacking in any “solid foundation” either. It is a well-established fact. It is one of the most comprehensive, cohesive, and proven theories in science.

<<Don't be taken by any of the muck until you have a solid foundation to stand on and consider the merits of everything else.>>

What is this “muck” you speak of? And I hope you’re not referring to the merits of creationism. Creationism is a thoroughly-debunked load of nonsense. As a Christian, I was a creationist, so I understand how little merit is has.

<<As for the aspects of the evolutionary theories … I've not found any that would cause me to question my faith.>>

Then how would you reconcile the apparent deceit and neglect of a god who is supposed to be omnibenevolent and omnipotent?

AJ Phillips,

<<Yes, it does need to be reconciled. An omniscient god would know what was going to happen in the future, therefore, He could not stray from what He already knew was going to happen without creating a paradox.>>

You've mentioned paradoxes more then once. Listen to what I say.

If God is all knowing but not all powerful then he could not as easily answer prayers. Nor could He If He was all powerful but not all knowing. This paradox does not rely on God being all powerful or all knowing but rests on the unsaid assumption that God winded up the universe like a toy and then let it go undisturbed since. That assumption is in great error.

If God is all knowing and all powerful, then He would know when we will pray and when we would turn away. He would know our choices before we chose them, and He would know those choices in relation to the world around us too. If He was all knowing he can see and interact with all of this as He sees fit. Answering prayers, or letting a person's life fall apart a little. Allowing success to their choices or holding that success back. The answer to your paradox is that God is not just all knowing and all powerful, but He is also sovereign and active in the world as well. This addresses the prayer paradox as well as the free will paradoxes.
__________
But these are my figurings, what difference do they make? Being too concerned with philosophical arguments and reconciling paradoxes is the kind of stuff I mean when I speak of cutting through the muck. Find a solid ground, a stable foundation. Because people can argue philosophical pondering against other philosophical pondering and have no end. Philosophical reasoning does not have authority over other philosophical reasoning. There needs to be more trusted sources then being a deep thinker or an good debater for discerning the truth. Experience is one such source. Age having more experience is often rightly seen as having greater wisdom as well.

<<Then how would you reconcile the apparent deceit and neglect of a god who is supposed to be omnibenevolent and omnipotent?>>

I figure there are two factors to consider. One is rebellion against God in general. If I understand it correctly then Saran is an enemy. One in rebellion against God, or who had been in rebellion and lost. Our tragic tales of history might be a witness for both ourselves and everyone else as well. A Testiment of what happens when people turn away from God. After all if angels are watching over us they might also be given this lesson. This is what the world would look like if you rebel. There is no paridise, no reward, no great power under the rebellion. There is war, greed, corruption, injustice, and evils that those who are evil can not excape from. The only longstanding positive witness is that those who seek God, He will look after. Even in the mist of their sufferings or in the mix of their joys. I figure our history is a witness to the powers above.

Even with this witness though God shows His love. Reaches out to humanity to reconcile it back to Him. And He will keep as a treasured possession all that do go back to Him and follow His teaching to conquor evil by doing good.
________________________

Philosophy can help a person live and reason. But it can't change how things actually are in the world. Only how they are look at. A philosopher's paradox about God has as much impact as a comedian's paradox of how men and women are attracted to one another. The attraction exists, and so does God. The problem is that the comedian knows the attraction exists. It helps with the joke. Philosophers don't acknowledge that their reasoning as anything less then the authority of how the world works. Don't get caught up in that muck.

Not_Now.Soon,

I’m not sure you’re understanding the paradoxical issues surrounding prayer.

<<The answer to your paradox is that God is not just all knowing and all powerful, but He is also sovereign and active in the world as well.>>

Appealing to God’s alleged sovereignty doesn’t resolve the problem, it merely introduces yet another complication. In fact, it’s a form of Begging the Question and Special Pleading.

If we prayed, and God altered the course of what he knew was going to happen because of that prayer, then this would create a paradox. This means that, if a god does exist, then it cannot be omniscient.

Omnipotence has similar problems. One could ask, for example, “Can God create a rock so big that he cannot lift it?”, but simply asserting that God is sovereign and active in the world does not address the problem.

Again, this is why apologists, like William Lane Craig, have reduced God to ‘maximally powerful’ (which has its own problems).

<<This addresses the prayer paradox as well as the free will paradoxes.>>

No, it doesn’t. The free will paradox is yet another problem for Christianity, and it is the reason why I was saying that everything we do would ultimately be the fault of God. If an omniscient god exists, and it created everything to happen as it is happening, then we have no choice in how anything plays out. Our free will would be useless.

<<Being too concerned with philosophical arguments and reconciling paradoxes is the kind of stuff I mean when I speak of cutting through the muck.>>

It sounds to me, then, that by, “cutting through the muck”, you mean ignore the problems or pretend they don’t exist.

<<Find a solid ground, a stable foundation.>>

But how could we achieve that without resolving the issues?

<<There needs to be more trusted sources then being a deep thinker or an good debater for discerning the truth. Experience is one such source.>>

I disagree. Our experiences still require that we think about them before we can come to a conclusion about what they mean.

Continued…

…Continued

The most reliable way we can determine what our experiences mean, however, is to be as objective about them as possible. Science is reliable because objectivity is a tenet of the scientific method. Our subjective feelings, on the other hand, demonstrate to us continuously just how unreliable they are.

<<I figure there are two factors to consider [with regards to God’s apparent deceit and neglect]. One is rebellion against God in general. If I understand it correctly then Saran is an enemy … Our tragic tales of history might be a witness for both ourselves and everyone else as well.>>

(I take it you mean “Satan”, and are not referring to polyethylene food wrap.)

Ignoring for the moment the obvious question of how you know all this: we cannot be to blame, if your theology is correct. It’s so easy to blame people. I did that too when I was a Christian. But doing so ignores the fact that, according to Christian theology, we are not the problem, God is.

The Bible one big book recounting God’s continuous failures where, eventually, instead of just forgiving everyone, He takes the strange step of creating a loophole for rules which He’s in charge of anyway.

Christian theology is absurd.

<<A philosopher's paradox about God has as much impact as a comedian's paradox of how men and women are attracted to one another. The attraction exists, and so does God.>>

You’re missing the point. While the paradoxes may not disprove a god, what they do demonstrate is that if a god does indeed exist, then it cannot exist in the way you believe it does.

There is Karl Popper’s paradox regarding tolerance, too, but it doesn’t disprove the existence of tolerance. What it does is demonstrate that there can never be unlimited tolerance.

Back to God, these paradoxes remain serious issues for Christian theology. They are problems which theologians have struggled with for centuries, and for good reason too. Brushing them off as mere “muck” could never be a solution for anyone who cares about the truth of their beliefs.

<<Appealing to God’s alleged sovereignty doesn’t resolve the problem, it merely introduces yet another complication. >>

Are you familiar with Anerican football? The game is played with offensive team practicing their own "plays" out of their own formation playbook in order to get through the defence's players of the other team. One player (quarterback) throws the foot ball to one of the players running in fomation. If the formation is practiced well enough the quarterback throws the ball to the correct spot one of the runners wil be in to recieve it.

In essence what I'm talking about God being all knowing and all powerful. He can answer a prayer because He knows it's coming and it's already part of His plan to send His answer when the receiver who is praying prays. This is doable because God is all knowing and all powerful. Those don't cause a paradox. They work with eachother not against each other.

<<It sounds to me, then, that by, “cutting through the muck”, you mean ignore the problems or pretend they don’t exist.>>

Philosophical problems aren't real problems. When real problems arise people can have philosophy to get through it, and more to the point they need practical answers to resolve the problem. Philosophy won't change a flat tire, nor cause a heart attack. Understanding how to fix a tire or handle a heart attack helps. But that understanding doesn't cause the problems, and is useless if not acted on. Philosophical aruguing still counts as "muck."

Theology that doesn't serve a purpose outside of arguing and sounding smart is useless to me. Interesting things to think about, with the understanding that whether you figure it all out or not, it will still not change anything. But understanding nor intelect is what saves a person. They help. But in theology and faith the main points are to trust in God, love one another, and follow God's teachings. Believing and trusting in God (at least in Christianity) is the saving element that God holds us to.

<<But how could we achieve that without resolving the issues?>>

Want solid foundation? Consider Mathew 7:28-29. That's the solid ground in both faith and in much of life. Things outside of the scope of Jesus's teachings like specific skills or understanding, you start small. Learn a little get better at it, and learn some more. The more you do this whether it's faith, physics, or welding, the farther your solid ground covers and your discernment of what is right and what isn't.

<<I disagree. Our experiences still require that we think about them before we can come to a conclusion about what they mean.

The most reliable way we can determine what our experiences mean, however, is to be as objective about them as possible. Science is reliable because objectivity is a tenet of the scientific method. Our subjective feelings, on the other hand, demonstrate to us continuously just how unreliable they are.>>

Science is all about experience. The whole point of the scientific method is to have repeatable experiments, repeatable observations, and repeatable experiences. Having a fluke in the results of an experiment that don't match the theory is the kind of thing .i'm talking about where experience corrects our understanding. In fact that's it's rightful place. Coming to conclusions are still second to the actual experiences. Some things we will never know how or why they happened. Even without solid conclusions experience is a better mentor then philosophical understanding. Trial by error works well enough, and can correct incorrect logic.

Not_Now.Soon,

I’m still not sure you’re understanding the issue.

<<He can answer a prayer because He knows it's coming and it's already part of His plan ...>>

This is more touching on the free will paradox.

<<[Omniscience and omnipotence] work with eachother not against each other.>>

Yes, but a paradox would be created if prayed changed the course of what an omniscient god already knew was going to happen.

<<Philosophical problems aren't real problems.>>

Often they are. They certainly are in law.

<<Philosophy won't change a flat tire, nor cause a heart attack.>>

Of course not, but it can raise valid questions as to what one should to in such situations. It can even provide the answers. Without philosophy, how could you know what to do if you have a tyre puncture? Do you change it, or do you sit there and starve to death? Both options have philosophical implications.

<<Theology that doesn't serve a purpose outside of arguing and sounding smart is useless to me …>>

It serves a purpose to the extent that it highlights problems with one’s belief, and if there are problems with one’s belief, then I would have thought that most would want to either modify the belief, or abandon it. This should be the case for anyone who cares about the truth of their beliefs.

<<Want solid foundation? Consider Mathew 7:28-29. That's the solid ground in both faith and in much of life.>>

So, instead of resolving major problems with your theology, you’re going to simply fall back to an assertion in a book? That doesn’t sound like a very solid foundation to me.

<<Having a fluke in the results of an experiment that don't match the theory is the kind of thing .i'm talking about.>>

Yes, but the fluke would still need to be scientifically tested and repeated. How does one do that with alleged experiences of god, while controlling for more rational explanations?

AJ Phillips,

<<not sure you’re understanding the issue.>>

I understand the issue. You should be able to see this by my comments. I just don't agree with you.

<<Yes, but a paradox would be created if prayed changed the course of what an omniscient god already knew was going to happen.>>

Why would prayer change the course if Gid knew ahead of time that the people would pray? Not every prayer needs to be answered as if God is our servent. But praying gives the issue to God, and with His wisdom He can do as He sees right. The prayer part is for us. So we have a relationship with God.

I said that Theology that doesn't serve a purpose outside of arguing and sounding smart is useless to me. You replied

<<It serves a purpose to the extent that it highlights problems with one’s belief, ... This should be the case for anyone who cares about the truth of their beliefs.>>

how can you support meaningless debate. If there's no value from it then it is a waste; an excuse to divide people up. Look up the difference between truth and belief. Your beliefs do not mean they are true. You would not let a sly conman talk you into something because he out talked you would you? In the same way even if you don't support your beliefs through debate it doesn't mean that you are wrong. The truth might not be something you can reach, but your instincts might still be tight on.

<<...you’re going to simply fall back to an assertion in a book? That doesn’t sound like a very solid foundation to me.>>

Do you know what it means to be a Christian at all? You say you were one at one point in time. Yes I trust the bible. The bible being my foundation to know what's from God holds stronger merrit then experience does. And God holds the merrit that I have Him hold because of both faith and experience.

...based on your attitudes towards worthless arguing, I think we're done here.

I’m sorry, Not_Now.Soon, but when you brush them off as mere muck, you don’t.

<<I understand the issue … I just don't agree with you.>>

However, you now appear to acknowledge that prayer doesn’t change anything, so perhaps now you do.

<<Why would prayer change the course if Gid knew ahead of time that the people would pray?>>>

This, again, is more relevant to the free will paradox.

<<Not every prayer needs to be answered as if God is our servent.>>

Actually, that’s debatable. I haven’t suggested this, however.

<<The prayer part is for us. So we have a relationship with God.>>

Okay, I’m happy to go with that.

<<… how can you support meaningless debate.>>

That it is meaningless is your opinion. I find great value in it.

<<Look up the difference between truth and belief.>>

I understand the difference. I encourage theists to do the same. I would suggest that you look up the difference between ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’.

<<Your beliefs do not mean they are true.>>

At no point have suggested otherwise. Indeed, this is why I appeal to reason and evidence.

<<You would not let a sly conman talk you into something because he out talked you would you?>>

No, I wouldn’t.

<<In the same way even if you don't support your beliefs through debate it doesn't mean that you are wrong.>>

Correct.

<<The truth might not be something you can reach, but your instincts might still be tight on.>>

That’s possible, yes. The problem is verifying it.

<<Do you know what it means to be a Christian at all?>>

Yes, I was one for twenty-something years.

<<Yes I trust the bible.>>

I know you do. My baffled-sounding question was asked in the hope that you might question why you trust the Bible, and consider why it is not a solid foundation on which to base anything.

<<...based on your attitudes towards worthless arguing, I think we're done here.>>

My attitude is one of inquiry and scepticism. I’m sorry if you don’t find value in those.

AJ Phillips,

One thing to point out is that before we hijacked this conversation to talk about several point regarding the Christian Faith, 13 pages of comments were given to the topic of if Christianity or any faith should be allowed to be discussed by students within schools. Your stance of arguing through philosophical and theological hurdles strikes the element that you are in very much favor to discuss religion. Thus by the topic of the forum I would hope this long conversation would at least point out that the topic shouldn't be forbidden. Especially to students who should only have restrictions to what they talk about if it is an actual danger to the community. (Gangs or pro terrorist stuff.). All else including religion on an accede mic level should be welcome to be talked about with in the school setting. Your ability to try and talk me out of my faith should be enough grounds that you agree with this topic being discussed in a general sense. Therefore should also be welcomed in a school setting.

Contend...

(.... Continued)

From your arguments we can tell two things (at the very least). 1) that you hold philosophical arguments as a source of authority when discerning what is true and what isn't. And 2) That your philosophy is rational, or in general any perspective against religion and faith is rational. The problem with these is that there is no means of testing what is more rational a philosophy then another, if you use philosophy alone. If you examine it you will surely come to the same conclusion. In scientific conclusions, x,y, or z must be true BECAUSE of the physical evidence with repeatable experience confirms this. It is the same with everything else. Experience is what confirms and corrects our understanding. Philosophy verses philosophy without any more experience to back it up holds no grounds for one to be more reasonable then the other. Thus it is worthless in the most practical sense because it will not lead to anything of more value but instead might add confusion. You should already know this because in another topic you backed up your claim that there is guilt in suppressing your sexual drive. You said you know this because you've experienced this.

(Continued...)

(Continued...)

One phrase you've been repeating to me in the last few comments has been, "I don't think you understand." I have given each of your points a counter point, or a counter explanation. Thus showing I understand your points, and I can reason with them showing how they can be in error. The most you can come back to them is repeating what you've already said or saying "how do you know it's real?" On the one hand I've already explained that pure rational is weaker then experience based understanding, and on enough points in my life I have a foundation to be grounded on in my faith.

On the other hand though, on the points that were addressed on a more theology and understanding level; Since you were not able to counter point any of my points by either acknowledging them and by only trying to weave doubt into them without good rational; a logical conclusion is that you did not understand them. Therefore I will try to explain in more detail some of the main points I made, do that you have no excuse of not understanding. If nothing else you can stand where I stand on your views in this conversation that I understand and I disagree. Hopefully though you will see at least some merit from what has been said here, perhaps later those words along with anything else God gives you, will grow in you and bring a better fruit then your current doubts.

(5 points continued soon.)

1st point. Discerning the truth.

In my opinion there are several levels of discernment. Our understanding and reasoning is the first level. As a whole what mankind has figured out through pure logic is amazing. Even as individuals, we have a good sense of discernment and can pick up cues of that might be right verses what sounds fishy. However as amazing as human logic is, it is the lowest authority for determine what is true and what isn't. Every authority above philosophy can correct or support the understanding we hold. Whether we make sense of the correction or not is second to the point that they can be corrected.

Higher then philosophy is experience. The more experience you have of a similar event the better your understanding will be from that kind of event. And the more experienced a person is, the wiser they are as a whole. Or to put another way, you want an experienced Doctor more then you want a fresh out of college Doctor. Though in both cases you still want one that is knowledgeable having experience trumps just a knowledge base.

Higher then experience is the bible. The reason why this is more valuable is because it is from God. And though God is greater an authority then the bible, for practical purposes the bible and God are on equal ground because one supports the other and does not correct the other. So on a practical application the bible is the foundation for knowing what is from God.

The reason God is higher then experience is because experience confirms the existence of God. But even if you don't have a witnessing experience, the world as a whole shows evidence that there is something greater out there. Once a person can come to terms that God is real and how great God is, then it is easy to navigate why God is greater then our experiences and has the authority to correct us above our experiences. Sometimes trust Him in spite of our experiences. Such as trust Him even when life takes a nose dive.

Your conclusions are incorrect, Not_Now.Soon.

<<1) that you hold philosophical arguments as a source of authority when discerning what is true and what isn't.>>

Not quite. I hold logic, reason, and evidence to be authoritative; the philosophical arguments are a means to convey and consider these.

<<2) That your philosophy is rational, or in general any perspective against religion and faith is rational.>>

It depends on what logic, reason, and the evidence suggest. That they are mine, or go against religion, is irrelevant.

<<The problem with these is that there is no means of testing what is more rational a philosophy then another, if you use philosophy alone.>>

Correct, which is why I hold logic, reason, and evidence to be authoritative.

<<In scientific conclusions, x,y, or z must be true BECAUSE of the physical evidence with repeatable experience confirms this.>>

They still need logic and evidence-based reason to interpret them, though.

<<It is the same with everything else.>>

Not necessarily. One doesn’t need test, say, whether a god could make a triangle with four sides. Logic alone can answer that one.

<<Experience is what confirms and corrects our understanding.>>

It can be one means, yes. But, in order to do so, one still needs to apply logic and reasoning to the experience in order to interpret it.

<<I have given each of your points a counter point, or a counter explanation. Thus showing I understand your points, and I can reason with them showing how they can be in error.>>

I think you might understand the problem with prayer now (i.e. its uselessness), but nothing I have said has been in error.

<<The most you can come back to them is repeating what you've already said or saying "how do you know it's real?">>

When there are simpler and more rational explanations for your experiences, yes, asking how you know a god is responsible for them is a perfectly reasonable response.

Continued…

...Continued

<<On the one hand I've already explained that pure rational is weaker then experience based understanding …>>

No, you have mistaken logical problems with philosophy, and falsely conflated experiences with testable and repeatable scientific experiments.

<<… and on enough points in my life I have a foundation to be grounded on in my faith.>>

Until you can rule out more rational explanations, I disagree.

<<... as amazing as human logic is, it is the lowest authority for determine what is true and what isn't.>>

Yes, but it’s all we’ve got, along with reasoning and evidence.

<<Higher then philosophy is experience.>>

No, experiences may count towards evidence, but logic and reasoning are still needed to interpret them, and they are entirely dependent on how we interpret them.

<<Higher then experience is the bible. The reason why this is more valuable is because it is from God.>>

But can you know that?

Your reasoning is somewhat circular, and this is Begging the Question.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging_the_Question

<<... God is higher then experience is because experience confirms the existence of God.>>

This makes no sense. Experience confirms the existence of each of us (actually, philosophically speaking, even that’s debatable, but we won’t go there), but that doesn't mean we’re somehow “higher” than experience.

So, it appears that I have indeed understood everything you have said. You are engaging in the same reasoning that just about every Christian does to justify their belief, including myself when I was a Christian. Nothing you’re saying is new to me.

At the risk of sounding condescending, it is not that I haven’t been understanding what you’ve been saying, but that I have come to understand that there are some fundamental errors in the reasoning you are engaging in, and that many of your assumptions cannot be justified. There are even some Christians who understand that your arguments do not work and will, therefore, avoid them and engage in what is known as 'sophisticated theology'. Just read some of Peter Sellick's articles, for example. Yuyutsu goes as far as to say that God doesn't even exist.

AJ, if you want to use the terms evidance instead of experience; logic and reason instead of philosophy, so be it. It comes out to the same conclusion. When evidance doesn't match up our understanding, we change our logic and rational to account for evidance. That's the point I'm making that logic has to fit evidance, not the other way around. Making evidance (even weak evidance) hold more weight then logic and reasoning. Logic and rational are a form philosophy. Evidence and experience both rely on our 5 senses, so they are also of the same mold. Weak evidence can correct strong logic.

Moving on...
________________________

2nd point. My experiences with prayer.

One thing you keep repeating is that is there is any other explanation to an answered prayer, then it is a more reasonable explanation. However, the experiences I gave for your benefit hold a wide enough range to not be easily dismissed by just one explanation. The more explanations you have to give the less reasonable they are. This by Occam's Razor's principle should be enough. However Occam's Razor should not be the final word for what is reasonable or not. There are many very complex and complicated elements in our world and our lives. Even to take a simple explanation can become complex when put into practice. But the more explanations you need to explain away an experience, the less likely those explanations have merit. As for the experiences themselves I gave you two figurings. One is that to judge mine, you have to first judge me. If I am rational and sensible, then there is no reason to doubt what I account to have happened. (No reason outside of connivence. That you don't want to believe them). The other is since you don't know me you have no reason to trust what I say.

3rd point. Theological issues.

When trying to raise doubt in my faith you've turned to theological paradoxes. The problem with these is that even if you find a theological issue to try to disprove God, if you know God exists because of your experience then the theological issue is a moot point, and likely just a large misunderstanding. Sound logic is only sound if it has enough information to not be misinformed. You challenged me to reconcile those theological issues. I assume you did not think there could be rational to counter them. But as said before, even though these are my findings, what difference do they make? They don't change the reality we live in. Right or wrong our world is still the same. But to offer you a reconciliation to your challenges, I did that.

For your reference. Prayer is not useless. God answers prayer. If we do not pray how will God answer them? And since God wants us to pray (as well as have a relationship with Him) He will allow us to pray before answering the prayer in the way He has already decided. Indeed God may place us in difficult times to remove us from sin, or to lean closer to Him. Sometimes we are placed in difficult times so that we do pray. These are again my figurings but they do justice against your criticisms as without needlessly tossing out experiences for argumentative logic.

4th point. Your discarding experiences because of evolutionary theories. (Yes there are splinter theories so I include them as a group.)

Evolution is not a reliable standard of thought to be able to dismiss your own experiences. If you do dismiss them over evolution then I have to question your experiences as a whole. The original element of evolution based on biological elements has it's merits, but there are also other explanations as well. Similarities between species (as opposed to similarities within a species) might exist due to having a similar environment. We all live on earth, and in that shared ecosystem our proteins and genes should hold similar foundations. Even to say that the genes of a banana and a man overlap quite a bit. Another explanation for evolutionary findings is the same explanation for doubting answered prayer. It was just coincidence. To say that evolution is solid enough to doubt your own experiences is to nose dive into a bad rational.

5th point. The bible as a solid foundation.

When traveling through life there are many many ideas out there that only distract us away from what's right or what is true. Some are lies, some are confusion, some are ill applied and misinformed ideas. To go through all it requires at least some kind of foundation to stand on. Or it will only be based on luck that you find the right ideas and are not swept away from haphazard negligence and unsafe ideas. A solid foundation for a house keeps it from falling apart. Solid and true framework allow the home to be built, and even to be expanded or remodeled if the home owner decides. Like an engineer's text book is a solid foundation for an engineer to hold already tested solid foundations, from there the engineer can text the waters of other ideas or measure their trustworthiness by the knowledge he already knows. There are many foundations that stabilize us. Some from studying and college, some from family and the wisdom of our parents and relatives, some from seeing things first hand and knowing things hands on (and hopefully learning from our mistakes).

The bible is a solid foundation because of it's own authorship (inspired by God) and by the wisdom held with in it. So those who listen to it and apply it to their lives are doing well to hold onto a solid foundation regardless of the excess of ideas and philosophies that exists throughout the world.

//The bible is a solid foundation because of it's own authorship (inspired by God)//

Qbasic Christianity:

10 PRINT "We can believe everything we read in the Bible because it is written by god."
20 PRINT "We can be sure it is written by god because"
30 GOTO 10

Yes, Not_Now.Soon, to some degree.

<<When evidance doesn't match up our understanding, we change our logic and rational to account for evidance.>>

But how do you know that your experiences are indeed the signs of a god without applying logic and reasoning to them? (Answer: you can’t.) This is where things begin to get a little circular.

Let’s say, for example, that you have lost your keys, then you pray to Jesus that you find, and then immediately find them. That, by itself, is a fact: you lost your keys, you prayed, then you found them. Is that a fact, or is it evidence? Initially, it’s only a fact. It could also be evidence of something, but then it could also just be a random occurrence.

In such a scenario, there are three possibilities:

1. Mere co-incidence.
2. The the prayer gave you a moment’s pause to calm down, making your keys easier to find.
3. Jesus lives and answered your prayer (while allowing millions of children to starve, mind you).

Why should we assume 3 when 1 and 2 were so much more reasonable?

Now, let’s say that this seems to happen consistently. Here are the four possibilities, as I see it:

1. Mere co-incidence.
2. There is no pattern and you are employing confirmation bias by only remembering the occasions where you DID find your keys straight after.
3. That prayer gives you a moment’s pause to calm down, so you are more likely to find your keys.
4. Jesus lives and is answering your your prayers (and, again, while allowing millions of children to starve).

Your experiences are evidence for something, but how do you know what that is until you apply logic and reasoning to them?

<<That's the point I'm making that logic has to fit evidance, not the other way around.>>

It goes both ways. And, yes, that’s circular, but it’s a circularity that we unfortunately cannot escape.

Continued…

...Continued

<<But the more explanations you need to explain away an experience, the less likely those explanations have merit.>>

The likeliness is determined by how rational the explanation is (and how rational it is could be determined by the fact that we can know that, say, co-incidences happen; whereas, we don’t know whether a god exists). One could invent an infinte number of bizarre and fictional possibilities, but that doesn’t make the more rational possbilities any less likely.

<<As for the experiences themselves I gave you two figurings. One is that to judge mine, you have to first judge me. If I am rational and sensible, then there is no reason to doubt what I account to have happened.>>

Yes, and I explained that this means nothing, because even intelligent, generally rational, and trustworthy people can believe irrational things.

<<The problem with [theological paradoxes] is that even if you find a theological issue to try to disprove God, if you know God exists because of your experience then the theological issue is a moot point ...>>

How could you know that a god, which has been disproven, exists when it’s been disproven to exist. This sounds to me like the ultimate form of denial.

<<Sound logic is only sound if it has enough information to not be misinformed.>>

Logic is independent of what we believe or are informed of.

<<You challenged me to reconcile those theological issues. I assume you did not think there could be rational to counter them.>>

Correct. There isn’t.

<<But as said befor ... what difference do they make?>>

The difference would be that god could not possibly exist in the way that you believe he does.

<<But to offer you a reconciliation to your challenges, I did that.>>

No, you sidestepped the free will paradox, and somewhat conceded the paradox behind the idea of prayer changing anything.

<<If we do not pray how will God answer them?>>

This is painfully tautological. God could still do the same thing, it just wouldn’t be answering a prayer.

Continued…

...Continued

<<He will allow us to pray before answering the prayer in the way He has already decided.>>

Can he allow us to pray in a way that he hasn’t already decided (there’s the paradox)?

<<Evolution is not a reliable standard of thought to be able to dismiss your own experiences.>>

Evolution isn’t a standard of thought. It’s a field of science.

<<If you do dismiss them over evolution then I have to question your experiences as a whole.>>

They were along the same lines as your experiences. Unless, of course, you have some more extraordinary experiences to tell me about?

<<The original element of evolution based on biological elements has it's merits, but there are also other explanations as well.>>

No, there aren't. Apparently you are unaware of what the evidence for evolution is.

<<Similarities between species ... might exist due to having a similar environment.>>

So, you think the only evidence for evolution is a similarity between species?

<<Another explanation for evolutionary findings is the same explanation for doubting answered prayer. It was just coincidence.>>

And with this, I can conclude that you know absolutely nothing about evolution. How is it, then, that paleontologists knew exactly where to look for the whale’s land ancestors?

<<The bible is a solid foundation because of it's own authorship (inspired by God) …>>

As Toni Lavis has noted, this reasoning is painfully circular.

<<... and by the wisdom held with in it.>>

What about the unwise things in the Bible, such as slavery and some of the things Jesus said on the Sermon of the Mount? Are they evidence that the Bible is NOT the word of God?

Drear AJ Phillips,

There are several things I'd like to explain further, offer as a response, or just correct you on. However, in this site there's a limit to the words we use, as well as a limit to the posts. For the purposes of this site, that makes sence so to draw many opinions and gather more of a community's voice instead of having one or two people dominate their specific viewpoints or battle it out with long unending arguing.

So from there where should I go? Each day I respond, I've chosen what to respond to and what was less important to spend words on. Should I focus on my experiences? Give more details on them and show they aren't like your discription of them? Give more examples? Continue on theology or paradoxes? Reply to several sentence replies you gave with just as short a retort so neither of us has any more siginifantly to gain?

No. I will say this instead. This topic is old enough and strayed from it's origional purpose. I think our discussion has given at least enough merrit to students being allowed to talk about religion in schools because there's apparently a lot to talk about. I want you to know that what I've had happen in my life has convinced me of God being real. The details aren't important, because it's not your life. But the experiences of God being in our lives is real. Search for Him yourself or do other reasurch looking into other people's stories. No one shares about finding car keys, they tell about the strange and the amazing; the encouraging and the frightening. Either the world is full of liars, or there really is more to it then you wish to give it credit. But no doubt you will find may a story.

Also, don't be nieve about logic. Without information to draw on, logic loses it's merit. The best logical conclusion is based on good reasoning based on the information you have available, as well as having enough information available to have a clear grasp of the sitution.

Answering everything you've brought up will do me no good, and the way you're responding it'll do you no good either. There's not enough writing space to address it all to the measure that is needed to address each of them, and you're focus on the things not addressed will only make me bitter to the conversation, because it's not feasible to address it all with out more time and word space.

Let's let this conversation retire. There's no point to continue on in this kind of way

I’m mostly happy to leave it there, Not_Now.Soon. However, there are two points which I can’t let slip through the keeper:

<<Either the world is full of liars, or there really is more to it then you wish to give it credit.>>

This is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility: that some people are simply mistaken.

<<Without information to draw on, logic loses it's merit. The best logical conclusion is based on good reasoning based on the information you have available, as well as having enough information available to have a clear grasp of the sitution.>>

Here you are confusing logic and logical conclusions. In your first sentence, you appear to be talking about logic alone, then, in the very next sentence, you start talking about the conclusions.

Everything is what it is, isn’t what it isn’t, and nothing is neither or both.

This is the three foundational laws of logic summarised in one statement. The above statement doesn’t change according to evidence or observations. These are unchangeable logical absolutes, and they are foundational to all logic, as described by the Law of Identity, the Law of Noncontradiction, and the Law of the Excluded Middle.

Every bit of reasoning which we engage in, every belief we hold, every conclusion which we come to, can all be deduced back to these foundational laws of logic. Logic doesn’t change because we find new evidence, and it certainly doesn’t change because we have experiences and assume that a god is responsible for them when there are other more rational explanations.

Actually, Not_Now.Soon, I should note that when we get down to a quantum level, our logic certainly does seem to come into question (e.g. causation), which is why so many theists are now trying to use use the weirdness of quantum mechanics to shoehorn god into science, but this hardly means that subjective experiences have to ability to change foundational laws of logic.

Toni Lavis,

<<Qbasic Christianity:
10 PRINT "We can believe everything we read in the Bible because it is written by god."
20 PRINT "We can be sure it is written by god because"
30 GOTO 10>>

That is your cynical circular reasoning attempt to scoff at the reliability of the Bible and what the poster stated.

I find it better to begin with demonstrating that the Bible is a reliable historical document. In that reliable document, it claims in the original documents, 'All Scripture is breathed out by God' (2 Timothy 3:16).

Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, theologian & Christian apologist, Dr J P Moreland, has provided evidence to demonstrate 'The Historicity of the New Testament' at: https://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament. The criteria used by Dr Moreland are the same as those used by ancient historians.

Therefore, because an understanding of the content of history is based on probability, we can say that historically it is highly probable that the Bible was theopneustos (breathed out by God).

There is no need to engage in your ridicule by accusing the poster of using circular reasoning when, if we begin with an historical investigation, the Bible is streets ahead of many ancient, secular writings of the biblical era in proving to be authentic. See Dr Moreland's article for the documented evidence.

TheAtheist,

<<There is no dysfunction caused by atheism.>>

That's not what what leading atheist/agnostic Prof Richard Dawkins infers. He stated:

“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings,” Dawkins said. “I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.... I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse,” he said (Breitbart, 12 Jan 2016, http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/12/professional-atheist-dawkins-says-christianity-bulwark-against-something-worse/.

You claim there is no dysfunction caused by atheism. You'll have a hard time convincing me and the people of the Soviet Union (under Stalin & Lenin), China (under Mao), Vietnam (under Pol Pot), Uganda (under Idi Amin) and the people in Eastern European Communist countries, that atheism is functional and beautiful for community life.

Could you be blind to the consequences of your chosen belief system?

OzSpen,

No amount of historical accuracy in the Bible (and there isn't much) can justify believing the supernatural claims. This is a leap you have not yet justified.

<<In that reliable document, it claims in the original documents, 'All Scripture is breathed out by God' (2 Timothy 3:16).>>

And in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 2), Lord Voldemort said, "Only I can live forever."

<<You claim there is no dysfunction caused by atheism. You'll have a hard time convincing me and the people of the Soviet Union (under Stalin & Lenin), China (under Mao), Vietnam (under Pol Pot), Uganda (under Idi Amin) and the people in Eastern European Communist countries, that atheism is functional and beautiful for community life.>>

That was communism - a political ideology. There is nothing within atheism to support what the communists did. This argument is dumb.

<<Could you be blind to the consequences of your chosen belief system?>>

Atheism isn't a belief system, it's position on a single issue.