I’ve come across a lot of blogs and forums in the days of the internet. I’ve read so many atheism vs. Christianity blogs, and I’ve chimed in on a few myself. From my experience, the Christian usually ends up frustrated and presents nothing to the opposing position that can refute their claim against Christ. While, I enjoy hearing the opposing arguments, and it sharpens my faith as a means of really delving into scripture, I made the decision a while ago, that I’m done debating to non-Christians over the internet about Christianity. This is a response to an individual who posting in the The Nativity Story forum on one of my favorite websites www.imdb.com Here is his post below, and below that is my response.
This is his post…
Startlingly brilliant Carl Sagan famously declared that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This profound truth is a key that frees us from religion’s shackles, since each faith lacks the requisite evidence to substantiate its fantastical claims. Sagan’s oft-quoted observation is self-evident, given humankind’s abundant, demonstrable fallibility. With that in mind, ten simple requests for the Christian faithful follow.
1. Present extraordinary evidence for Jesus’ bodily resurrection.
2. Present extraordinary evidence that Jesus was born asexually (of a virgin).
3. Present extraordinary evidence that some Biblical characters, such as Adam and Noah, lived in excess of 900 years.
4. Present extraordinary evidence that immaterial “souls” haunt our carcasses.
5. Present extraordinary evidence that human consciousness survives bodily death, passing to another realm of existence.
6. Present extraordinary evidence that Yahweh exists, to the exclusion of other god characters.
7. Present extraordinary evidence that the cataclysmic flood described by the Bible actually occurred.
8. Present extraordinary evidence that evolution—the cornerstone of modern biology—is incorrect.
9. Present extraordinary evidence that “miracles” are possible, let alone actually have occurred.
10. Present extraordinary evidence that serpents and donkeys can speak in human language, whether with Yahweh’s aid or by their own linguistic genius.
http://mycaseagainstgod.blogspot.com
This was my response…
ex·traor·di·nar·y [ik-strawr-dn-er-ee] –adjective
dnˌɛr| 1. | beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established: extraordinary costs. |
The reality is…
Even if we placed all that “extraordinary evidence” on a silver platter, wrapped in a bow, you still wouldn’t believe. More often then not, those who hide behind science as a reason of contention for their not believing in anything (but science itself…which is…a religion in itself) will not believe even if they had the evidence, you’ll still have more questions. Most who claim there is no evidence also claim an “extraordinary freedom.” Freedom from what? Dig deeper and you’ll find someone who is “extraordinarily hurt” by religion in some way. So, science or correctly “lack of evidence” becomes the reason to reason that the thing that hurt them so much is the the thing that is not true. This is why, those…who do ask for “extraordinary evidence” do not really seek that evidence, but would rather have those who do not need the evidence, they so desperately need, to explain to them on blogs and forums on websites like.. of all things…a movie website. I have a hope, this is Jesus, something that logically and scientifically makes sense to me, in the same way the reason you love someone makes sense to you. It’s not quantified in a bottle, or tested by monkeys. It’s a relationship. I pray that the absence of theism in some form provides you with a hope and a moral center. It maybe that you, like Carl Sagan, have placed your hope in SETI, or that one day we may hear from another booming voice from the sky in the form of an E.T. Or that higher forms of intelligence may one day reach down, and touch this earth and provide for us the answers to all those questions you have that is not limited to that list of yours. From my experience, all the physical evidence contrary to their being a living God could never dissuade my having seen the Father of creation and His Son Jesus Christ. For this…you will call me a fool, and for that I rejoice. God Bless.
5 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
That’s exactly what you’re doing right now, isn’t it?
Then you continue on with the usual response: science is a religion (it’s not by any definition of religion) and you wouldn’t believe even if you had evidence (we would; present the evidence, and I will convert).
Love is a subjective concept. There’s no “right” answer to the question of whether you love someone or not. Everybody’s entitled to love or not love anyone.
The question “is there a God?”, on the other hand, has an objective answer, we just don’t know it. We do however have some clues. Specifically, the fact that we have no clues going for God is a strong indication that there is no God. Even if there is one, believing in Him without evidence is no better than believing in Santa.
Comment by Simen January 31, 2007 @ 2:14 pmThanks for your comments Simen. At risk of breaking my personal rule, I will respond, however…my fear is that your response to my blog is not really out of any sense that your really searching for answers (indeed you maybe as I don’t know you). But, really out of a sense of wanting to “convert” me to atheism, or you’re just angry at Christians and you want a fight, or you have nothing better to do. I don’t know you…and I respect your view point, and your worldview, however I believe your wrong on some of your points.
One…indeed many are presented with proof, data, and evidence everyday in regards to many things, yet deny any adherence to the truth of that in their practical daily living. (i.e. Smoking does undeniably put tar in your lungs that does cause cancer. What is the reaction? “I know…but, I can’t quit and I love to smoke.” Or…the World Trade Center…even though videoed by hundreds of cameras to be hit by Jet liners and fell as a result of that, people still choose to believe that the government had something to do with it. I could continue with many other examples…but I will refrain…as the tendency maybe to debate each of those topics rather than the issue at hand) The issue is not evidence. The issue is the heart of the person who receives that evidence. Let’s say you believe that there was a man who was Jesus, and lets say you believe that he did perform miracles. The bible accounts for many that just didn’t believe even in the face of what they saw.
Secondly, you say love is subjective yet, in the same sentence you equate that you’re either in love, or not in love. (Your definition of love rests on the idea of love as merely a feeling, and nothing to do with loving behaviors is besides the point) You also express a mathematical equation to your “subjective” love a=to love and b=not to love. Either your on or off. That’s terribly “objective.” This is why Jesus logically makes sense to me. The person of Christ that I know, I love as a response to his loving behaviors toward me.
However, before we can even discuss Christ, we must also answer the question of God. Someone whom you’ve already stated as not real based on the evidence. Let me ask you…when was the last time you killed someone? Stole from your employer? Molested a Child? My hope is your answer would be never! If so, then why haven’t you done these things? Survival of the fittest, correct? I would purpose that the reason you don’t is based on a set of morals that you do live your life on. Yes, it’s against, the law. But why is against the law? Are morals constructed out of thin air? Where do they come from? And is their evil? If there there is evil, is their not also good? Where did that good come from? Logically, anyway you break down you have to ask the question of, “why is it wrong too…?” It’s not just about society norms, and what’s best for the species. In some cultures you should “Love thy Neighbor” in others it’s “Eat Thy Neighbors” Which is right?
There is a moral architect. The question is who this moral architect?
I can only go so far with this as I am blogging from work. If your serious about hearing more from “the other side” check out…
http://www.rzim.org and listen to some of Ravi’s talks.
Comment by cricky75 January 31, 2007 @ 4:25 pmI would consider that assumption rude. You don’t know why I chose to answer this post. I did it because it makes unjustified generalizations about atheists, and to point out that your answer to the “extraordinary evidence” is not extraordinary evidence at all. Instead you answer by questioning motives, which is rather more like an ad hominem attack than evidence.
I seek the truth, and I’ve yet to see a religion that proves itself to be true.
You’re assuming that since some people choose to disbelieve even when faced with evidence, that’s what atheists will do. That’s stupid, and untrue. I, like many atheists, have based my world view on evidence, and I would gladly convert if faced with it.
Also, the Bible is not infallible. The miracle tales rests on the Bible, but perhaps the people saw that the purported miracle was not really a miracle and chose to disbelieve that. We don’t know. The Bible contains so many contradictions that it would be ignorant to be so sure of its correctness.
You’re twisting my words here. I’ve two objections to this:
(1) I didn’t say that love was a binary question. There can be degrees of love.
(2) Binary questions may also be subjective. Take, for example, the question, “Which color do you like best – blue or green?” There’s only two possible answers, but neither is more right than the other.
Later, you put forward a common argument: the argument from morality, that is, there must be some moral architect. This idea has been well refuted elsewhere. For instance, there’s the question: is something moral because it’s loved by God, or does God love it because it is moral? If you answer the first, there’s the question of what to do when God says or does something we consider unmoral, such as saying you should stone a disobeying son or confusing people by giving them different languages so they can’t cooperate. If you answer the latter, God isn’t really behind morality.
Comment by Simen January 31, 2007 @ 5:08 pmThanks Simen I was reminded why I stopped debating over blogs. I’ll be the better man and shut up! Because…we might go back and forth for a very long time.
Continue to read and comment if you’d like you can even say “Nah Nah Nah…I shut the Christian up!” I won’t even mind.
Comment by cricky75 January 31, 2007 @ 5:35 pm“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%201:18-2:5;&version=31; Blessings
Comment by Krista Dominguez February 1, 2007 @ 5:32 am