Religions > Atheism > Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
18 Nov 2006 09:36:46 PM |
| Object: |
Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
Sat, Nov. 18 2006 02:30 PM ET
MCLEAN, Va. – Today’s Christian no longer has to try to maintain only
by faith their belief in the origin of the universe. The atheist now
does.
Former atheist and award-winning Christian author Lee Strobel
premiered his one-hour documentary "The Case for a Creator" to
hundreds of Christians at an apologetics conference Friday. The
aftermath of the movie: Christians felt they actually learned
something.
"We are actually living now at a time of tremendous intellectual
renaissance of Christianity," said philosopher and author Dr. William
Lane Craig.
Craig's comment came after fellow philosopher J.P. Moreland told
conference participants that the church has become anti-intellectual.
"We've got to start using cognitive language and not just faith
language," Moreland exhorted.
Over the last several decades, Christians have begun to emerge back
into the intellectual public square. This is primarily occurring in
the field of philosophy, New Testament studies with regard to the
historical Jesus and the gospels, and it is now beginning to occur in
the physical sciences as manifested in the Intelligent Design
movement, Craig explained.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061118/23538.htm
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 12:35:15 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:3phvl21mlmm68brk9ekv2cv6p41k0gk4ol@4ax.com...
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
Sat, Nov. 18 2006 02:30 PM ET
MCLEAN, Va. - Today's Christian no longer has to try to maintain only
by faith their belief in the origin of the universe. The atheist now
does.
Former atheist and award-winning Christian author Lee Strobel
premiered his one-hour documentary "The Case for a Creator" to
hundreds of Christians at an apologetics conference Friday. The
aftermath of the movie: Christians felt they actually learned
something.
"We are actually living now at a time of tremendous intellectual
renaissance of Christianity," said philosopher and author Dr. William
Lane Craig.
Craig's comment came after fellow philosopher J.P. Moreland told
conference participants that the church has become anti-intellectual.
"We've got to start using cognitive language and not just faith
language," Moreland exhorted.
Over the last several decades, Christians have begun to emerge back
into the intellectual public square. This is primarily occurring in
the field of philosophy, New Testament studies with regard to the
historical Jesus and the gospels, and it is now beginning to occur in
the physical sciences as manifested in the Intelligent Design
movement, Craig explained.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061118/23538.htm
Boy, do these Jesus people live in delusion. One line that caught my eye
was:
'"I believe that by doing science, we find God," said Strobel."
Now is that a ridiculous statement or is that a ridiculous statement? 'Find
God'? What? Is a probe to Mars going to dig up some Martian soil and reveal
a 'God' hiding just beneath the surface? Are the scientists going to find a
microbe with a molecular Jesus waving at them through an electron
microscope? These people put on a pretty decent 'phony' front. But that's
all it is -- phony. Pretending that we atheists are somehow on the defensive
now is mere posturing; some 'positive' phony-baloney for the home front,
that's all. They're both talking out their ***** and *taking* it on the ***** at
the same time. The theists are no closer to producing a 'God' than they were
four-hundred years ago. In fact, 'God' is running out of places to hide.
What a bluff the Jesus people continue to put on. The only people they are
fooling are themselves.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bodega" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 03:08:17 AM |
|
|
Greywolf wrote:
Boy, do these Jesus people live in delusion. One line that caught my eye
was:
'"I believe that by doing science, we find God," said Strobel."
Now is that a ridiculous statement or is that a ridiculous statement? 'Find
God'? What?
The universe *is* an amazing place, and I don't see anything
objectionable in believing that there's some general godlike force
behind it (though I don't agree myself).
What's objectionable are the arrogant evangelists who think they are
god's chosen, and their efforts to substitute Bronze Age rural legends
for science.
-- Mike Palmer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 07:34:39 AM |
|
|
"Bodega" <michael.palmer1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:1163927297.222382.197260@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Greywolf wrote:
Boy, do these Jesus people live in delusion. One line that caught my eye
was:
'"I believe that by doing science, we find God," said Strobel."
Now is that a ridiculous statement or is that a ridiculous statement?
'Find
God'? What?
The universe *is* an amazing place, and I don't see anything
objectionable in believing that there's some general godlike force
behind it (though I don't agree myself).
What's objectionable are the arrogant evangelists who think they are
god's chosen, and their efforts to substitute Bronze Age rural legends
for science.
-- Mike Palmer
Worse, unlike the scientist who admits he or she was 'wrong' in regards to a
pet 'theory' when evidence to the contrary ultimately proves it to be
untrue, that 'arrogant evangelist' will not even concede that he or she just
*might* be wrong in regards to *their* unproven beliefs. That is a sure sign
that something is not 'quite right' with those people. And the *bluffing*
that goes on in that article! How disingenuous!
It all comes down to his: The first theist who proclaimed there was a 'God',
lied. He or she had no proof *whatsoever* to back up that claim. We can see
that clearly now. The fact that theists are still looking for that proof
after all these centuries should slap some sense into these people. What
more can one say?
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 02:46:06 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 07:34:39 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12m0nbfr26qj4d5@corp.supernews.com>
"Bodega" <michael.palmer1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:1163927297.222382.197260@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Greywolf wrote:
Boy, do these Jesus people live in delusion. One line that caught my eye
was:
'"I believe that by doing science, we find God," said Strobel."
Now is that a ridiculous statement or is that a ridiculous statement?
'Find
God'? What?
The universe *is* an amazing place, and I don't see anything
objectionable in believing that there's some general godlike force
behind it (though I don't agree myself).
What's objectionable are the arrogant evangelists who think they are
god's chosen, and their efforts to substitute Bronze Age rural legends
for science.
-- Mike Palmer
Worse, unlike the scientist who admits he or she was 'wrong' in regards to a
pet 'theory' when evidence to the contrary ultimately proves it to be
untrue, that 'arrogant evangelist' will not even concede that he or she just
*might* be wrong in regards to *their* unproven beliefs. That is a sure sign
that something is not 'quite right' with those people. And the *bluffing*
that goes on in that article! How disingenuous!
It all comes down to his: The first theist who proclaimed there was a 'God',
lied. He or she had no proof *whatsoever* to back up that claim. We can see
that clearly now. The fact that theists are still looking for that proof
after all these centuries should slap some sense into these people. What
more can one say?
Greywolf
Science trives for Honesty, Religion strives for Dogma.
The two are polar opposites.
I hate it when those who should know better, (such as Prof. Lawrence
Kraus), says there is not conflict between the two.
(Or the late Gould, who called them non-overlapping majesteria)
It is literally saying that truth and lies are the same thing!
Rubbish!
(End of Rant)
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 06:17:46 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 07:34:39 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12m0nbfr26qj4d5@corp.supernews.com>
"Bodega" <michael.palmer1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:1163927297.222382.197260@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Greywolf wrote:
Boy, do these Jesus people live in delusion. One line that caught my eye
was:
'"I believe that by doing science, we find God," said Strobel."
Now is that a ridiculous statement or is that a ridiculous statement?
'Find
God'? What?
The universe *is* an amazing place, and I don't see anything
objectionable in believing that there's some general godlike force
behind it (though I don't agree myself).
What's objectionable are the arrogant evangelists who think they are
god's chosen, and their efforts to substitute Bronze Age rural legends
for science.
-- Mike Palmer
Worse, unlike the scientist who admits he or she was 'wrong' in regards to a
pet 'theory' when evidence to the contrary ultimately proves it to be
untrue, that 'arrogant evangelist' will not even concede that he or she just
*might* be wrong in regards to *their* unproven beliefs. That is a sure sign
that something is not 'quite right' with those people. And the *bluffing*
that goes on in that article! How disingenuous!
It all comes down to his: The first theist who proclaimed there was a 'God',
lied. He or she had no proof *whatsoever* to back up that claim. We can see
that clearly now. The fact that theists are still looking for that proof
after all these centuries should slap some sense into these people. What
more can one say?
Greywolf
Science trives for Honesty, Religion strives for Dogma.
The two are polar opposites.
I hate it when those who should know better, (such as Prof. Lawrence
Kraus), says there is not conflict between the two.
(Or the late Gould, who called them non-overlapping majesteria)
It is literally saying that truth and lies are the same thing!
Rubbish!
(End of Rant)
--
There *are those who have more subtle (views of) gods. When his
followers asked the Buddha what the nature of God was like, he pretty
much told them that it was none of their business. Their job was to
live right and seek enlightenment. Or the Westerners who see all
religious paths as valid, and the various myths as (possibly
unconscious) metaphors.
But these are not the people who make demonstrably false claims of fact
derived from a concrete interpretation of their myths. These folks
usually respect scientists and education, and have a civil manner.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
20 Nov 2006 02:23:37 AM |
|
|
On 19 Nov 2006 16:17:46 -0800, "Kermit"
<unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1163981866.869307.289900@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 07:34:39 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12m0nbfr26qj4d5@corp.supernews.com>
"Bodega" <michael.palmer1@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:1163927297.222382.197260@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Greywolf wrote:
Boy, do these Jesus people live in delusion. One line that caught my eye
was:
'"I believe that by doing science, we find God," said Strobel."
Now is that a ridiculous statement or is that a ridiculous statement?
'Find
God'? What?
The universe *is* an amazing place, and I don't see anything
objectionable in believing that there's some general godlike force
behind it (though I don't agree myself).
What's objectionable are the arrogant evangelists who think they are
god's chosen, and their efforts to substitute Bronze Age rural legends
for science.
-- Mike Palmer
Worse, unlike the scientist who admits he or she was 'wrong' in regards to a
pet 'theory' when evidence to the contrary ultimately proves it to be
untrue, that 'arrogant evangelist' will not even concede that he or she just
*might* be wrong in regards to *their* unproven beliefs. That is a sure sign
that something is not 'quite right' with those people. And the *bluffing*
that goes on in that article! How disingenuous!
It all comes down to his: The first theist who proclaimed there was a 'God',
lied. He or she had no proof *whatsoever* to back up that claim. We can see
that clearly now. The fact that theists are still looking for that proof
after all these centuries should slap some sense into these people. What
more can one say?
Greywolf
Science trives for Honesty, Religion strives for Dogma.
The two are polar opposites.
I hate it when those who should know better, (such as Prof. Lawrence
Kraus), says there is not conflict between the two.
(Or the late Gould, who called them non-overlapping majesteria)
It is literally saying that truth and lies are the same thing!
Rubbish!
(End of Rant)
--
There *are those who have more subtle (views of) gods. When his
followers asked the Buddha what the nature of God was like, he pretty
much told them that it was none of their business. Their job was to
live right and seek enlightenment. Or the Westerners who see all
religious paths as valid, and the various myths as (possibly
unconscious) metaphors.
But these are not the people who make demonstrably false claims of fact
derived from a concrete interpretation of their myths.
What about re-incarnation (as merely one example)?
They are demonstrably false claims.
Your assertion does not stand up to the flimsiest scrutiny.
Please get back to me when you land on planet reality.
These folks
usually respect scientists and education, and have a civil manner.
Civility does NOT equal respect.
Respect for individuals does NOT equal respect for their scientific
conclusions.
You appear to be conflating several widely differing phenomena here.
Kermit
Well, it's hardly a religion then, eh?
"Believe whatever ***** you want to, and that's Buddhism."
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Carnegie" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
20 Nov 2006 03:48:23 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 19 Nov 2006 16:17:46 -0800, "Kermit"
<unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1163981866.869307.289900@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
There *are those who have more subtle (views of) gods. When his
followers asked the Buddha what the nature of God was like, he pretty
much told them that it was none of their business. Their job was to
live right and seek enlightenment. Or the Westerners who see all
religious paths as valid, and the various myths as (possibly
unconscious) metaphors.
But these are not the people who make demonstrably false claims of fact
derived from a concrete interpretation of their myths.
What about re-incarnation (as merely one example)?
They are demonstrably false claims.
Your assertion does not stand up to the flimsiest scrutiny.
Please get back to me when you land on planet reality.
As I understand it, the Buddha would have been delighted not to be
reincarnated, if delight wasn't on his "not do" list. Beyond that...
I don't believe in reincarnation, but how do you demonstrate it false?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
20 Nov 2006 05:19:04 AM |
|
|
On 20 Nov 2006 01:48:23 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1164016103.798890.300810@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On 19 Nov 2006 16:17:46 -0800, "Kermit"
<unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1163981866.869307.289900@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
There *are those who have more subtle (views of) gods. When his
followers asked the Buddha what the nature of God was like, he pretty
much told them that it was none of their business. Their job was to
live right and seek enlightenment. Or the Westerners who see all
religious paths as valid, and the various myths as (possibly
unconscious) metaphors.
But these are not the people who make demonstrably false claims of fact
derived from a concrete interpretation of their myths.
What about re-incarnation (as merely one example)?
They are demonstrably false claims.
Your assertion does not stand up to the flimsiest scrutiny.
Please get back to me when you land on planet reality.
As I understand it, the Buddha would have been delighted not to be
reincarnated, if delight wasn't on his "not do" list. Beyond that...
I don't believe in reincarnation, but how do you demonstrate it false?
Simple statistics.
Population increases cannot be explained by reincarnation.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
20 Nov 2006 06:57:43 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 20 Nov 2006 01:48:23 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1164016103.798890.300810@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On 19 Nov 2006 16:17:46 -0800, "Kermit"
<unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1163981866.869307.289900@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
There *are those who have more subtle (views of) gods. When his
followers asked the Buddha what the nature of God was like, he pretty
much told them that it was none of their business. Their job was to
live right and seek enlightenment. Or the Westerners who see all
religious paths as valid, and the various myths as (possibly
unconscious) metaphors.
But these are not the people who make demonstrably false claims of fact
derived from a concrete interpretation of their myths.
What about re-incarnation (as merely one example)?
They are demonstrably false claims.
Your assertion does not stand up to the flimsiest scrutiny.
Please get back to me when you land on planet reality.
As I understand it, the Buddha would have been delighted not to be
reincarnated, if delight wasn't on his "not do" list. Beyond that...
I don't believe in reincarnation, but how do you demonstrate it false?
Simple statistics.
Population increases cannot be explained by reincarnation.
You're ignoring all the "good" animals that get reincarnated as humans.
--Jeff
--
Whenever morality is based on theology,
whenever right is made dependent on
divine authority, the most immoral,
unjust, infamous things can be
justified and established. --Ludwig Feuerbach
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
20 Nov 2006 12:59:27 PM |
|
|
Jeffrey Turner <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in
news:12m39id24jg3gad@corp.supernews.com:
Michael Gray wrote:
On 20 Nov 2006 01:48:23 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
I don't believe in reincarnation, but how do you demonstrate it
false?
Simple statistics.
Population increases cannot be explained by reincarnation.
You're ignoring all the "good" animals that get reincarnated as
humans.
Wait, so if you're a "good" animal, you get stuck as a HUMAN next time
round?
That hardly seems fair.
-JAH
Now, the BAD animals, sure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woland" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
20 Nov 2006 02:30:28 PM |
|
|
Josh Hayes wrote:
Jeffrey Turner <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in
news:12m39id24jg3gad@corp.supernews.com:
Michael Gray wrote:
On 20 Nov 2006 01:48:23 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
I don't believe in reincarnation, but how do you demonstrate it
false?
Simple statistics.
Population increases cannot be explained by reincarnation.
You're ignoring all the "good" animals that get reincarnated as
humans.
Wait, so if you're a "good" animal, you get stuck as a HUMAN next time
round?
That hardly seems fair.
-JAH
Now, the BAD animals, sure.
Weel, the good animals get to be human because if you're a good human
you get to be a penguin.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
20 Nov 2006 03:53:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 07:57:43 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
<jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <12m39id24jg3gad@corp.supernews.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On 20 Nov 2006 01:48:23 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1164016103.798890.300810@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On 19 Nov 2006 16:17:46 -0800, "Kermit"
<unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1163981866.869307.289900@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
There *are those who have more subtle (views of) gods. When his
followers asked the Buddha what the nature of God was like, he pretty
much told them that it was none of their business. Their job was to
live right and seek enlightenment. Or the Westerners who see all
religious paths as valid, and the various myths as (possibly
unconscious) metaphors.
But these are not the people who make demonstrably false claims of fact
derived from a concrete interpretation of their myths.
What about re-incarnation (as merely one example)?
They are demonstrably false claims.
Your assertion does not stand up to the flimsiest scrutiny.
Please get back to me when you land on planet reality.
As I understand it, the Buddha would have been delighted not to be
reincarnated, if delight wasn't on his "not do" list. Beyond that...
I don't believe in reincarnation, but how do you demonstrate it false?
Simple statistics.
Population increases cannot be explained by reincarnation.
You're ignoring all the "good" animals that get reincarnated as humans.
ad hoc justifications are a logical fallacy.
If that *is* that case, then the human population of the world can
only ever increase.
There are bursts of massive de-population of both humans and animals
at various periods.
Try again, but this time don't use logical fallacies please.
Reincarnation is a crock of *****.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Carnegie" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
20 Nov 2006 08:31:08 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 07:57:43 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
<jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
You're ignoring all the "good" animals that get reincarnated as humans.
ad hoc justifications are a logical fallacy.
If that *is* that case, then the human population of the world can
only ever increase.
There are bursts of massive de-population of both humans and animals
at various periods.
Try again, but this time don't use logical fallacies please.
I haven't studied specific doctrines of reincarnation. It doesn't seem
inherently contradictory that more souls get to be human when the human
population is larger, or that there's a waiting list to be reincarnated
when the population of living beings is small or when the level at
which you are entitled to be reincarnated is not open. Or new souls
are created - after all, the Buddha apparently wants to remove souls
from reincarnation. Or if times are hard, very low level living things
that normally aren't inhabited by souls get them - bacteria, slime
moulds.
Reincarnation is a crock of *****.
Well, I suppose so. But I still think the proof isn't complete in
itself. However, as I say, I'm imagining only enough of reincarnation
that allows people to remember past lives, and not a whole system with
particular rules and bureaucracy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
21 Nov 2006 02:31:33 AM |
|
|
On 20 Nov 2006 18:31:08 -0800, "Robert Carnegie"
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1164076268.262396.296160@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 07:57:43 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
<jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
You're ignoring all the "good" animals that get reincarnated as humans.
ad hoc justifications are a logical fallacy.
If that *is* that case, then the human population of the world can
only ever increase.
There are bursts of massive de-population of both humans and animals
at various periods.
Try again, but this time don't use logical fallacies please.
I haven't studied specific doctrines of reincarnation. It doesn't seem
inherently contradictory that more souls get to be human when the human
population is larger, or that there's a waiting list to be reincarnated
when the population of living beings is small or when the level at
which you are entitled to be reincarnated is not open. Or new souls
are created - after all, the Buddha apparently wants to remove souls
from reincarnation. Or if times are hard, very low level living things
that normally aren't inhabited by souls get them - bacteria, slime
moulds.
More ad hoc descent into nonsense.
Reincarnation is a crock of *****.
Well, I suppose so. But I still think the proof isn't complete in
itself.
No "proof" is.
And I say that as a mathematician.
However, as I say, I'm imagining only enough of reincarnation
that allows people to remember past lives, and not a whole system with
particular rules and bureaucracy.
"Past lives" are a crock-o-crap as well.
They have the same characteristic of every form of fraudulent bunk:
the Shyness Effect.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 01:58:50 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:35:15 -0600, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12lvup58f51ulb2@corp.supernews.com>
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:3phvl21mlmm68brk9ekv2cv6p41k0gk4ol@4ax.com...
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
Sat, Nov. 18 2006 02:30 PM ET
MCLEAN, Va. - Today's Christian no longer has to try to maintain only
by faith their belief in the origin of the universe. The atheist now
does.
Former atheist and award-winning Christian author Lee Strobel
premiered his one-hour documentary "The Case for a Creator" to
hundreds of Christians at an apologetics conference Friday. The
aftermath of the movie: Christians felt they actually learned
something.
"We are actually living now at a time of tremendous intellectual
renaissance of Christianity," said philosopher and author Dr. William
Lane Craig.
Craig's comment came after fellow philosopher J.P. Moreland told
conference participants that the church has become anti-intellectual.
"We've got to start using cognitive language and not just faith
language," Moreland exhorted.
Over the last several decades, Christians have begun to emerge back
into the intellectual public square. This is primarily occurring in
the field of philosophy, New Testament studies with regard to the
historical Jesus and the gospels, and it is now beginning to occur in
the physical sciences as manifested in the Intelligent Design
movement, Craig explained.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061118/23538.htm
Boy, do these Jesus people live in delusion. One line that caught my eye
was:
'"I believe that by doing science, we find God," said Strobel."
Now is that a ridiculous statement or is that a ridiculous statement? 'Find
God'? What? Is a probe to Mars going to dig up some Martian soil and reveal
a 'God' hiding just beneath the surface? Are the scientists going to find a
microbe with a molecular Jesus waving at them through an electron
microscope? These people put on a pretty decent 'phony' front. But that's
all it is -- phony. Pretending that we atheists are somehow on the defensive
now is mere posturing; some 'positive' phony-baloney for the home front,
that's all. They're both talking out their ***** and *taking* it on the ***** at
the same time. The theists are no closer to producing a 'God' than they were
four-hundred years ago. In fact, 'God' is running out of places to hide.
What a bluff the Jesus people continue to put on. The only people they are
fooling are themselves.
Greywolf
Hawking is guilty of that.
As an atheist, closing off one of his books with the remark about
seeing the mind of God, is remarkably provocative.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 02:07:01 AM |
|
|
Error bars and a hypothetical philosophy of secular, humble arrogance
An atheist I am not, for this would mean having faith in the
non-existence of some deity or deities. Nor do I have faith in the
existence of any particular god or gods. As a physicist, I keep my
belief systems within the error bars of inductive experience. I use
Occam's razor. I think that it is more likely that infinities of
universes exist, some too tough to spawn life, some just right for life
to self organize and evolve, than the notion that we are the flawed,
free willed spawn of some perfect, omniscient god-a concept which
should already be doubly illogical for those brave enough to risk their
immortal souls by using some small portion of their brain.
I would be greatly surprised if I tossed a rock skywards and it stayed
the course, because my expectation is for it to cut-and-run, and fall
back towards the Earth. But who knows? Physical "law" is based on
inductive logic, and induction cannot guarantee the future. When we
repeat an experiment over and over, and see the same general behavior
again and again, we gain confidence in the future repeatability of our
experience, but we should never extrapolate our finitely gained
confidence with absolute faith. If you push a long, stiff wire upwards
more and more over your head, it will suddenly reach a tipping point
and bend over under its own weight-as our global climate might soon
do under our weight. Physical constants which we may not yet have
detected, and which might drive our inductively produced physical laws,
may be evolving, and may suddenly lead to a tipping point of whole new,
unexpected and unprecedented behaviors. Stephen Hawking himself
wonders, "whether it is possible to formulate a single theory of the
universe in a finite number of statements." Who knows? We should
therefore be humble to a point, but we should also be arrogant enough
to press on, say, with looking for cures to cancer based on past
research and experience. A childhood leukemia was a death sentence in
1956, and unless prayer has become far more effective in modern
nations, cure rates are now quite high in 2006 due to modern medicine.
Well done science is in great part about building expectations
inductively. The word expectation in science means "mean." In
principle, there is a mean (expected) human height, but most humans are
of average height, an average being a range of heights to the left and
right of the mean. But because our rulers are imperfect, and can never
be made perfect-rulers also typically expand when hot and contract
when cold-and because our eyes aren't perfect, and so on, we can
never truly know with perfection what the actual human mean height is
at any given moment, even if we could somehow sample every human being
at the same moment in time-another physical impossibility. Thus,
just as with the ubiquitous sampled political poll, a range of error,
which we can estimate, is inherent in the value for mean human height.
Because of this inherent error, well done science is also about
continually looking for cracks in well done science. We are still
testing relativity and quantum mechanics, and will continue to do so,
not because we expect a radical change necessarily, but rather a
continual refinement of our testable hypotheses. Sorry creation
science-if you have no testable hypothesis, you're not really a
science.
Almost by definition, faith equals NO DOUBT and conversely. Faith also
defines a belief system with no error bars. A faith based belief
system can be as pernicious to science as to morality because it too
readily admits illogical, nonsensical foundations. Immanuel Kant
believed that without religion, or at least faith in a god, morality
and civilization could not survive for long. I doubt this. Rather, it
seems more likely that religion and organized faith in some god,
coupled with today's energy and resource crises, and nuclear weapons
proliferation in the hands of Muslim radicals, may end civilization, if
not humanity out right. North Korea's Dear Leader wants oil and food
for his nation in which Buddhism, Confucianism and some Christianity is
practiced. Muslim radicals want us to meet Allah in a mushroom cloud
so that He can sort us out.
In fact, time and again history has shown that under a moral philosophy
of NO DOUBT entire hordes of religiously motivated people of faith have
maimed and butchered children, burned witches, lynched blacks, killed
homosexuals, oppressed women, burned books, imprisoned scholars,
pillaged, plundered and razed entire civilizations, and slowly
eviscerated other peoples. And these religiously motivated people
committed, and continue to commit these crimes and atrocities against
humanity without a doubt in their minds for they were and are following
the will of their god, NO DOUBT. This is not to say that people of
faith based organized religion don't do some "good" work some of
the time. I'm sure that some nominal fraction of organized church
monies, for example, goes into cancer research and other good causes,
but what fraction? Half? I doubt it. Grand expensive churches, and
other expenses Jesus would have approved of, like money to "values"
pandering politicians and their political action committees can be
murder on their cash flows. But why do these people of good faith do
this "good" work to begin with? Is it out of the goodness of their
own hearts, or for the reward of life after death for Christians, or a
harem for Islamic suicide bombers? The religious, it can be argued, do
"good" work more to save their own skins than the skins of those
they wish to "save", like the American natives. Any claimed
sincerity on a religious person's part is innately questionable,
which leads me to propose an alternative, science based morality and
social contract for the future sake of humanity.
Imagine a hypothetical world where people shunned NO DOUBT faith
whatsoever, and instead searched for demonstrable, defendable,
repeatable facts with good science practice and sound logic. Instead
of trying to "help" each other out by trying to "save" each
other with ropes and bullets, these people might try to get along
without stealing, cheating or killing because it's good for a
secular, democratic civilization of laws, and such a civilization
(producing modern leukemia treatments) is good for them. I would not
expect perfection given our innate competitiveness and sometimes
lawless tendencies, but I would expect a reduced misery and a reduced
chance of self-destruction. After all, a herd mentality requires a
threshold number of similarly minded instigators, and if there are less
such instigators, there is a reduced likelihood to herd. Who do you
see as more likely to cause trouble, a group of like-minded fanatics
with a NO DOUBT belief system, or a tough looking group of rowdy
doubting Thomases?
Of course, since I am advocating a scientific, doubt based morality
over religious, NO DOUBT based moralities, some people will point out
the dark ways of some science and scientists. Science brought us the
A-bomb, and then the H-bomb. Since then, we have not had a third world
war, but thanks to the internet and other technologies, more people are
rising up the economic rungs worldwide, and gamma knives kill brain
tumors. We still do, however, constantly suffer too many regional
religious conflicts-witness our conflict against Islamic fanatics
replete with beautiful beheadings in the name of Allah. On the
personal level, certainly there have been, and there still are evil
scientists absolutely convinced of their nefarious theories who get
tempted to play gods. But there also have been, and there still are
evil priests and popes who like to play god. These points, picking out
individuals from a population, are not the point. Scientists do not
make the scientific method any more than religious leaders make up
religion. By the way, history records that fifty-nine A-bomb scientists
signed a petition to President Truman asking him to demonstrate the
bomb's power to the Japanese on a remote island. In the end, given the
stiffening Japanese resistance as American forces neared Japan, the
historical record leads me to conclude that many more American and
Japanese lives were spared with the use of Fat Man and Little Boy than
would otherwise have been.
Ultimately, a non-religious humanity following a doubt-based morality
is not guaranteed survival. A humongous comet may yet squash us like
the bugs we are-splat! We humans, because we are innately
competitive, and have difficulties with basic morality (e.g., we kill,
steal, cheat, often in the name of some god) may yet treat ourselves to
nuclear winter or death by advanced viral weapons. Given our history,
it seems arguably less likely that such a end might happen to us if we
gave up NO DOUBT.
As for our personal salvation, if and until we figure out how to cure
aging and disease, and perhaps transform ourselves into more advanced
types of indefinitely long lived beings, we die, and our lives will
have had no meaning other than, perhaps, the quality of our children we
raised, and what we contributed to the betterment of humanity while we
lived. Eventually, though, as Marcus Aurelius noted, even this
personal meaning to our lives would fade into time immemorial. I'm
pretty sure of one thing. If there is a Christian-like god out there,
a god who blames our flaws on us, not He, the Creator, and is so petty
that It needs my worship else It sends me to Hell, well then, send my
credentials to the house of detention. I've got some friends in
there-friends who died in foxholes.
Sincerely,
Alex Alaniz, Ph.D.
On Nov 19, 12:58 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:35:15 -0600, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <12lvup58f51u...@corp.supernews.com>
"Jason Spaceman" <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:3phvl21mlmm68brk9ekv2cv6p41k0gk4ol@4ax.com...
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
Sat, Nov. 18 2006 02:30 PM ET
MCLEAN, Va. - Today's Christian no longer has to try to maintain only
by faith their belief in the origin of the universe. The atheist now
does.
Former atheist and award-winning Christian author Lee Strobel
premiered his one-hour documentary "The Case for a Creator" to
hundreds of Christians at an apologetics conference Friday. The
aftermath of the movie: Christians felt they actually learned
something.
"We are actually living now at a time of tremendous intellectual
renaissance of Christianity," said philosopher and author Dr. William
Lane Craig.
Craig's comment came after fellow philosopher J.P. Moreland told
conference participants that the church has become anti-intellectual.
"We've got to start using cognitive language and not just faith
language," Moreland exhorted.
Over the last several decades, Christians have begun to emerge back
into the intellectual public square. This is primarily occurring in
the field of philosophy, New Testament studies with regard to the
historical Jesus and the gospels, and it is now beginning to occur in
the physical sciences as manifested in the Intelligent Design
movement, Craig explained.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it athttp://www.christianpost.com/article/20061118/23538.htm
Boy, do these Jesus people live in delusion. One line that caught my eye
was:
'"I believe that by doing science, we find God," said Strobel."
Now is that a ridiculous statement or is that a ridiculous statement? 'Find
God'? What? Is a probe to Mars going to dig up some Martian soil and reveal
a 'God' hiding just beneath the surface? Are the scientists going to find a
microbe with a molecular Jesus waving at them through an electron
microscope? These people put on a pretty decent 'phony' front. But that's
all it is -- phony. Pretending that we atheists are somehow on the defensive
now is mere posturing; some 'positive' phony-baloney for the home front,
that's all. They're both talking out their ***** and *taking* it on the ***** at
the same time. The theists are no closer to producing a 'God' than they were
four-hundred years ago. In fact, 'God' is running out of places to hide.
What a bluff the Jesus people continue to put on. The only people they are
fooling are themselves.
GreywolfHawking is guilty of that.
As an atheist, closing off one of his books with the remark about
seeing the mind of God, is remarkably provocative.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 02:43:14 PM |
|
|
That's twice you dished up this feeble Watchtoweresque canned fetid
*****.
Go away, faker.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bodega" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
21 Nov 2006 01:31:25 AM |
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
Sat, Nov. 18 2006 02:30 PM ET
Craig's comment came after fellow philosopher J.P. Moreland told
conference participants that the church has become anti-intellectual.
"We've got to start using cognitive language and not just faith
language," Moreland exhorted.
Guess J.P. hasn't heard. It's been tried. The cognitive-language name
was Intelligent Design. The evidence consisted of assertions that
Intelligent Design was science. Case dismissed.
Next case, please.
-- Mike Palmer
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 11:39:22 AM |
|
|
Former atheist and award-winning Christian author Lee Strobel
What theist on Earth is *NOT* a former atheist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 02:46:57 PM |
|
|
On 19 Nov 2006 09:39:22 -0800, "Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1163957962.196805.54850@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Former atheist and award-winning Christian author Lee Strobel
What theist on Earth is *NOT* a former atheist?
A time traveller?
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
21 Nov 2006 10:05:16 AM |
|
|
MCLEAN, Va. - Today's Christian no longer has to try to maintain only
by faith their belief in the origin of the universe. The atheist now
does.
Not to mention "The Jew."
Odd how theists insist "faith" is good enough when it comes to
something they very much desire to be true, but when it comes to that
which they fear (i.e., reality), "faith" becomes a sneer word.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 08:38:07 AM |
|
|
In article <3phvl21mlmm68brk9ekv2cv6p41k0gk4ol@4ax.com>,
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
Former atheist and award-winning Christian author Lee Strobel
premiered his one-hour documentary "The Case for a Creator" to
hundreds of Christians at an apologetics conference Friday.
Well, I've known that Strobel is an idiot for a couple of years now,
ever since I started reading one of his "Case for" books. Now he's gone
to the bother of making a documentary of his lunacy?
There's just no damn justice in the world today...
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
18 Nov 2006 11:35:37 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
Sat, Nov. 18 2006 02:30 PM ET
MCLEAN, Va. - Today's Christian no longer has to try to maintain only
by faith their belief in the origin of the universe. The atheist now
does.
Former atheist and award-winning Christian author Lee Strobel
premiered his one-hour documentary "The Case for a Creator" to
hundreds of Christians at an apologetics conference Friday. The
aftermath of the movie: Christians felt they actually learned
something.
"We are actually living now at a time of tremendous intellectual
renaissance of Christianity," said philosopher and author Dr. William
Lane Craig.
Craig's comment came after fellow philosopher J.P. Moreland told
conference participants that the church has become anti-intellectual.
"We've got to start using cognitive language and not just faith
language," Moreland exhorted.
Over the last several decades, Christians have begun to emerge back
into the intellectual public square. This is primarily occurring in
the field of philosophy, New Testament studies with regard to the
historical Jesus and the gospels, and it is now beginning to occur in
the physical sciences as manifested in the Intelligent Design
movement, Craig explained.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061118/23538.htm
J. Spaceman
Lee Strobel seems ot be another "former atheist". Even if this were
true, I find it strange that the fundies who raised me are so impressed
by such people. They use these "former atheists" to confirm their
stereotypes ("I wallowed in sin! I used drugs, and never shaved, and
was mean to kittens! But then I stopped reading Darwin, and was
*saved!")
What does any of this have to do with science? The Christian who first
taught me about evolutionary science just did science when he wore his
grad student hat; his religion was another part of his life. We argued
about ethics, but not religion. He didn't try to convert me, because he
knew I had heard the "message", and he had no evidence to offer me. He
had no way to convince anyone who was learning to think scientifically,
but who was not inclined to theism.
How does the evidence change when Strobel converts? Do all the fossils
disintegrate? Do the lab results from DNA analysis dissolve into
corrupted files? Does another model, which didn't fit the data before,
suddenly fit?
Strobel and his ilk are not doing science. I suspect they are not doing
good theology, but that's not for me to say. I seem to remember Jesus
telling "Doubting" Thomas that it was good to believe because of
evidence, but better to believe without evidence. Why do so many
fundamentalists twist and misrepresent verfiable evdience to try to
justify their faith? I suspect some of them have little faith, and are
trying to convince themselves. I suspect others want the respectibility
of science, but are either clueless, too dishonest, or too lazy to to
the work necessary. Still others want power, and they hope to acquire
that power by weakening science, and thereby making their claims to
authority more persusive.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perplexed in Peoria" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 01:40:52 AM |
|
|
"Kermit" <unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1163914537.148473.67370@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip article by Strobel]
Lee Strobel seems ot be another "former atheist". Even if this were
true, I find it strange that the fundies who raised me are so impressed
by such people. They use these "former atheists" to confirm their
stereotypes ("I wallowed in sin! I used drugs, and never shaved, and
was mean to kittens! But then I stopped reading Darwin, and was
*saved!")
What does any of this have to do with science? The Christian who first
taught me about evolutionary science just did science when he wore his
grad student hat; his religion was another part of his life. We argued
about ethics, but not religion. He didn't try to convert me, because he
knew I had heard the "message", and he had no evidence to offer me. He
had no way to convince anyone who was learning to think scientifically,
but who was not inclined to theism.
How does the evidence change when Strobel converts?
It is a fact of human nature that one always worries "Am I maybe
missing something in my analysis of this?". That is why people
seek feedback on their ideas. We know there are people with
other ideologies out there, but it takes a significant effort to
actually learn enough about another ideology to evaluate it properly.
Learning a second ideology is like learning a second language -
it is hard work.
Therefore, it is always a relief to encounter a convert from the
other side. "See, this guy speaks both languages, but prefers ours.
Nothing to worry about. All that complicated jargon that the other
side uses is just *****. I don't have to go to the work of learning
about it myself."
Don't knock it. We evilutionists do it ourselves. Even Ron O. is
cheered up when someone who used to work at DI comes out and says -
"You know, it really IS a scam".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 08:21:18 AM |
|
|
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
"Kermit" <unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1163914537.148473.67370@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip article by Strobel]
Lee Strobel seems ot be another "former atheist". Even if this were
true, I find it strange that the fundies who raised me are so impressed
by such people. They use these "former atheists" to confirm their
stereotypes ("I wallowed in sin! I used drugs, and never shaved, and
was mean to kittens! But then I stopped reading Darwin, and was
*saved!")
What does any of this have to do with science? The Christian who first
taught me about evolutionary science just did science when he wore his
grad student hat; his religion was another part of his life. We argued
about ethics, but not religion. He didn't try to convert me, because he
knew I had heard the "message", and he had no evidence to offer me. He
had no way to convince anyone who was learning to think scientifically,
but who was not inclined to theism.
How does the evidence change when Strobel converts?
It is a fact of human nature that one always worries "Am I maybe
missing something in my analysis of this?". That is why people
seek feedback on their ideas. We know there are people with
other ideologies out there, but it takes a significant effort to
actually learn enough about another ideology to evaluate it properly.
Learning a second ideology is like learning a second language -
it is hard work.
Therefore, it is always a relief to encounter a convert from the
other side. "See, this guy speaks both languages, but prefers ours.
Nothing to worry about. All that complicated jargon that the other
side uses is just *****. I don't have to go to the work of learning
about it myself."
Don't knock it. We evilutionists do it ourselves. Even Ron O. is
cheered up when someone who used to work at DI comes out and says -
"You know, it really IS a scam".
I'm not cheered up, I just use it as a blatant acknowledgement that
they were running a scam. Take Philip Johnson's latest confession that
there never was any science to teach about ID. Did Johnson acknowledge
that he was one of the founding fathers of the teach ID scam and the
Wedge? There were even rumors that Johnson was one of the authors of
the Wedge document (beats me if they were true, Johnson and the
Discovery Institute never said one way or the other). Did he say when
he came to realize that ID was too bogus to teach? Why did he wait
until after the ID scam failed in court to "confess?" Johnson helped
get the Discovery Institute perps organized back in 1995 and organized
their mission. By 1999 guys like Meyer (the director of the Renewal of
Science and Culture department at the Discovery Institute) had already
given up on the ID scam and were casting around for a replacement. So
when did Johnson know that ID was bogus, and why didn't he come forward
with that information before Ohio in 2002 or Dover last year?
These guys aren't converts. Nelson was the first of the Discovery
Institute perps to come out after Ohio and admit that they didn't have
a scientific theory. Why didn't Johnson back him up? Why did Dover
have to happen? Nelson is still running the scam at Biola (there is a
current thread about it). These guys are just trying to keep some
notion that they have credibility. The fact is that all Johnson's
confession did was place the blame for the failure of the ID scam on
the shoulders of the other ID perps like Dembski, Meyer, and Nelson.
The political scam obviously worked, but ID failed because the science
was never there to back it up. We all know who was responsible for the
bogus science, right?
These guys have no honor even among themselves. If that cheers anyone
up, go for it.
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
20 Nov 2006 03:35:38 PM |
|
|
Kermit wrote:
<Snippage>
Why do so many
fundamentalists twist and misrepresent verfiable evdience to try to
justify their faith? I suspect some of them have little faith, and are
trying to convince themselves. I suspect others want the respectibility
of science, but are either clueless, too dishonest, or too lazy to to
the work necessary. Still others want power, and they hope to acquire
that power by weakening science, and thereby making their claims to
authority more persusive.
In most cases, what they want is Everlasting Life, and evolution
presents a direct challenge to their recipe for it. Never
underestimate what a person will do or believe out of fear.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Carnegie" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 07:47:29 AM |
|
|
Kermit wrote:
I seem to remember Jesus
telling "Doubting" Thomas that it was good to believe because of
evidence, but better to believe without evidence.
You read it in a book, or someone told you about it. You weren't there
yourself. I don't think the story is true, and I think it was
concocted to encourage people to overlook the lack of evidence around
/them/ for Jesus's gospel, and believe anyway.
Anyway, as you appreciate, it's still different from believing
/against/ evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Grandbank" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 11:17:43 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
(snip)
"We've got to start using cognitive language and not just faith
language," Moreland exhorted.
Note the not-so-subtle distinction between using the language of a
process as opposed to the process itself.
KP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 06:09:59 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:36:46 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
[...]
Read it at http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061118/23538.htm
Also in tne article is another one for Glenn Morton's collection: "The
Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in
Creationism."
<http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm>
Jay Richards, co-author (with Guillermo Gonzalez) of _The Privileged
Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery_, reportedly
made the following claim:
Philosopher Jay Richards of Acton Institute concluded from his
findings that the universe was designed for discovery. And with
each discovery, the Darwinian theory of evolution is expected to
go down as "a huge mistake in history," Richards said.
People have, as Glenn documents at his site, been "expecting" that for over
150 years, even before Darwin published. There is an old saying: "The
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting
different results."
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
[I]n its relation to Christianity, intelligent design
should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation . . .
- William A. Dembski -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 11:55:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:36:46 -0500, Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
Sat, Nov. 18 2006 02:30 PM ET
MCLEAN, Va. – Today’s Christian no longer has to try to maintain only by
faith their belief in the origin of the universe. The atheist now does.
Golly, he's right! Science shows there *must* be a 'god'. So, what can
science say about this god? What is He made of? Carbon? What is his
mass? What is his melting point? Is He made of pure energy? Does his
influence follow the inverse square law? Can He be stored in a battery?
Come on, now. If you are going to claim that science supports the
existence of god, you are going to have to start coming up with some
answers to such basic questions. Otherwise, STFU!
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Lee Strobel: Science Gives Christians Upper Hand Over Atheists |
19 Nov 2006 10:53:18 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:36:46 -0500, Jason Spaceman wrote:
Lee Strobel: I Wouldn't Recognize Science If You Hit Me Over The Head
Repeatedly With A Telescope
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned
and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and
the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until
all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic
is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever
before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions
may prove groundless." -Abraham Lincoln
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
