Dialogue with Atheist pboyfolyd from previous post

These are some longs comments from the previous post by pboyfloyd.

I have decided to post them here for all to easily see.

Comment

"Atheism, on the other hand, is also a belief, belief (without proof) that God does not exist."

Atheist

No, I think not. I do not believe that there are any gods, not even the one. This is simply disbelief in every sort of theism.

Reply

Now notice the response, I say atheism is a belief, our atheist then says NO it is not, but then contradicts himself by saying he does believe, just in the non-existence of Gods? He believes in no Gods. Now which is it? What does our atheist friend mean by believe? Because it is very unclear how he uses the phrase. How can he say I do not believe and then say he believes in nothing? Very Confusing?

But lets anticipate his response here. He might say, non-belief is not a belief.  But this is just semantics, belief in nothing is still a belief. Furthermore if this is actually what he wants to go by, then the theist could say likewise that he does not believe in God, he just affirms God. In the excat same way an atheist denies God.    

Comment

"Henceforth this simple doctrinal statement has nothing left to restrain anyone from making the claim that they can kill someone because of the belief that there is no God."

Atheist

Atheism isn't necessarilly [sic] a doctrine, saying that it's a 'doctrinal statement' doesn't necessarilly [sic] make that true. for [sic] example, no one taught me or instructed me to say that there are no gods, if anything the opposite is true!

What carefully worded word porridge. I can claim that I can kill someone because of the belief that there is no God? There is nothing stopping anyone at all from making such a claim whether they believe what they're saying or not.

Reply

My first question to my atheist friend is if it is not necessarily a doctrine, then what is it? My second question is how does this refute the point I made?

Comment

"This essentially is my point."

Atheist

I'm not 'getting' your point. You could claim that you can kill someone if you claim that your God inspired you to go ahead and kill someone, as I'm sure that most who killed in the name of God or Jesus would be happy to say, so what?

Reply

Cleary my point is lost. Lets state it again. The Christians Doctrine tells us not to kill people, therefore killing in the name of the Christians God is not Christian. This is as clear as I can be.

Comment

"Christianity should be judged on its written doctrines not humanistic interpretations of them, just like the classic music composers of the elk of Mozart."

Atheist

That's ludicrous. Aren't you judging Christianity on your interpretation of it's written doctrines?

Comment

No not at all. I am judging them on how the Bible judges them. This is the first principle the biblical interpretation, sola scripture. 

Atheist

And how should the 'classic music composers of the elk of Mozart' be judged except by peoples' interpretation of what they hear, or read, if they read music?

Reply

Definitely not by a child for starters. It should be judges as you say, by all people, performance masters, written scholars, historians, etc. Just the same process as Christianity

Atheist

Are you denying that you read doctrines, or music or listen to the music and interpret it to something meaningful?

Reply

No not at all, your point?

Atheist

How is this reading without interpretation accomplished? One letter at a time with no interpretation of the meaning of the words?

Reply

It never is, however the science of interpretation is always employed. Content is the key not just to meanings phrases but to very definition of words found in the phrases.

Atheist

I said, 'Surely the 'face' of Christianity at different points in history are reflected in what people did in the name of their faith according to their interpretation of that faith.'

To which you reply, "No not at all."

Are you saying that there is no way that different people interpret the Bible in different ways?

Reply

No not at all. However, if the doctrines in the bible are interpreted by the Bible in a certain way and people disagree then clearly this is not a Christian interpretation.

Comment

"This is akin to arguing that a child playing Beethoven on the piano very poorly, is a reflection of Beethoven's music?"

Atheist

I disagree that it is akin to that. You must imagine that most Christians are akin to children playing Beethoven on the piano very badly, since a majority of Christians wouldn't agree with your interpretation of the Bible 100%(for example which parts are literal, which parts poetic and which parts figurative or metaphorical.)

Reply

Again, I am not asking Christians to agree with me just the doctrines and how the scriptures interpret them. And as to your questions about different genres being employed within scripture the markers are quite distinctive.

Atheist

In fact you must imagine the Jews, every single one, as akin to inept childlike piano players giving bad performances when it comes to their interpretations of their Holy Books, no?

Reply

Not at all, I don’t know how you made that leap. Looks like you trying an ad hominine argument style here. And I thought you did not like trying to score cheap points. However, to answer your question, the Jews fundamentally deny Jesus is God’s Son, yet affirm he performed miracles, and was worshiped as God. Both interpretations the Christians doctrines agree with as do I. The interpretations of Jesus is not the problem, rather their failure to worship him as God.

Comment

"There is no logical flow of that point."

Atheist

There's nothing illogical about what I said at all. A crappy rendition of a musical piece by a child is a terrible analogy considering the huge variety of interpretations of the Bible, from both a Jewish and Christian point of view, each of which were or are considered seriously by those proposing them.

It doesn't mean anything to compare Scripture or Doctrine to music, was that what you meant by 'no logical flow'?

Reply

Well let me be clear. Your point is that we can judge Christianity based on people’s expression of them, correct? (If I have misunderstood then please let me know). My reply is that we don’t do this at all in any other field, musical interpretation was the example given. Your response is that this is not the same because we have many interpretations of doctrines and people are serious about them? This does not make sense at all, nor does it have any logic behind it at all let alone logical flow. What does a plethora of interpretations have to do with judging interpretations on humanistic expressions?

Comment

"so how would an atheist prove Tomorrow? If they had an answer for that then maybe the theist could give them a suitable proof of God."

Atheist

I'd chat with a friend in Australia. I'd ask him/her what day it was. He/she would tell me it's tomorrow for me. I'd say, "I can't just take your word, long story, show me the view of tomorrow from a video cam. And there I'd see tomorrow. Proof positive that there is a tomorrow!

Now, show me your video of God!

Reply

I like this response. There are a least three things wrong with this proof. Firstly you would not be watching your tomorrow. You would be watching your friends present. From his standpoint it is your tomorrow but from your position you are looking at his present. It’s a little thing Einstein call general relativity.

Secondly, physics aside, the proof that the earth has different time zones is in no way proof tomorrow exists. For example an Island recently in the pacific changed its time zone effectively loosing a day compared to the rest of the world. But how can you loose a day. This is just again a relationship problem with time zones not a comment on the metaphysical problem of gaining or loosing an actual day.

Thirdly, how would a TV show be proof or evidence, how would you be certain the your friend was not fabricating everything.

Now I don’t have a video of God but I have a letter about him from people who watching him in the flesh, would you like to read it?

Comment

"For example argue your point for me, why is the denial of God a political doctrine. I would infer no God, no need for progress, therefore halt modernity and kill those that disagree?"

Atheist

Well, I don't want to play a game of 'spot the murderous atheist regime', with you here, but certainly all the regimes which are radically different from their previous state are going to go through a period of unrest. I don't think that the USSR 'halted modernity' at all, for example.

Reply

I am not asking you to play games. Please read my comments carefully. I asked you to argue you point, not look at historical examples. Please make that case that denying God restrains your from killing people.

Atheist

Why is the denial of God a political doctrine? But you're dragging me in circles here. Only a comment ago I was saying that atheism WASN'T a doctrine.

Reply

Sure and I pointed out that that you must be using atheism in another way to the dictionary. Please define atheism for me if my dictionary is not to be relied on for this discussion.  

Atheist

Now 'denying' God has two possible meanings, denying that there are such things as gods or denying that a particular god is real or good or deserves worship and so on, so I think you are introducing unnecessary complication there.

Reply

I sorry you have chosen to think this way. I am after clarification, remember it is you that have said you don’t understand the points I am making, clarity is the key here.   

Causes of Violence - Nothing to do with religion

This snippet is taken from Koinonia News September 13 2003


The Mexico City news daily El Universal reports that violent crime now tops the cause-of-death list for young Mexicans between the ages of 15-29. The slaughter of Mexico's youth is the result of Mexico's drug wars, which are absolutely not based in religion.  According to Mexico's federal government, 1,638 young people were killed in drug cartel-related attacks in 2008. That number rose to 2,511 in 2009 and 3,741 in 2010. 


Have people been slaughtered in the name of religion? Certainly. Yet, the Crusades are a drop in the bucket compared to the massive death toll caused by atheistic regimes. The leaders of the French Revolution shoved God out of their social justice crusade, and the result was a blood bath. Stalin is responsible for the deaths of at least 20 million of his own people, and Mao Zedong's death toll runs upwards of 40-70 million. From Pol Pot in Cambodia to the Kims in North Korea, governments freed of "religion" – those utopias of atheistic communism - have murdered millions upon millions of people. People of various religions continue to fight all around the world, but, anti-God governments streamline human death. Any time people get starry-eyed about imagining "no religion too" they need a little history lesson. 


Are Atheists really arguing for a violence free world if there was no religion? This is one of the most silly propositions ever. 

The Dubious History of Richard Carrier Concerning Christianity

Since doing more research I have returned to Richard Carrier’s ‘Not the Impossible Faith,’ to begin a much more in-depth look at his argument. What I found has startled me even more than I previous thought or suspected.

In Carrier’s first paragraph and indeed his initial point; he suggests that J.P. Holding’s question, ‘Who on earth would believe a religion centred on a crucified man?’ can be answered simply by looking and the so-called Babylonian Queen God, Inanna. Who, according to Carrier, was stripped naked and crucified, yet rose again and, triumphant, condemned to Hell her lover.[1]

Whilst this sounds strong and powerful a quick reference check to Carrier’s sources demonstrates that Carrier is not getting the information from a primary source, at all. Rather a work about histories first events? This should immediately raise some suspicion. What’s more when I looked at the The Sumerian "Inanna's Descent to the Netherworld" or the Akkadian parallel "Ishtar's Descent." I found Carriers little summary to be completely false. Here is a summary of the Descent of Inanna myth from the Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Mircea Eliade: cited by Phil Vaz [2]

"Inanna, the queen of heaven, sought to extend her power over the underworld, ruled by her sister, Ereshkigal. As in the Akkadian text, Inanna descends through seven gates, at each removing an article of clothing or royal regalia until, after passing through the seventh gate, she is naked and powerless. She is killed and her corpse hung on a hook. Through a strategem planned before her descent, she is revived, but she may not return above unless she can find a substitute to take her place. She re-ascends, accompanied by a force of demons who will return her to the land of the dead if she fails. After allowing two possible candidates to escape, she comes to Erech, where Dumuzi, the shepherd king who is her consort, appears to be rejoicing over her fate. She sets the demons on him, and after he escapes several times, he is captured, killed, and carried off to the underworld to replace Inanna." ("Dying and Rising Gods", volume 4, page 525-6, emphasis mine).

As Phil Vaz points out with his bold emphasis Carrier has got the story completely wrong. Inanna is not stripped naked and crucified, rather she descended to the underworld slowly removing her clothing piece by piece and at which point she was killed! Carrier even acknowledges that Holding knows that Inanna was not crucified and simply restates his point, ‘Holding has tried to protest that Inanna wasn’t really crucified. But being stripped naked, killed, and nailed up in shame amounts to the same thing to any reasonable observer.[3]

What should be made of Carrier’s first rebuttal against Holding? Was he aware of his sources but chose to ignore them or was he unaware and choose not to follow through on Holding’s original protest?

Carrier then moves onto a direct discussion the cult of Attis in support of people following a disgraced king, a eunuch in this case, but we can leave this aside as shown Carrier original point has not refuted Holdings.

Page 24 marks a continuation of the disgraced King worship in which Carreir argues that. ‘the early Christian appear to have come from disgruntled poor or middle class, who had grown disgusted with the fundamental injustices in their society and government.’ Carrier cites the desire of the Apostle Paul in the book of Acts to support this point. Interestingly enough however, Paul himself did not fit this mould. Him being a upper class Jew with impeccable credentials and at the fore front of justice to his people with specific reference to Christians. Furthermore Luke, the physician, a doctor clearly not poor and upper middle class at worst does not fit this model either. How can one argue possible desires trump actual accounts? Again what are we to make of Carrier’s point here? Its as if some major details escape his methodology?

Whilst I must admit here that Carrier does make some accurate claims that Christianity did find strength in the poor and oppressed and Holding does have some oversimplifications to address, clearly it cannot be as Carrier attempts to suggests the case is. To illustrate this point completely on page 34 Carrier argues that many people expected a humiliated Savior.[4] Carrier feels confident to make this point because the scripture, the Old Testament, says plainly that. This point Carrier thinks is a reasonable claim to assume that at best, ‘ a large number of people had been prepared by Jewish scriptures to expect that someone would suffer a most humiliation execution at the hands of the wicked elite, despite his complete innocence and that this person would be the Chosen One of God, a Son of God.[5]

Not only is this the only piece of evidence that Carrier gives to state his point but he fails to consider a whole range of counter evidence against this possibility. Firstly, for Carrier point to hold water he must show that these texts he refers to was in line with what was actually taught in the first century Jewish synagogue, something a trained historian should be able to accomplish. Secondly, if Carrier cannot present data to confirm this then he must show teaching in line with that text as presenting texts as evidence is nothing to show adherence for an illiterate culture. Thirdly, Carrier must give evidence as to why ALFRED EDERSHEIM, M.A.Oxon., D.D. Ph.D. who wrote, ‘THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS THE MESSIAH,’ is wrong when he argues…

It were an extremely narrow, and, indeed, false view, to regard the difference between Judaism and Christianity as confined to the question of the fulfillment of certain prophecies in Jesus of Nazareth. These predictions could only outline individual features in the Person and history of the Messiah. It is not thus that a likeness is recognised, but rather by the combination of the various features into a unity, and by the expression which gives it meaning. So far as we can gather from the Gospel narratives, no objection was ever taken to the fulfillment of individual prophecies in Jesus. But the general conception which the Rabbis had formed of the Messiah, differed totally from what was presented by the Prophet of Nazareth. Thus, what is the fundamental divergence between the two may be said to have existed long before the events which finally divided them. It is the combination of letters which constitute words, and the same letters may be combined into different words. Similarly, both Rabbinism and - what, by anticipation, we designate - Christianity might regard the same predictions as Messianic, and look for their fulfillment; while at the same time the Messianic ideal of the Synagogue might be quite other than that, to which the faith and hope of the Church have clung.

Carrier continually makes points of showing Holdings research to be faulty and disingenuous however I cannot see Carrier performing any better myself. This chapter is not a careful rebuttal of Holding; it is a one sided, ill thought out rhetorical snap at Holding points and casts long shadows over the rest of this work and the money paid to produce it.

---

[1] Carrier, Richard. Not the Impossible Faith. Lulu.com, 2009. p.17.

[2] http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCarrier.htm

[3] Carrier., p.19

[4] The title of the last section in chapter 1. Carrier., p.34

[5] Carrier., p.43

The Other Dark Side of Religious Education

If media coverage in anything to go by, then the recent secular scorn over religious education in public schools in Australia is a certain ‘hot potato’ issue at the moment. A recent online poll of the Age Newspaper in Melbourne put only 19% of people in favour of religious education in schools. These numbers are in no way as damning as the comments that accompany them. Letters to the editor and online forum comments from the Age, are extremely damning of both the Anglican Arch Bishop of Melbourne and the Chief executive officer of Access Ministries, Dr. Evonne Paddison. Comments include…, ‘dump these fanatics NOW. this is an affront to all that is reasonable’ and ‘Is anyone really surprised by this? This is nothing less than child abuse. To indoctrinate children (is there scare involved as well?) before they have developed their critical faculties is a form of child abuse - and at the moment it's State sponsored child abuse. [R]espect the child !!’

I find these comments and polls rather surprising and I suspect completely ill informed. I say this because I spent three years myself as an Anglican Chaplain in a secondary public school under the Chaplain government-funding grant issued by the late Howard Government and my experience could not have been more opposite to what is being described through public opinion.

Initially, I began my association with the school as a volunteer Piano teacher, which I have qualifications for whilst working in a local Anglican Church. After a full school year, the Chaplain funding grant was passed and I applied through the vice Principal directly to the government and not through Access Ministries. The grant was successful and the School were given the full $10’000 for three years. This meant that I was employed as the School Chaplain for 1 and ½ days a week for three years.

I was placed under the direction of the School ‘Well Fare’ Coordinator (a public and professing Atheist) and I was to report to her whilst also teaching more children the Piano for free in class time.

In my preliminary meeting with the ‘Well Fare’ Coordinator I was instructed not to take any initiative with any children in the School. I was to wait in a room shared by a council paid community worker and a school psychologist and wait for referrals from her to me from Children. I was instructed not to approach any child, and if they approached me, I was to refer it back to Coordinator of ‘Well Fare’ and she would decide if this was a good topic to discuss. It was also decided that they only topic I was qualified to comment on was grief in the face of death and this would be my only brief in the school. At no stage was the job description for a School Chaplain from the government web site consulted. At no stage was free speech by myself given as viable option. At no point was I offered the place to give my opinion of even able to answer questions from any child that might have an enquiring mind. My time was spent driving buses, playing board games with socially dysfunctional children, teaching piano, helping the sport coach, and many, many hours sitting in a room doing nothing all the time wasting tax payers dollars.

It appears impossible and quite stupid to describe my chaplain experience as fanatical, unreasonable, proselytizing, indoctrinating, disrespectful or abusive. The simple facts are is that the hierarchy of this particular public school were all of these things done under the guise of materialistic Atheism, which was the ideology of the coordinator of the ‘Well Fare’ at the school. At not stage was my position even considered worth defending or explaining, public justice was sorely missing and children were denied their basic human rights to question denial of set beliefs in a public forum, which I would hazard is a mild form of abuse.

What really is happening behind the curtain of religious education? My experience was nothing but deliberate religious marginalisation in the face of misplaced fear and ill-informed opinion. I heartily agree that public indoctrination is wrong in our government schools, but clearly so is the fundamentalist assumption that atheism is the correct default position and consequently denial to access of free speech. What is next, censorship of access to religious web sites in our schools? Evidently there is another side to religious education in schools is not getting enough airtime.

Recent scientific discoveries deliver a broadside blow to Atheism in favour of Christianity

Until recently there was no non extra Biblical evidence that the Biblical characters of David and Solomon ever existed. This fact was used the delight of atheist around the globe as apparent evidence that the characters in the Bible were mere myths. However, as it seems to be the recent case with Christianity, science is now being used to make dynamic ground in favour not only of the truthfulness of the Old Testament but of a literal reading of the ancient scripts. In December 2010 National Geographic [a secular popular scientific magazine] published a cover article in favour of new discovers in the Holy Land.

The article favoured five key archaeological finds in favour of biblical history. These are as follows.

1. House of David. A stela appearing to be inscribed with the words ‘house of David’ was found at Tel Dan in 1993. Few archaeologists argue that this does not refer to the David of the Bible accounts.
2. City of David. In 2005 Eilat Mazar uncovered a monumental building in Jerusalem and identified it as David’s palace based on its location and pottery. Whilst the date of construction is contested the location and size strongly suggest this as recorded in the biblical accounts.
3. Ancient Copper Mines. Thomas Levy is excavating a large copper-production site dating to the tenth and ninth centuries B.C., strongly implying that this is the famed King Solomon’s mines. Critics argue though that this mine proves no connection with Israel however.
4. City of David Gates. Yosef Garfinkel is excavating ruins in Shaaraim [a biblical city with two gates] there and has found olive pits and pottery he dates to David’s time. His dig also uncovered to gates noted in the bible as near where the battle of David a Goliath took place. Only 5% has been explored so the verdict is still out on this site as to what ultimately it will reveal.
5. Fortified Cities. In 1960 an archaeologist named Yigael Yadin had identified six-chambered gates at all three sites and proclaimed them built by Solomon. In 1996 there was an alternate proposal suggested and this debate still continues.

Whilst the dating of the sites leaves room for interpretation the staggering weight of new evidence clearly points to a truthful literal Old Testament account of King David and Solomon. Thus while this does not prove that there is a God is clearly deals a strong blow to simply materialistic Atheist claims concerning the nature of reality.