Evangelist Chip posts what he thinks are some points which evolutionists, theistic or otherwise, atheists, and agnostics should consider:
You claim that you cannot trust the bible because it was written by men, yet you trust and seem willing to be martyred for fallible textbooks written by... men. Think about that one for a moment.
Yes, let's think about this.... martyred? I think that "fallible textbooks" is a reference to texts about evolution, so he must be talking about people defending the scientific accuracy of evolution and evolution texts. The definition of "martyr" is first someone who is put to death for their principles and second someone who suffers greatly for those principles.
I'm not aware of anyone being "martyred" in defense of evolution, but if that were to happen who would be causing the death and suffering? Conservative Christians — like Chip. So, Chip is suggesting that people can, could, or might be made to die or suffer greatly simply because they support scientific evidence and the scientific method instead of ancient religious superstitions. I thought this was supposed to be a defense of Christianity, not a description on its violent, repressive, and totalitarian tendencies?
Regardless, people trust the science of evolution despite the fallibility of those who do the scientific work because the scientific method does such a good job at weeding out errors, fraud, and misunderstandings. It's obviously not perfect, but it's the best method that humans have come up with thus far. The lack of trust in the claims found in the Bible isn't because the Bible was created by humans, but rather because so many of the claims are demonstrably false or unverifiable. The Bible wasn't created on the basis of any methodology that successfully weeded out false ideas from true ones.
You claim tolerance when you can't even tolerate us speaking up against a THEORY.
I think that Chip must be working from a very idiosyncratic definition of "tolerance" if he doesn't think that creationist complaints about evolution aren't "tolerated." No one has tried to suppress creationists' free speech rights. No one has tried to stop them from voicing their opinions, at least insofar as they are acting as private citizens. Creationist opinions are as tolearated as any other opnions.
On the other hand, creationists also aren't allowed to get away with lies, misrepresentations, and ignorant mistakes about the science they pretend to be criticizing. Those sorts of things are "tolerated" in the sense that they are not suppressed, but they are not "tolerated" in the sense that they are permitted to pass by without remark — and why should they be? If Chip is expecting that sort of tolerance, he's a hypocrite because he certainly isn't showing such tolerance towards evolution. If he can criticize evolution, others can criticize him for saying things that are wrong.
You wonder why the Bible never changes, when textbooks and evolutionary 'discoveries' change all the time to stay 'current'. Here's my quesetion: Which scientific statement in the bible needs to be updated? Answer: They are all current, yet were written 4,000 years ago. Hmm...
Scientific texts change because we continually learn new things and refine old information about the world we live in. That's how science works and, for some reason, many conservative theists regard such continual improvements as a flaw. The Bible, in contrast, has nothing scientific about it. The Bible is a collection of ancient documents created long before anything like "science" existed. As with other ancient texts, is has some true and some false information, some legitimate ideas and some awful ones. There's nothing surprising or unusual about that.
You wonder why Christians are always trying to 'shove the Gospel down your throat', yet would not stand idly by if someone was in danger and you were the only one around to rescue them. Answer: Chew on this - If you wholeheartedly believed there was a heaven and a hell and knew you had the information to prevent people from going to hell, would you sit on your hands and watch people go there daily, or would you do something about it?
Do you realize that your insults and cursings look to us like prisoners on death row despising and forsaking a pardon from the governer? We are adamant with you because we can't comprehend why you would be willingly ignorant of the idea of a Creator, whose rules you have violated, just as we have, who has every right to judge His Creation, yet cares enough to offer you redemption. We just can't figure out why you would reject that offer.
If I knew for sure that there was a hell, then I would also know that any being which created it, allowed it to be created, allowed it to exist, and/or allowed people to suffer there despite having the ability to end all that would necessarily be a being of exceptional evil and callousness. Followers of this being may try to pass off their behavior as "compassion," but there is nothing very compassionate about blind obedience and submission to such a being.
The message of Christianity can be broken down to "submit to this god or suffer for all eternity," where that suffering would not occur without the approval and complicity — if not direct participation — of the god in question. At the same time, we are supposed to believe that this god is perfectly loving and good on the basis of nothing more than (according to Christians) the word of this same god. That's quite a racket, but not one which an intelligent adult should be suckered into.
Hey Austin, I realize I could just e-mail you, but my e-mails don’t seem to be reaching you lately. I was just going to admit you were probably right on the Lee Strobel thread about the visions. But what about Joan leading the successful taking back of the fortress of Saint Loup? Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t she have no military experience before that?
Must be an idiosyncratic definition of “ignorant”. I am not ignorant of the idea of a Creator, I just don’t believe in that idea. The more I learn of that idea, like, for example, from the Bible, the less I believe in it. The more I learn about the type of people who do believe, like, for example, Evangelist Chip, the less I want to be like them.
If you wholeheartedly believed there was a heaven and a hell and knew you had the information to prevent people from going to hell, would you sit on your hands and watch people go there daily, or would you do something about it?
Do you realize that your insults and cursings look to us like prisoners on death row despising and forsaking a pardon from the governer? We are adamant with you because we can’t comprehend why you would be willingly ignorant of the idea of a Creator, whose rules you have violated, just as we have, who has every right to judge His Creation, yet cares enough to offer you redemption. We just can’t figure out why you would reject that offer.
Osama Bin Laden makes basically the same argument. He can’t understand why the west would reject his God’s offer of a soul-saving religion either. Since he finds these arguments convincing, perhaps Evangelist Chip should convert to Islam. For my part the fact that this line of reasoning can obviously justify mutually contradictory beliefs is enough to reject it as a valid form of argument.
The refutation is So easy, so simple. Two words CHARLES DARWIN
Why is it that while so many people would realize how wrong it was to push a human into a fire, they would say God “has every right” to do the same thing? The supposed creator of morality should have a moral standard AT LEAST as high as ours, not MUCH lower!
But for those who don’t think there’s ANYTHING supernatural (most regular visitors to this site don’t seem to), I’m curious what they think is the reason Joan of Arc was able to lead an army to capture Saint Loup without prior military experience, and recognize the Dauphin’s impostor as such and identify the real Dauphin.
YOU are the ignorant one my friend.
>> I’m curious what they think is the reason Joan of Arc was able to lead an army to capture Saint Loup without prior military experience>recognize the Dauphin’s impostor as such and identify the real Dauphin.
My comments aren’t showing up… oh well. Was military experience really needed to lead an army back then? Just point the army in the right direction and tell them to charge or retreat. It’s not like a lot of strategy is needed to sit around during a siege.
I know the imposter thing happened in the movie but is it documented in real life? Joan had a lot of friends in high places, it seems likely someone just said “Psst, that guy’s an imposter.”
Reply to Joan Of Arc post.
I think you are on to something. I watched Chris Angel (Mind Freak) get chewed up in a chipper and then spit in to back of a truck. He then miraculously crawled out of the truck all in one piece. I think only God could have put him together after getting shredded up like that. Chris Angel must be pretty tight with God just like Joan was. Too bad God was busy when Joan was got toasted. I hope God isn’t too busy sometime when Chris needs him.
“why you would be willingly ignorant of the idea of a Creator”
I crave the idea of a “Creator”. I especially crave the idea of the “Creator of the Creator”. And his “Creator”…
I think, too, that with Joan, you might be putting too much emphasis on her leadership. Don’t discount advisors, as most military leaders don’t lead in a vaccum. It’s completely possible that she had information and stratgies available to her before she gained her “direction” from god.
I can’t say how many times people claim they have dreams of things that then happened. They say it like it’s a mystery. Beyond the reality of coincidence, sometimes we recognize cues subconsciously, and incorporate them into our psyche. I may not even be paying attention, but in the back of my mind, I recognize you’re sniffling a lot. That night I dream you’re in the hospital–and lo and behold, you call in sick the next day. “Hey! I dreamed you got sick!”
Being surrounded by military personnel, it’s not unlikely she would have had access to both conscious and subconscious cues from many of the people around her.
http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens060403.asp
“…the most-successful wartime presidents in American history had little or no military experience: James Polk (Mexican War), Abraham Lincoln (Civil War), Woodrow Wilson (World War I), and Franklin Roosevelt (World War II). In contrast, all of the presidents who presided over Vietnam — Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon — saw active service during World War II.”
Some people simply have a knack for certain things. As one site I found pointed out, as a leader, I don’t have to understand how to assemble or work a gun. I only need to understand the extent of the damage a gun can do, and how much damage to apply where, in order to do the most harm to my enemy. She may have been a clever girl in that regard.
But we also have to take into account the idea of exaggeration in historical accounts. I read Caesar’s accounts of the Gallic Wars. And one passage in particular talked about all sorts of fantasy creatures he claims to have witnessed roaming Europe–utter fabrications. The rest of the book seemed very reliable insofar as not being grossly exaggerated or unbelievable (it may have been lies, but it sounded feasible, at least); but this one section left me wondering if it was potentially forged material, since it was a bit hard to swallow. Actually, impossible to swallow, as nothing even remotely close to what he described has ever been seen roaming Europe.
Joan lived an awfully long time ago. And ancient accounts aren’t really what we’re used to dealing with in the way of “testimony.” Even as close to us as James Frazer’s “The Golden Bough,” we have a scholar citing scholarly references to support his work–and yet, having studied anthropology, I promise you that some of the reports he relies on as “fact” are utter crap–but he would have had no way to confirm them; he was just reporting what other educated men had reported. And he trusted those reports. This was just at the end of the 1800s–not nearly so long ago as the stories about Joan.
Joan, in my opinion, is one of those characters of legend, where one is left wondering if there is any way to separate fact from fiction. Some parts are more likely to be true, I’m sure, while others, I’d bet, are more likely to be fiction. The accounts are somewhat better than King Arthur’s or Robin Hood’s–but I would still take it all with a grain of salt. She was, after all, a “saint,” and a “hero,” in many respects, and both are an invitation to exaggeration by people who write about them. She seems especially to be someone who would invite hatred or admiration from those who would care enough to record anything about her. So, I can’t imagine the accounts wouldn’t be someone colored by the feelings of the recording party.
Just some thoughts.
Correction Chip; you do not “know” you have the information to “save” someone in this regard, you believe you do. Belief and knowledge are not one and the same, as some religious theists seem to think. If one knows something to be true it is because they have good evidence that it is, which generally negates the need to “wholeheartedly believe” it to be true.
To a child, the punishment they receive for doing something bad sometimes looks like nothing more than the parents being mean. This line comes off as nothing more than an unruly child insisting that they are being treated unfairly and will continue to do so until Chip gives us a decent reason why we should take his religion seriously in the first place.
We continue to lack belief in this as Chip has not done the first thing to show why his beliefs have even a remote chance of being real. In the end, Chip, and presumably other Christians, are “adamant” because he knows he cannot offer anything in defense of his religion beyond threats, intimidation, guilt and quasi-feel-good platitudes. Not because we are asking for something unreasonable, but because Chip’s beliefs are highly unlikely and require such things to prop them up. Maybe Chip should begin by reflecting on why he continues to reject the beliefs of Muslims, Hindus, Jews and every other relgion, including the multitude of denominations of his own religion, that has been in existence since the dawn of humanity before insisting that others believe as he does. Then he might have an inkling as to why we question his.
“I know the imposter thing happened in the movie but is it documented in real life?”
According to my history teacher, the scene is “quite accurate”. By the way, how do you italicize test on this?
Hey, Evangelist Clip, maybe if I replace a few words in what you wrote to invoke a situation similar to the one you describe, your question will be answered:
Chew on this – If you wholeheartedly believed there were Nazi death camps and knew you had the information to prevent people from going to Aushwitz, would you sit on your hands and watch people go there daily, or would you do something about it?
Do you realize that your insults and curses look to us like prisoners on death row despising and forsaking a pardon from the governor?
We are adamant with you because we can’t comprehend why you would refuse to cooperate with Adolf Hitler, whose rules you have violated, just as we have, who has every right to judge his citizens, yet cares enough to offer you a chance to avoid Auschwitz. We just can’t figure out why you would reject that offer.
“Joan had a lot of friends in high places…”
How do you know?
“But what about Joan leading the successful taking back of the fortress of Saint Loup? Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t she have no military experience before that? ”
Oh, it’s quite simple, really. She had psychic powers and could read minds. No? Don’t like that explanation? Okay, she was a witch and invoked magic. Don’t like that one either? Okay, she was a time traveler and had the benefit of knowing how things would work out. No? Alright, she was a hyperintelligent alien.
You see, I can come up with all sorts of silly answers that don’t invoke a deity. The thing is, you have yet to see that a deity is just as silly, if not even more silly.
I haven’t studied Joan’s story a whole lot but from what I’ve read she had some powerful people backing her. How else could she have gained an audience without someone vouching for her?
Let’s say she did manage to identify the imposter… so what? If I were going to visit royalty I’m make sure I knew what they look like, why wouldn’t she? I think people just gave her accomplishments too much credit because she was a poor person and a woman. Both of which were probably considered handicaps back then.
As for Joan’s “leading the successful taking back of the fortress of Saint Loup” the strategy of the commanders before that had just been to wait and see. Joan’s strategy was attack attack attack. What’s so great about that? My four year old uses the same strategy when she plays boxing on the wii.
The fact that she won is nice, but not amazing.
“Oh, it’s quite simple, really. She had psychic powers and could read minds. No? Don’t like that explanation? Okay, she was a witch and invoked magic. Don’t like that one either? Okay, she was a time traveler and had the benefit of knowing how things would work out. No? Alright, she was a hyperintelligent alien.
You see, I can come up with all sorts of silly answers that don’t invoke a deity. The thing is, you have yet to see that a deity is just as silly, if not even more silly”.
I thought of that. That’s why I specifically said “supernatural”. I don’t even remember using the word “deity” or “God”.
Even if Joan did have an amazing knack for war tactics–has anyone ruled out the possibility of prodigy? Is it possible she could have had a natural brilliance for tactical warfare–not unlike Einstein’s grasp of physics or Mozart’s grasp of music?
“Even if Joan did have an amazing knack for war tactics–has anyone ruled out the possibility of prodigy? Is it possible she could have had a natural brilliance for tactical warfare–not unlike Einstein’s grasp of physics or Mozart’s grasp of music?”
I’m not familiar with prodigy. Did Einstein know a lot about physics before learning anything about them? What is “prodigy”?
By the way, wiki claims Charles VII said that during a private conversation, Joan revealed knowledge of him that he’d only whispered in prayer to God. Does anyone know if he is actually historically documented as saying that? I know that if it’s true, it wouldn’t necessarily be God who gave Joan the info, I’m just curious.
Prodigy is usually interchangeable with genius, that is someone who is extremely gifted in a particular area such science, math, music, art, etc. They will often have a really good grasp on the various concepts within the area they have the knack for, much better than the average person.
Well, I don’t know much about Joan, but according to the standard story, Einstein was a pretty poor student in grade school, even in math. It could be that he was just bored. Mozart, on the other hand, showed his amazing grasp of music very early. Of course, his father really encouraged that. But all this has nothing to do with the topic of this article. I really think that 411314 should bring this to the general forum.
How do I get to the general forum?
Click the button marked “Forums” on the left side of your screen. You might have to scroll down a bit to find it.
>…but according to the standard story, Einstein was a pretty poor student in grade school, even in math. It could be that he was just bored.
I’d have to go look it up, but I think what I recall was that he didn’t agree with what he was being taught. But that might just have been some wives’ tale and not really the case.
As usual, the truth appears to lie somewhere in between…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Youth_and_schooling
“…by the age of twelve, he learned Euclidean geometry from a school booklet. Soon thereafter he began to investigate calculus.”
“Rather than completing high school, Albert decided to apply directly to the ETH Zurich, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland. Without a school certificate, he was required to take an entrance examination, which he did not pass, although he got exceptional marks in mathematics and physics. Einstein wrote that it was in that same year, at age 16, that he first performed his famous thought experiment, visualizing traveling alongside a beam of light (Einstein 1979).”
Pearl Ostroff, unfortunately, I forgot my password for getting into the forum, so I clicked the “forgot password” button and typed in my e-mail address, and now I’m waiting for the e-mail that’s supposed to tell me my password.
Also, quick correction to correction to comment 23, wikipedia actually says “spoke of in silent prayer” not “whispered”. Here is the relevant quote:
“After a private conversation between the two (during which, Charles later stated, “Joan the Maid of Lorraine” (because she united France under one King) revealed herself to know secrets about himself that he had voiced only in silent prayer to God)…”
Going back to the original article, I’ve been pondering… and I am starting to really love the “forsaking a pardon” metaphor, because it outlines a few reasons why I don’t believe.
“Do you realize that your insults and cursings look to us like prisoners on death row despising and forsaking a pardon from the governer?”
Take this analogy further and we see the enlightenment process of an atheist:
First of all, if I were on death row and you ran to me with a pardon, you can be sure I would leap and yell and rejoice! But imagine if I then looked at the pardon, and it was nothing more than a napkin with some crayon scribbles. Everything I know and presume to know about pardons tells me this is not a real pardon. Despite your wholehearted belief, I could not take the pardon seriously. Yet the idea of a pardon appeals to me, so I would ask you to get the governor on the phone to verify it. And when you refused, saying I must simply trust your word, I would become very sad, and probably ask you to leave me alone so I could spend my remaining time in peace and contemplation, to make the most of my fiercly finite life. Of course you might continue to flail and yell about the legitimacy of your pardon, which would frustrate and aggrivate me. Yes, it would be your right to do so, and I would tolerate it. Though without legitimate evidence of a pardon, it seems quite arrogant and rude.
Now imagine that my sadness becomes intense joy as I realize that, in fact, there is no indication at all that I am actually on death row! There are no bars, no walls, no guards…. we’re standing on a green hill in the bloom of Spring, I in awe of the radiance and opportunity; you raving maniacly about the pardon! The PARDON! The future ahead of me, though finite, is certainly not dreary. I see no sign of judgement, nor anything to fear. What I actually see is quite promising and beautiful, full of imagination, challenge, hope, and wonder.
It seems, at this point, that your task is not only to convince me the pardon I forsake is real, but to convince me the execution is real as well.
Anyways… just a thought I had while cooking a pizza.
Research and evidence has trumped fairytales for centuries.
Lets not tolerate people who want to impose their imagination on us.