A REVIEW OF THE LIVE DEBATE: Does The God of the Bible Exist?
I sincerely hope you had a chance to watch the debate with Dan Barker (Preacher turned Atheist) and Kyle Butt (Christian Apologist).
Kyle had two primary arguments that are very hard to answer. One, he is correct in saying that Atheists cannot tell you what happened to start the ‘Big Bang.’ We all admit that we don’t know. His second convincing quote was “You can’t make a living-cell from non-life.” So far, he is right about this as well, and scientists all over the world are hard at work looking for an answer. We have not yet discovered the solutions to these two things. (If any of my fellow Atheists out there have a good rebuttal, I would love to hear it). However, this is not an argument for Christianity; only a missing link of evolution. This lack of answers is not proof of magic.
By making those statements, Kyle has only proved what Atheists have already admitted. There are things we don’t fully understand yet. But simply because we don’t know yet – doesn’t mean we won’t find out or that we should stop looking for answers. Nor, is that sufficient evidence of the Holy Bible being an accurate depiction of faith, and that New Testament Christianity is the ‘one true religion.’ There are many more obstacles to overcome, and Mr. Dan Barker quickly pointed them out.
I don’t know that it was a good idea for Kyle to take this debate. You see; Mr. Barker has been a major player on both sides of the fence, while Kyle has only seen things from the Christian viewpoint. To put things into perspective for you, by the time Dan had his degree in religion, ministered for 19 years, and turned to Atheism, Kyle was just 9 years old. To put it bluntly, this Atheist was a preacher longer than Kyle Butt has been a Christian.
Overall, Kyle was clearly out-matched. I would love to see Dan Barker take on Dr. Craig. (I will YouTube that to see if it’s happened yet).
It was clear that Dan knew the Bible better than Kyle, and put forth his case for Atheism far better than I could have (so far). Quite often, we heard Kyle fall to the ad hominem remarks such as “any honest Atheist…” followed by a theatrical pause, and then he continued; “well, honest about some things…” Of course, he always followed those jabs with comments like “but I’m not attacking Mr. Barker in any way” as if that somehow erases the sarcasm he had just put forth. It falls right in line with the southern lingo of “Bless his heart, but…” followed by an unimaginable attack of character that is graciously excused due to the pleasant preface. That only made me enjoy the little jabs Dan took back at him, which I would not normally condone.
I have to say one of my favorite arguments of the night, which I’ve heard before – but never put quite like this, was Dan’s analogy of the ‘married bachelor.’ When one thing is proved to be two opposite things, it is therefore evidence it does not exist in part or in whole. His examples came straight from the Bible where Yahweh is said to be ‘a god of peace’ and then another passage that claims he is ‘a god of war.’ Moreover, multiple passages state he is ‘all knowing’ yet when he speaks through an angel - to Abraham stopping the sacrifice of his son Isaac in Genesis 22, he states ‘now, I know…” Since a god can’t be both a god of war and a god of peace, nor ‘all-knowing,’ and ‘able to discover,’ he is therefore just as real as another common contradiction, the married bachelor.
Another standout argument addressed the ever-popular Christian stance that creation requires a Creator. The typical Atheistic response is “Then what created God?” Followed by the scripted Christian rebuttal: “God has always existed.” Mr. Barker eloquently nailed Kyle down to his own words, after Kyle stated “something so complex such as life DEMANDS an intelligent designer.” Dan’s response was “what could be more complex than a god? If trees and people demand design, the complexity of a god spirit would too, according to Christian logic.” This was a great response, but Kyle retreated back to his argument of material items, stating that God does not follow natural laws of physics.
This concept is a contradiction in itself, because God sure follows the laws of physics when Christians want him to, for the sake of their argument. “We’re keeping God out of our schools, so he can’t protect our children.” “There’s so much crime because we’re trying to keep God out of our courtrooms.” “Evil is the absence of God.” Suddenly, when it’s convenient for their argument, God has to follow human rules and natural laws of science – yet he is everywhere, all the time, and has always existed. This brings us full circle to the married bachelor argument! God can’t be everywhere, forever, but also limited from schools and courthouses. Evil would not be able to happen if God were everywhere because it would be impossible to be in his absence. But that’s only if you’re thinking logically.
Two of Dan’s final statements really caught my attention. One of them hits on something I am always blogging and debating about, but never put it quite this eloquently. Dan simply stated the alleged words of Jesus “They who are healthy do not go to the doctor.” The principle here is, Christians think we are bad, sick sinners and need God to make us well. So there is this constant strain of their instincts versus their biblical teachings, and they always feel like a bad person trying to become clean (especially Catholics). Your true freedom comes when you realize there is no sickness at all, and you can just be free, as I have discovered. I have never been happier than I am now as an Atheist and Secular Humanist.
The final quote from Dan that sparked a thought for me was “Any system of thought that includes a threat of violence, is morally bankrupt. You should not proudly hold that Bible under your arm.” This was a powerful statement, and I was very proud he was there to represent us.
For the first time ever, I actually heard a Christian make a statement followed by a ‘booing’ crowd. Kyle firmly stated that birth control was “killing little children.” The audience let him know very quickly, that he had made a mistake. He mispoke again when he stated "Hitler was an atheistic dictator." Which Dan quickly corrected him on by proving that Hitler was in fact a Roman Catholic, whom credited Jesus for his actions against the Jews, and had 'God Be With Us' engraved on the Nazi's belt buckles. Kyle apologized for his incorrect statement, but he completely lost me when he said, “Every law of science proves there is a personal god.”
A question from the crowd to Kyle asked if he believed in modern-day miracles. Kyle said he did not – the time of miracles was in the Old Testament. Dan quickly jumped in and said “Kyle is telling you not to waste time praying for your sick children, because God is done with miracles and granting wishes.” Kyle’s statement is of course, a direct contradiction from the Bible, which tells us to ask in prayer, and it will be received.
I won’t take you through all six pages of my notes, but I had a great time with this debate, and hope to include you in on many more to come!
Thank you, and Congratulations to Dan Barker for a well-deserved victory for reason!
Until next time,
David Smalley
45 comments:
I'm not sure how beneficial these debates are. Each speaker seems to 'preach to the choir' and I wonder if anyone ever changes their mind.
The debate structure seems to work better for theists than atheists. Theists get away with spewing out large amounts rhetoric and questions that cannot be individually addressed leaving the listener with the idea that at least some of what they say must be prove their point. Since a listener cannot remember all that is said, they tend to remember that which was the most emotional but atheist arguments go for logic, not emotion. As well, understanding an atheist argument requires more work than remembering, "a painting requires a painter".
Personally I'm starting to prefer the YouTube videos that present an argument and then rebute it immediately before moving on. Maybe it's time to stop the debates and require more direct rebuttals.
I disagree. The purpose of a debate is not to change minds immediately, but to spark research. Anyone that completely makes up their mind after a single debate was feeble-minded in the first place. That would be equivalent to an entire football season consisting of one game.
These debates are designed to show time after time, which side has the better argument. And I assure you; many theists doubted their doctrine after last night. Mr. Barker was great.
Those of us that become experienced in multiple debates begin to realize there are basic arguments on both sides that become like scripts. We know the scripts, just as football teams know all of the possible plays of the opposition, it's just the arrangement that we can't predict. As we continue our research before and after each debate to create better rebuttals to the stronger arguments of the opposition - THAT'S where the debates begin to benefit us all.
The amount of research being done today after a debate like that, is the true payoff. The amount of research that will be done prior to the next debate - will be even more.
Research and debates are the building blocks of reason. Isn't that why we're all talking about this topic in the first place?
While I disagree with your notion of moving completely to YouTube presentations, I am in the process of completing my first two videos, and plan to do many more, as they are very useful and productive; but nothing will ever replace the live debates.
As an English teacher, I love that you identified the ad hominem attacks!
Bill Hampl
David,
I found your take on the debate "interesting." As a Christian, obviously I came into the debate with a bias as did you, although from the opposite end of the spectrum. You seem convinced that Mr. Barker won convincingly while I had the feeling all along that, while he did a capable job, surely the atheists have someone better than this to defend their cause. I thought Mr. Butt was the clear winner. He kept his composure, unlike Mr. Barker who was visibly bothered at times, and Mr. Butt, while using some scripture, refrained from loading the debate with scripture.
Mr. Barker's argument at the beginning where he quoted dozens of scripture was very disingenuous as he used these passages out of context only as "proof texts." That whole argument failed because it was flawed. This hurt his credibility because he obviously knows better but chose to do it anyway.
Quite interesting debate as a whole and I like the format. If only we could get our Presidential candidates to engage in this type of debate!
Mitchell,
According to the format guidelines, Dan was told to make his best argument for the case against the God of the Holy Bible in just 15 minutes, so he did. He listed as many things as he could to help prove his case. That was the purpose, and had the desired result. Kyle could have stepped to the microphone and began refuting each one, step by step, until he ran out of time. This would have been far more convincing. He instead, instantly attacked Dan’s character and accused him of abusing the debate process.
Kyle would have been far better served to address the argument instead of the man.
Mr. Barker’s initial debate tactic was just that, a strategic maneuver to attack a weakness in the opposition. That’s kind of the point. Objectively speaking, the possibility is there that he intentionally listed more issues with biblical contradictions than Kyle could respond to, but the fact remains, if there weren’t so many contradictions - he wouldn’t have had so many to list.
If you’re playing a football game, you make moves to win at football. The same goes for hockey and any other sport. Why should Dan be frowned upon for leaning toward a strategy that places his debate opponent in an awkward situation? It’s far more unjustified for Kyle to suggest that Atheists are not ‘honest about everything,’ thereby insinuating we are liars. These types of ad hominem remarks are far more detrimental to the debate process than a strategy of listing multiple fallacies within a single belief system. That’s what Dan was there to do.
Interestingly, you feel that Kyle was actually victorious. Let’s recap:
1. He was booed for saying that birth control is killing small children.
2. He misspoke about Hitler being an Atheist, and had to apologize.
3. He did not address the many contradictions first mentioned by Dan.
4. He insinuated that all Atheists are liars.
5. He admitted that no more miracles are coming, which makes prayer pointless.
6. He admitted other gods may exist by saying
“Yahweh can do things other gods can’t do.”
Yet, you feel this was a winning argument?
The most convincing thought process that Dan Barker put forth, was “Does God have free-will?” If he does, he has the ability to change the future. This means he can’t know the future, because it is dynamic. If he does know the future, he cannot change it, because his knowledge is absolute, therefore making it static. If he cannot change the future, he is not all-powerful. If he cannot know the future, he is not omniscient. Nothing could be both.
Moreover, can your god make a rock too big for him to lift? If yes, he cannot lift it. If no, he cannot create it. Either way, there is a breakdown in the logic of a being having the capability of all powers simultaneously. Regardless of materialistic laws – it’s not even possible to state a potential resolution. The loop runs forever in a gamut of circular reasoning.
You see, the very concept of what a god must be in order to claim ‘god status’ contains multiple incompatible properties, making it impossible for existence’ ie: the married bachelor.
I look forward to your response.
Maybe you and I could debate in the near future.
I, along with many openmided brothers thought our man Kyle did well against your giant of a debater considering it was his 1st major debate. I can easily see how both sides think they won...I doubt seriously that many minds were changed...I do take exception though to a comment this host made about theist listing numerous things that are too numerous to answer sufficiently when time is short and that is exactly what Mr. Barker did right off the bat...supposed contradictions that I'm sure the unlearned think are major problems..the only problem is they can be answered by any 1st year Divinity student...most of which are simply taken out of context, Mr. Barker knows that too considering his claim that he was a gospel preacher at one time, so that to me is disingenuise because I'm quite sure he is aware of the answers and taught them to others in the past whose faith would be troubled by others as Mr. Barker attempts to do now!
Dan Barker's "claim" of being a "preacher at one time?" He was a minister for 19 years. Please research before you post here. This is for educational purposes, not a podium for you to bash Atheists because of what you don't understand.
The contradictions are real. They can only be explained when you approach them with a confirmatory bias of conceptual thinking. You simply seek out ways for the words to make sense because you want them to. Kyle had an hour, and never addressed a single contradiction.
Should we give him more time?
Dan Barker the hypocrite
He who Digs a Pit will Fall into It
By Kyle Butt, M.A.
One of the most outspoken atheists of the past couple of decades is a man named Dan Barker, who wrote his most recognized work, Losing Faith in Faith, after he “deconverted” from a form of evangelical Christianity to naturalistic atheism. In 1992, he was the public relations director for the Freedom From Religion Foundation. In his book, Baker uses a host of arguments to attack religious people who have attempted to “reconvert” him. In a chapter titled Why I Am An Atheist, Barker lists several reasons that religious people have offered to explain his “deconversion.” Sadly, many of those people attacked Barker’s character. The following is a brief list of some of the allegations they made against Barker.
“You are arrogant and hate God.”
“Your heart is in the wrong place.”
“You are cold, empty, and pessimistic.”
“You are an angry person.”
“You are too stupid, limited, or afraid to see what is obvious to everyone else.”
After denying these allegations, Barker stated: “A strong clue that a person is arguing from a position of weakness is when character, rather than content, is attacked. Bertrand Russell pointed out that ad hominem is a last-ditch defense of the losing side” (1992, p. 88).
Therefore, according to Barker (who agrees with Russell), a person who uses arguments that attack character is a person who is fighting desperately on the losing side.
While the truth of Russell’s statement may be questioned (since there are many ill-informed ad hominem arguers who happen to be on the right side), it nonetheless is quite interesting that Barker falls headlong into his own pit by repeatedly attacking character rather than focusing on real evidence.
In fact, only a few pages earlier, Barker wrote an entire chapter titled “Ministers I Have Known,” in which he proceeded to attack the general character of ministers he has known. On page 78, Barker commented, “When I think of ministers I have known…I picture the overweight perspiring Foursquare preachers, waving their hankies, shouting and prancing about the stage, ruling their churches like little kingdoms.” Just one paragraph later, he included in this list the “skinny Mexican pastor in Nogales whose second wife was pregnant with his twelfth child!… And the televangelist I know who ran off with his secretary and was back on the air in less than two years.” The rest of the chapter consists of the same attack on the general character of ministers, as Barker views them. Near the end of the chapter, Barker wrote: “I have a friend who says if you were to take all the preachers in the world and lay them end to end, it would be a good idea just to leave them there.”
Now, let us apply Barker’s own reasoning to his chapter on ministers. The entire chapter attacks the character of ministers, and thus would be classified as an ad hominem argument (from the Latin meaning “to attack the man”). But, according to Barker, those who use such arguments are using “a last-ditch defense” and are on “the losing side.” In this instance, I agree wholeheartedly.
Again, in his treatment of those who are against abortion, Barker stated: “This is the real drive behind the antiabortionists: misogyny [hatred of women—KB]. I don’t believe that any one of them cares a hoot for a fetus” (p. 213, emp. added) Such a statement is definitely a bold, ad hominem attack on the motive and character of those who disagree with abortion. I, for one, can say with certainty that I do not hate women. However, I also can say with certainty that an unborn baby is innocent, and that God hates the shedding of innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17). It is on this basis that I must stand as an antiabortionist. Once again, using Barker’s own thoughts, he must be “arguing from a position of weakness.”
Please note that this article has not attacked Barker’s character. He is not referred to as a misogynist or anything of the kind; nor are any moral indiscretions alleged in an attempt to discredit his arguments. On the contrary, his own words have been used to show that, if his thinking is indeed correct about ad hominem arguments, then he is arguing from “a position of weakness rather than content,” and such an argument is a “last ditch defense of the losing side.”
'Anonymous' thinks a chapter about ministers that attacks the character of ministers is an ad hominem attack. You, Anonymous, are an idiot (take that for ad hominem!).
And David, I enjoy hearing debates because it reminds me of the reasons for my atheism. But, it could be said that believers go to church for a similar reason. I agree with Dawkins that one should not debate creationists because it simply gives them a platform for their arguments which have no foundation to stand on. In the case of god or anti-evolution, there is no evidence for the theist's side. A meaningful debate can only take place if both sides have evidence to present.
There is no evidence for god, despite what theists think; there is only speculation and ideas. On the other hand, evidence continues to pile up that god(s) are unlikely because everytime we assume a god has had some influence we eventually discover a 'natural' cause (mountains are not made by god, god doesn't move the wind, god doesn't hold up the earth, etc). Evolution shows that god wasn't required to create modern species, either.
I'd be curious to know exactly what intelligent theists think god(s) really does in this world?
Ok, well..
Anonymous used an ad hominem attack by calling Dan Barker a hypocrite as he/she was posting about Dan Barker using ad hominem attacks. That in itself was hypocritical. Then, HumanistDad pops on and boldly calls Anonymous an idiot, then graciously accepts his position of ad hominem.
While this is entertaining to some degree, we really should be debating instead of name calling. Please keep it civil, guys.
Anonymous,
You have raised a valid point and clearly proven that Dan Barker has used ad hominem attacks before. Thank you for that. I have been guilty of the same, as has HumanistDad, yourself, Kyle Butt, my friend the preacher, other ministers, and other Atheists. So now that we all know we are capable and/or guilty of it - we can move on. It has really become a mute point. Thanks for your insight.
HumanistDad,
If you honestly believe we should not debate theists, why do you post here? Why did you write The God Puzzle? Why do you have a blog centered on being a humanist? If a theist posted a religious argument on your blog, would you ignore it or defend your position?
Richard Dawkins has been in more theological debates than any other Atheists you can 'google' or 'youtube,' so I'm not sure why he would have stated that. I've heard others state similar things, and I have to say, I completely disagree with Dawkins, you, and anyone else that firmly believes we should ignore theists. How would we enforce the separation of church and state without debates? How would we remove GOD from our currency without voicing our opinion and hearing the opposition? How would we get anything accomplished in this movement if we ignored the problem?
Debate is at the heart of research and education. It's extremely fun, entertaining, and full of facts for those of us that care to go research - both sides. I once read a debate online with Frank R. Zindler, that initiated my activism in this entire movement. The single transcript of that debate sparked me to contact the American Atheists organization, become a member, become an activist for humanism, write my own book, and start this debate - which resulted in me being named the Design Editor of the American Atheist magazine, and ultimately led to you being published in it.
Debates aren't so bad, right?
Normally, I'd say one's argument is idiotic but since 'anonymous' isn't really anybody in particular, I had some fun in name-calling. Anyway, back to the topic...
Debates are neither good nor bad - I guess I question how effective they are on matters of faith. An effective debate requires an unbiased, educated audience. Too often, debates involve emotion and rhetoric and the eloqence of the speaker becomes a deciding factor (something about 'the medium is the message'). I'm not sure if many are swayed from their position.
A scientific debate tends to work differently. Views are expressed and rebutted but, eventually, a consensus emerges. On debates about god, the viewers seem to remain where they are, like the relatives at a wedding watching the show playing out before them.
Maybe it's the intentions of the audience that is at fault. Most theists simply refuse to abandon or question their 'faith' - in fact, for many, their faith demands they do so. There is no reason at work here, they are looking for confirmation bias. Atheists, on the other hand, tend to be far more flexible in their thinking and willing to cross the aisle but there is never any compelling reason to do so.
By opening debates on faith issues it lends credence to their position. "Everyone is talking about Intelligent Design, there must be something to it!" the average citizen might say. There is nothing to it and having a debate on it simply keeps dragging a flawed idea out of the grave.
A debate is a search for truth - wherever it may lead. People of faith are searching for their truth, not the truth.
These debates are incredibly important. Not only do they keep Christians from feeling so smug when they find out athiests do have some damn good reasons for rejecting Christianty, they also convert those who are sitting on the fence and starting to ask questions. When I started questioning my faith because of scriptural and historical discrepancies, I watched the debate between Hitchens and Sharpton. I had no idea atheists had such a good case. This of course sparked my desire to fully investigate the atheist position and it has been one of the best things that has happened in my life. Christopher Hitchens is like my own personal Morpheus who freed my mind from the bonds of faith and unreason. Keep on debating! There are many more minds out there to free.
Very well said!
Thank you for the comment.
knowing Kyle Butt personally for many years, from what I heard on the debate, there's no way that Barker "knows the Bible better" than Kyle. This is my opinion.
As stated above, this debate probably didn’t change anyone’s bias but it’s useful to listen to the other side. Speaking for myself this is very difficult, because it seems we all want others to agree with our personal stance on a situation and want to quiet the opposing voice. Although it was said, and agreed to by both Mr. Butt and Mr. Baker, that a majority doesn’t validate (or invalidate) an issue, theory, etc, we all crave others who agree with our points of views. This is played out in our lives by our friendships, who we call neighbors, entertainment, hobbies, and other groups we join (and so on). We probably have a few acquaintances that have radically different views then us but on the whole most have similar views and interests to our own.
Recently I tried to refine the essence of evolution versus creation for my 22 year old son and 17 year old daughter. My son, although very bright, has the attention span of a gnat so I had to be brief. I choose to start at how life began. Most evolutions say it started with a single cell and mutated to all living life. Creationists of the bible say God created all according to the Genesis account. Both sides have difficulty proving their theory 100%. If it was perfectly clear there wouldn’t be a debate, right? Both use circumstantial evidence to support their point of view. Right now, the fact is evolution doesn’t explain 100% where or how the first cell came to be on Earth. There’s no experiment that has been successful to date to reproduce a living cell from non-living matter. Christianity doesn’t 100% convince people of the Genesis account because God is explained in the supernatural. Both could prove their theories and make them fact, if the evolutions could reproduce a living cell from non-living matter (or something similar), or the God of the Bible could be explained and proved in natural/earthly terms. This leaves both camps needing to bridge the gaps (no matter how small) with a logical assumption (or faith) from the evidence they hold as truth(s) for this slightly unexplained/unproven portion.
Next, I explained situational ethics versus the principles of Christianity. As the debate brought out last night, there is a hypothetical situation where Mr. Baker, who practices situational ethics, could commit rape and it would be acceptable for the greater good. Christians would never approve of rape however, there have been many horrible things done in the world in the name of Christianity and religion. However, if you look at the simple doctrine according to Jesus, you must love God with all your heart, mind, and soul – along with treating your neighbor as yourself (paraphrased). Ignoring the worshiping of God commandment, a faithful Christian would therefore not commit rape, steal, murder, slander, or other wrongs towards a neighbor. Oh, but you say Christians go to war, yes many do and kill/murder, but there’s also a large population of Amish and Mennonite men in the USA who are conscientious objectors base on their Christianity. This argument is like saying all atheists are good, or all are bad. There are good, or bad, or hypocrites found calling themselves Christians, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, etc.
In the case of situational ethics, the ends can justify the means. Most of the time these ends would be weighed against the laws of the land first to determine legal consequences, if any. A Christian has a higher standard of living weighing not only the laws of the land but the code of Christian conduct which includes controlling your emotions and tongue. Controlling both your emotions tongue a typically do not break any laws even though they can inflict much distress to another person. I likened it to a house builder who just follows building code and no more, versus a builder who goes above and beyond the building code. Which house would you want to buy?
My son is wrestling with his own morality code. I asked him a question that I asked myself a few years ago. Taking out the belief in God (for now), what of the Christian code causes you a problem? (listing what I like to call the big three)
Greed?
Drunkenness? (in all its forms)
Lust? (sexual activity is only permitted between a married man and woman, who marry for life)
As a father I can say his life would turn out much better and with fewer problems if he followed the Christian code. As an example, our family has a history of alcoholism and it would be perfectly legal, by the local laws, for him to sit at home after work and get drunk night after night. We would all agree this is not a healthy way to treat your body but it’s not against the laws of the land. However, if he was a Christian he would be held to a higher standard of conduct. Maybe the real question isn’t so much how did life start but what morality code will you follow when times get difficult.
Personally, I entertained the evolution theory learned in my 20’s at college but began to question it over time, at the, age of 42 I became a Christian. This came after months of study and I continue to study almost daily looking for the truth reading both sides of an argument, including those mentioned by Mr. Baker last night.
Kind Regards to all,
Bruce Brown
Bruce, your understanding of evolution is flawed. Evolution theory explains how life forms change over time, not how life came to be. Even if life -poofed- into existence billions of years ago, evolution would explain how they've changed up to today. Evolution is a fact. If you want to know how life started, look for videos on Abiogenesis (try CDK007 on YouTube).
As for evolution not being 100% true - you are correct. But no scientific theory will EVER be 100% true. That's the beauty of science, the theories will change and grow more advanced over time. However, that doesn't mean other ideas deserve equal consideration. We must look at all the ideas and ask ourselves, "which idea is most likely true?" And that answer comes from seeing which have the greatest amount of supporting evidence and predictive power. No other idea comes even close to evolution theory in this regard.
As for the Christian moral code, I'm sorry but I simply can't agree. The stories in the bible permit rape and god demands murder, torture and sacrifice. You can't separate the good and bad morality in the bible, you have to accept it all (it is, after all, god's word, apparently).
The biggest problem with religious morality is that it makes specific, unchanging, many times baseless or baffling demands backed up by a powerful figure who will do nasty things to you if you disobey. Secular morality can grow, evolve, over time to improve.
Yes, you could argue that many religious people have fought for better social justice but, unfortunately, in many cases it contradicts their own religion. If Christianity is so moral, why did it encourage slavery instead of banishing it? Why are women discriminated against? Why does god act like the worst type of sadistic mass-murderer? Why does Lot offer his daughters for gang-rape? Why do his daughters essentially rape their father?
Greed - simple, don't take more than your share as it prevents others from having what they need.
Drunkeness - if you are responsible for someone, it is wrong to be drunk as it impairs your ability to care for them. If you are alone, being drunk seems harmless to me.
Lust - it's natural to feel lust, it's also natural to act on it if the other person is willing. However, don't 'cheat' on your significant other because you promised them you wouldn't, didn't you?
No. I can do without Christian morality and take a secular moral code every time.
Hey Humunist Dad,
What is the secular moral code?
Thanks,
Bruce
Philosophy, psychology, ethics, rational discourse, sociology... any discipline which adds to knowledge and finds good reasons for allowing or disallowing actions.
Religious morality tries to declare actions right or wrong simply by saying that it is, or because an invisible, unknowable being says it is.
We don't need this. We can figure out right from wrong ourselves.
Thank you for you response.
We will not agree at this time. We are both free to chose our own path.
I say my thoughts if not controlled can (and have) led to problems. Such as the standard husband quote of you can look but not touch. If the mind dwells on something long enough usually it comes out in your actions. I will choose a morality code that reigns in these thoughts.
I tried living life making it up as I went along and I didn't break any laws of the land. My actions although legal were not always moral and it almost cost me my marriage and relationship with my children. I do need the father for guidence.
Sorry you disagree. In brotherly love and I do hope your choices in life turn out for the best,
Bruce
Napoleon Bonaparte once said: "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." and "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
Some people indeed need religion because they can't control themselves; but it shouldn't be forced upon those of us that can.
Full MP3 Audio of the debate between Kyle Butt and Dan Barker can be found here at apologetics315.com.
That's a condescending statement David.
Religions are not 'truth'. They are a set of instructions and beliefs, often without evidence or justification, backed up by threats and fears from an authority figure, either real or imagined.
Why do people 'need' this type of authoritarianism?
What happens when a person learns that the religion they've been taught to obey, shows weakness and contradiction?
Hello all,
Here's a link to a debate very similar to the Mr. Baker and Mr. Butt. Date 1829 held in Ohio between Mr. Owen and Mr. Campbell.
Mr. Owen writes an invitation to the clergy at large for someone to meet him in a debate. Stating, "I propose to prove, as I have already attempted to do in my lectures, that all the religions of the world have been founded on the ignorance of mankind; that they are directly opposed to the never-changing laws of our nature; that they have been, and are, the real source of vice, disunion, and misery of every description; that they are now the only real bar to the formation of a society of virtue, of intelligence, of charity in its most extended sense, and of sincerity and kindness among the whole human family; and that they can be no longer maintained except through the ignorance of the mass of the people, and the tyranny of the few over that mass."
"With feelings of perfect good will to you, which extend also in perfect sincerity to all mankind, I subscribe myself your friend in a just cause."
"ROBERT OWEN."
Intro:
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/cod/COD00A.HTM
Table of Contents
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/cod/COD00.HTM
I have only read a small portion of this debate but thought this group would find it interesting.
Bruce
Bruce, thanks for posting that!
HumanistDad, 3 days ago you came on here and called someone an idiot. Now you're telling me about being condescending?
A theist had just admitted that he needed religion to keep him in line. Moreover, David Eller's book 'Atheism Advanced' talks about the enormous role religion has played in societies, and how it's simply a language that people speak to one another with scripts they learn, and rules they follow. Those set of instructions you mentioned have been melded into laws for large groups of people since time was recorded. You can't get away from that. The sociological guidelines that come with religion have proven to be successful on some front, for some people, or religion wouldn't have existed this long. You can't simply ignore or do away with religion altogether, as much as we both may want to.
While you and I agree that religions are bunk, you have to accept on some level, that religions have a purpose, or niche for specific groups of people that actually feel they need it. That's what I was pointing out. Again, David Eller warns us of this topic in his book, Atheism Advanced - and if you ever want to be an Advanced Atheist instead of just a HumanistDad, I suggest you read it.
Hmm.
1. He was booed for saying that birth control is killing small children.
ive been listening to the debate while writing this and i have not heard it yet. but i would say it could be killing or may not be killing, depending of course on the method of control.
2. He misspoke about Hitler being an Atheist, and had to apologize.
what can i say? like many he has been indoctrinated with a communist=atheist nation vs. democracy=christian nation.
3. He did not address the many contradictions first mentioned by Dan.
"i know the bible..." is what dan says. i however do not but when i read scripture i get a different impression of God. of course i try to get an understanding of the context in which they were written.
4. He insinuated that all Atheists are liars.
are we not all liars at one time or another. i do not see where he says Christians are not liars. possibly he may not have intended to offend.
5. He admitted that no more miracles are coming, which makes prayer pointless.
you are mistaken not knowing the power of God nor the scriptures(i.e. esther). God does not only work by the miracle but also natural workings of the world and i presume ways not even perceived. in esther God does not directly nor indirectly shape the events but nevertheless it is understood the prayers of esther and her uncle were answered.
6. He admitted other gods may exist by saying
“Yahweh can do things other gods can’t do.”
you must learn to take an argument in the best light despite the presenters limitation to convey it. many times the scriptures refer to other gods. sometimes there is not a qualifier "true or false" but the term gods may include both. typically by the context it is understood whether those gods are true or false.
what is a spirit?
heres a freebie. spirit is your life. you reason for yourself what it means. i dont know why mr butt had such difficulty answering it.
1. I suppose you're done listening to the debate now. Did you hear it this time? An abortion could be killing a small child if done too late. However, he grouped all abortions which includes terminating early pregnancies, as murder. That's socially dishonest, and the crowd knew it.
2. So that's an excuse? Just because he has been 'indoctrinated' it's okay for him to claim inaccurate historical facts? You have to be honest in these debates or they become fights.
3. I'm not sure what your response to this means. Please clarify.
4. This is really a poor excuse you are making for Kyle. You can't feel right about this one. You are truly becoming a spin doctor right before our eyes.
5. Kyle said miracles will no longer happen. So if your loved one is dying, why pray? God has a plan, and a time for everyone, and his plan will be fulfilled. What is your prayer going to do besides make you feel better?
6. You're right, the Bible talks about other gods on multiple occassions; yet another reason to discredit it. Many polythestic religions are said to be false, but what is Christianity? Perhaps it is monothestic by definition because there is only one godhead; but what is Jesus? Technically, there are three godheads within Christianity, hence the 'Trinity.' Moreover, other gods are mentioned as Yahweh attempts to prove points to them. One master creator would need to prove nothing. This is a fallacy within the scriptures.
7. The word 'spirit' comes from the Latin 'spiritus,' meaning 'breath.' When someone sneezed, their breath left them, and it was thought that the 'spirit' had left the body. This was the reason for "Bless you." Over time, theists have added multiple metaphysical definitions to the word, but your spirit is simply your breath. That's the freebie.
1. he is new to daebate he may have been referring to it as a general rule no one really cross-examined his true intent. for example 1+1 always =2(except when it hased to equal something else or someone will die.)
2.which is probably why he apologised rather than running over and punching the other dude, he realized his mistake and moved on to another point. kinda like you should do in a debate that only lasts like an hour. should we expect someone with imperfect knowldge to make perfect arguements?
3.obviously you have nevered matched witts with a "know it all" or you would have gotten the point of my statment.
4. actually if i remember correctly he made a statement that could have insinuated all atheist are liars but did not realize it until the crowd gave a respnse. in which case he should have corrected the statement but he probably thot he was winning the crowd at that point.
5.prayer can be quite cathargic and who knows what God wills. His mercy is upon whom He chooses. perhaps a cell divides differently, a new specialist is met, remission occurs,a new remedy is discovered after much prayer. however suppose they die painful excruciating death despite prayers of many. who can know the mind of God and whether He will relent. we only know what the Spirit reveals, in the same way man's intent is only made known by his actions, we cannot know prior to an event what will happen unless a person makes it known.
suppose there is a plan to deforrest an area that you do not know about but regardless of the knowledge you feel like writting your congressmen one day concerning the environment and he decides to satisfy his constituancy by opposing the unknown(to you the writer) act that was being planned. who can say wether your letter made a difference but it was heard and possibly considered. if such occurs in our own legislation how much more will a pettition to God(if the Bible is correct about His ways of course, i write this for your consideration)mean?
6. again you are mistaken about the nature of God. i suggest you read Justin the martyrs writting concerning his conversion. he reasons concerning the nature of God. he comes to the conclusion that God is that which is always true and the reason for all things. the Bible also refers to an entity called satan yet thru many scriptures it is understood satan is that which is contrary to God. again the antichrist is anything which is against Christ. these things are defined as one thing yet have many parts which agree on a particular thing. that which we call God can acuratly be described as Justin reasoned, which appears to be three parts making up a perfect consciousness. i do not know how reliable 1st john5:8 is but it speaks of three agreeing as one, snd more concretely mark 1:10,11. remember the Bible is history mixed with symbolic language and the theme of 3 is repeated concerning God's perfection. in Jesus baptism we read about the Spirit, and a voice calling Him Son. also in the psalms especially in psalm 110:1 and Genesis 1:26. now i dont "know" the Bible like Dan does but it seems like a consitancy of God being plural is made from begining to end. i try to call Bible things by Bible names and i dont read anything about monotheism(or rather see the word) in my Bible maybe its in one of those new translations i dont know i havent read all the versions.
7. i am quite aware of the history of the word but i was speaking in the context of Bible usage. spirit is different from soul but that doesnt really matter since God is the only one able to sperate the 2 but spirit appears to be the life force of soul and body, according to the Bible that is.
1. Failed excuse of apologetics.
2. Failed excuse of time constraints.
3. No comment.
4. Failed excuse of realization.
5. Failed excuse of prayer taking credit for nature.
6. If the Bible is the word of God, we should not need Justin.
7. My statement was meant to give you the origins of the word 'spirit' to point out that it's very creation was misunderstood and inaccurate. It was taken literally, and should have just meant 'breath' when translated, but instead, was used for something more mystical.
I sum this up by saying; you have admitted that Kyle Butt mispoke on abortion, did not address an apology due to time contraints, insulted all Atheists, and would rather "win the crowd over" than to make sure his statements are accurate.
It may be hard to say who 'wins' any debate, but we can certainly tell who lost this one.
1. failed understanding of fairplay in a arguement(i.e. allowing someone to explain a thot when it could have been misunderstood)
2. failed understanding of time constraints.(i.e. explain in detail everything wrong with my arguements before moving on to yours and if you miss 1 thing all your proposals are invalid)
3. again it goes back to setting up strawmen but not to make a point but rather waste time.
4. i suppose to the man who never makes a mistake and is completely self absorbed it would be impossible to understand how a man could get carried away by flattery or other forms of seeming popularity gains.
5. failed understanding of the God's governing power over nature. you should really read "job."
6. actually i was appealing to his stoic reasoning outside the scriptures to show how thru such reasoning it is possible to understand how God being a central entity could be made up of 2 or more parts and how this reasoning agrees with the Scriptures.
7. if such is the case you should have explained from the original language where spirit is used first(i.e. hebrew in genesis). God breathed into him the breath of life, clearly anyone with a penetent heart(mind, grey matter or whatever you call your being) can understand the writer intended for this breath to be more than "breath." also soul, spirit/breath are used interchangeably concerning a person's being.
i sum mine up also by stating i admitted kyle butt is newer to spoken debate in front of large audiences than dan and will make more mistakes, but did not intend to mislead but give what he thot was a sound arguement to be considered along with dan's(who is considerably more experienced to this style debate). his debating will get more accurate with practice and time. honestly i thot dan should have done way better due to his experience especially having debated more able opponents producing more sound arguements.
it is not hard to determine the winner of a debate, but is hard to determine which arguement is best and the proponent of the best arguement will not always win due to inexperience. i would liken it to a duel with weapons one person being experienced with a inferior weapon and another having the superior weapon but not knowing how to use it, in the end the person with the superior weapon with lack of experience will more than likly use it improperly and hurt themselves. this does not mean anything is wrong with the weapon but rather the inexperience of the person using it.
I think Kyle did an excellent job of reasoning against atheism. In other words, he mentioned several things that we do know about our universe and used those facts of nature to determine atheism is logically unsound.
I would have enjoyed more time in the debate to hear specific positive reasons for the existence of the God of the Bible, but the debate log jammed with a few disputes over certain scriptures. That was unfortunate.
You mentioned Dr. Craig. He goes about his debates very differently than Kyle. Gary Habermas has done very well in similar debates as well. I'm certainly not unbiased, but I don't believe Dan would be much of a match for either of them.
I was raised in the same fundamentalist wing of the faith tradition in which Kyle Butt ministers. I remember being enthralled by Kyle's speech about dinosaurs and the global flood in the year 2000 at a Bible camp my dad directed. The theme was “The First Millennium.”
For me, this debate was very difficult. I found myself more often in agreement with Dan than with Kyle, though I retain the core Christian conviction that God is, and that he has acted decisively through Jesus Christ by raising him from the dead. Kyle does not recognize that by his promotion of psuedo-science, he is waging war against the testimony of Scripture, the testimony that natural phenomena testify to the glory of God (e.g. Psalm 19). A person of faith need have no particular a prior cosmogonic allegiance to make the confession of Psalm 19. For a person of faith in the tradition of the Bible (Jew or Christian), whatever scientific explanation truly describes the history of the cosmos is likewise one that testifies to the glory of God. God may be the subject of creation verbs, but this does not exclude the role of agents, and insofar as the Bible is concerned, agency is unspecified. Essentially, I am accusing Kyle of being a biblical dilettante, and this is clearest when he turns to Genesis. For a concise rebuttal of Kyle's reading of Genesis from a academic/faith perspective, google Chris Heard's blog post, “Why I am Not a Creationist.” (Like me and Kyle, Chris was raised in Churches of Christ.)
However, Dan is equally to be criticized as a biblical dilettante. Those times I wasn't agreeing with Dan, it wasn't because I was agreeing with Kyle. It appears to me that Dan converted straight from a fundamental Christianity to a radical atheism. There is a great deal of space that exists between these two poles, and this space was severely under represented in this debate. Both operated under a priori assumptions about what it means for the Bible to be God's Word (e.g. inerrant, infallible, etc.), something these two men were more confident about than the Bible itself. The prophecy in Ezekiel 26, and its recognized failure in chapter 30 (this is too strong a word, but it must do for now),is indication enough that the Bible does not operate under the assumption that everything said in it must come to pass, precisely as it says (cf. Jer 18:1-10). Nor does the Bible ever claim to have perfect scientific knowledge. Nor does it ever claim to write unbiased history. Nor does it operate under the belief that truth cannot be communicated through contradiction or paradox. I do agree that a debate with Dr. Craig would be better, but Bill Craig is a philosopher, not a theologian. In as much as these popular debates are about theology, it amazes me that theologians are so rarely sought out for input.
I would just like to comment on where David said, religion should not be forced upon people(After the section about Napolean). If anything is forced upon people its evolution. Though, we as christians choose to believe in God, we are forced to hear about the theory of evolution in schools, on TV, and the radio.
I in no way mean to seem rude to the other side, but i do wish that A christian form of science was taught in our public schools. Since we see evolution as a theory and others see the bible's version as a theory. Why can't they both be taught? I see your point and it is well thought out and has research behind it, but it has nothing to stand on. No base or structure to grow on. The base it now stands on has not yet been proven. Whether it ever will or will not be proven is irrelevant at this time.
I would like the theory of how Dinosaur came and died explained to me. Recently there was found a dinosaur bone where the tissue was still able to be expanded but if it was millions of years old that shouldn't be possible, and if dinosaurs were still alive only thousands or years ago the entire structure of evolution would be flawed. I do not doubt that evolutionists have some comment about why the bible is flawed.
Faith is what we stand on. The bible is our belief. I agree with the fact that this debate doesn't really make a difference to most people (except those chose few who are sitting on the side lines and don't know what to do with there life). To be honest i see evolution as the easy way out. As a christian i have to deal with the comments and remarks people give about Christ, their continues cussing, and their perverted thoughts on sex and other private issues. As an atheist, all that has to be done is going to work and following the law made by man. While as christians we have to follow the law made by man and God our Father. Following Him is a choice. Without churches and their morals many charities wouldn't exist.
One atheist decided he would make a town for just atheist. THE TOWN WAS A TOTAL DISASTER. A man went to visit it and later wrote an article on how horrible it was from a moral point of view.
I would like some input from your point of view on my thoughts, but i would appreciate it if you kept them from being harsh as this is just my belief.
Austin, Living For Christ.
Austin,
Evolutionists have bones that are identical to whales, except they have legs. We could go see them today. Can you provide bones of Jesus, the Apostles, Moses, Matthew, or any other biblical character?
Humans share 98.9% of their DNA with chimps. This can be compared through empirical evidence that you can see for yourself through a microscope. Can you provide DNA of Jesus, Moses, or any other biblical character?
Hundreds of thousands of fossils show have been unearthed of transitional animals. They are in museums all over the world that we could go see today. Do you have any fossil proof of Yahweh, Jesus, Moses, or any metaphysical miracles from biblical history?
Current living creatures like the Mudskipper show us that fish are able to adapt to breath air and crawl on land using their fins. Can you provide me current physical proof of your belief?
No. That's why it's called a belief, and evolution is called a science. It has been tested, and belief is untestable.
Carbon dating has been proven to work for at least 40,000 years worth of accuracy. Even if that is correct, the Bible would still be wrong by 36,000 years.
The problem you have is, you are looking to scientifically prove something of a spiritual world. You will lose every time. If you want to believe in spirits and gods, that's fine, but you can't enter a realm of science and bring faith as your weapon of choice.
Science and evolution are built on proof, and until you have that, keep religion where it belongs; in the realm of belief.
Atheists can reject your god, Jesus, Satan, angels, demons, Krishna, Demeter, Mithra, and other spirits, because they aren't here. There is no proof. We can't see them today, or even proof of them today. There is only myth.
It's not like we both just have a general idea of a concept of creation and we each have a 50/50 shot at being right. One of us has hard evidence, and we are still finding that evidence every day as archeologists are digging in new areas and finding more bones.
What do you have? A book written over a period of 1600 years by 40 different authors in 3 different languages, (none of which actually met Jesus) that has been through multiple edits and revisions, and contains multiple contradictions and harsh opinions of women, slaves, and the murders of innocent children.
And you want that to be taught in our schools?
I've addressed the so-called failed town of Atheists in my blog titled: The Failed Atheists. Please read that. There is much more to that story than the typical Christian web-sites will share with you.
You should really research these things for yourself. Those things being evolution, the town of Atheists, and any science associated with creationism. But you seem to be the type of person that just "listens" to Christian rhetoric and then makes up your opinion based on that.
I can tell by how you said "I would like the theory of how Dinosaurs came and died explained to me." The evidence is all around you, Austin. It shouldn't have to be explained for you. There are museums, books, and all sorts of data available at your finger tips. You just have to remove the religious teachings that have been beaten into your head since childhood, and look at the evidence with an empirical approach to positivism.
I can only encourage you to research the science you trust every day.
I Enjoyed reading your thoughts. This is actually very entertaining.
When I asked about how dinosaurs came and died I just wanted your point of view. Really it was meant to be a rhetorical question for you to think about the dinosaur's bone that was found and the tissue could still be expanded.
Also cave drawings of Dinosaurs. How could people make drawings of Dinosaurs if they had never seen one?
I'd also like to state that the bible has never been pounded into me by anyone, but myself. Yes at a young age my mother taught me bible stories, but now being older i have the choice to go to church or stay home and sleep.
At one point you talk about the bible being harsh against slaves, wives, and murders of innocent children. First, the bible in no way is extremely harsh on slaves they were even aloud to be freed after seven years of serves in the old testament. Second wives (in the new testament) go to church with there husbands, (if widowed) where taken care of by the church, and there husbands where told to remain loyal to their wives. As for innocent children being murdered. Why wouldn't the bible be harsh? Do you think murders of children should be aloud to run around without a problem after killing a child. The Lord say we should be like children PURE. How anyone in there right mind could kill a child is beyond me, but to support it is just as bad.
Im still trying to figure out why knowing where jesus's bones and the bones of other bible characters has anything to do with this. Jesus went to heaven alive according to the bible. So of course we do not have his bones. Why would we even look for them? what good would it do? How could we even prove they where theirs?
The bible as you said does have many authors, but does fit together fairly well, for as many years as it took to finish it.
Sorry, really I should have gone from first to last paragraph, but i've skipped around a lot.
With the bones that looks like whales. Whose to say that there wasn't a dinosaur that was a lot like a while but that had legs. Elephants are land creatures, but love water. whats to say this Whale like creature wasn't something like this that just died out.
Yes, chimp DNA is very close to humans, but its not 100% is it. If Chimps Change millions of years ago why aren't they still changing. An experiment was done to see if a chimp could learn to type. It ended with the Chimps urinating and leaving droppings all over the key board. Chimps may share DNA with us, but the are not and can not be us.
As for fossils and miracles. Most fossils are found where and how they are because of flash floods, which supports the story of Noah where the entire world is flooded. For miracles I don't know what you define a miracles as, but there where two cities full of homosexuals and sinners and in the bible it is said that the cities where destroyed by fire and brimstone. If you now go to the cities location you will find it covered with brimstone.
Thanks for listening, please reply back.
I will try my best to consolidate and be brief:
"How could people make drawings of Dinosaurs if they had never seen one?" - They saw the bones, too, just like we have.
"at a young age my mother taught me bible stories, but now being older i have the choice" - You have a choice, but also a confirmatory bias from what you learned at an impressionable age.
"First, the bible in no way is extremely harsh on slaves..." - Yahweh allows slaves to be whipped and beaten and even specifies how many times to beat your slaves for specific rules that are broken. The point here, is that slavery was permitted by the god you worship. Does it feel good to bow to him?
"Do you think murders of children should be aloud to run around without a problem after killing a child?" - Yahweh ordered the murders of over 2 million people in the Bible, including innocent women and children. Research the Amalekites. Your final quote on this was "How anyone in there right mind could kill a child is beyond me, but to support it is just as bad." - You had no idea you were talking about your god.
As for Women: 1 Tim 2:11 and 1 Cor 14:34 both state that women are not allowed to speak in church, or have any authority over a man. They are to remain submissive, and it is shameful for them to speak. That's from your New Testament of Jesus, both written by Paul.
"Jesus went to heaven alive according to the bible. So of course we do not have his bones." - How could physical bones enter a spiritual world? Souls are supposed to be in heaven; not bones, hair, and flesh. Does that mean I can take my car to heaven, too?
"How could we even prove [the bones] were [that of biblical characters]? - That's the point. You can't prove it, so it's not scientific. It has be based on faith, not science.
"The Bible as you said does have many authors, but does fit together fairly well..." - That's because it was canonized around 325-385 CE by the Nicene Creed, and many scriptures were thrown out that did not fall in line with the rulers of that time. It was a selective group of texts put together by a government for political ruling ability.
"flash floods, which supports the story of Noah..." - You actually believe a 600 year old man herded 35,000 animals on a boat and cared for them for over a year? Wow... answer these for me:
How did Noah store unrefrigerated red meat for all of the carnivores on board, and keep it good for 370 days?
How could 8 people care for 35,000 animals daily and keep them alive?
How were the insects cared for and kept alive for over a year?
Where did their fresh water come from from? It only rained for the first 40 nights of the year they were out at sea.
Again, this is another outlandish story of biblical proportions that is unprovable.
This is what I mean by needing faith and only faith to believe in your religion. As soon as you try to make sense of it and prove your case with science, you either have to make up extremely strange excuses, or you must admit that it's not very likely that these things happened.
In defense of the truth, it's easy to see that Kyle Butt won this debate. Dan Barker was cleary not prepared. Dan is also on the record for saying that rape is moral! How sicking is that?
Also, when Kyle said that Miracles are no longer in use, he did'nt mean not to pray. When we pray for someone whos is sick, and they are healed it is called "God's Will" or God's "Providence". When that person is not healed it is still God's will, and is not a miracle. Jesus performed miracles, not us. Prayer is still extremly important and if we fail to continue comunicating with our Lord, than America is heading down a road of doom.
Congrads Kyle, (a rather easy victory). Victory for the Lord!
About the story of Noah's ark....it's true. Read the Bible and you'll find out that God brought the animals to Noah. Therefore with the help of an all powerful God, God helped and made the animals easy to control. Also, it wouldn't take that much room on the ark, because Noah probaly took baby animals on the Ark. (also baby Dinousars) and with the size of the Ark, this is possible.
1. How did he feed all those babies every day? 2. Where was the food stored?
3. How did he keep meat (for himself, his family, and the animals) from expiring without refrigeration?
First off, who says you have to have meat, Noah could have easily brought fruit and other things instead of meat.(he didn't have to bring foods that needed refrigeration) Second off feeding baby aniamls. A large part of baby animals drink what for survial: Milk. They do not eat the same foods as mom or dad.(not until there grown) How do we know that Noah did not bring say a Momma cow.(because with a bunch of baby animals, there would be enough room on the ark) Therefore, the cow could help supply the babies on the ark with milk. Now of course not all baby animals drink milk, but consider this. God told Noah he was going to destory the world, and to build an ark. God gave Noah plenty of time to build the Ark, do u think Noah just built the Ark during that time? I beleive that Noah was smarter than you give him credit, he and his family would have spent this time not only buliding the ark, but also preparing for survial themselves. How do you know that they did not store up food like they would a famine?? Food that would not need refregeration.... Also you have to remember that the all powerful and creator of the world is watching and keeping Noah and his family safe, and the animals. God is so powerful, what if he controlled the animals,(like he did when he brought them to Noah) and allowed them to survive without any food?? Also Mr. Smalley I appreciate your views, but i want to transition to evolution. There is simply no evidence of evolution. Darwins "missing link" is still missing, and I beleive that evolution is nothing more than storytelling. It's just a theory, no concrete scientific evidence for such an outlandish idea. Think about it: Can something actually come from (evolve) from nothing?? of course not.
Hey David,
in reference to your last post (feb 18 2010). Its shows you are modern through and through that the argument against Noah's flood is "refrigation". Check out when refrigation was invented and see how people before that kept food.
I'm sorry, but I have had God come through for me on several occasions before. I believe in God; He is there and always will be. I pray that someday the lost will see that. The idea that we have all appeared here by accident seems like a stretch for me. Personally, I believe that God has given us numerous evidences for belief in Him. I have known atheists who have became Christians. And I also know that claiming God is not real will not change the reality of Him. On judgement day, every knee will bow. God is a Being so far beyond the understanding of our tiny human minds. Have you ever considered how our universe is so orderly? The totally beautiful design? How every human being is different? If an impersonal force created us, we would be more like clones. And what about memories and emotions? How every single one of the prophecies in the bible have been fulfilled exactly, besides the 500 or so that predict farther into the future. Also, the Holy Spirit is something you can feel, I promise. You feel uplifted and looked after, and you know it is God. What about the differences of gender? If we evolved from monkeys, there would have had to be a male and female 'monkey' would have had to be in the same part of the world, be fertile, healthy, and somehow miraculously know how to mate with sex organs and sex drives that had just evolved into existence! That is ludicrous. Also, the world population would be much larger if we evolved millions of years ago. How is it that humans have balance? Are ABLE to think and feel and come to conclusions? God gives his children the choice to follow him. He loves you that much. However, God is also just and must punish sin. And unbelief is a sin. "The fool says in his heart there is no God." Jesus Christ is referenced in some way, shape, or form in every single book of the new testament. And most of all, the bible does not say exactly how or how long it took to create the universe. It is, however, very clear on WHO....God.
God bless you all.
One for the non-believers ask yourself this: Isnt it better to live a life doing good then a live a life doing wrong? For if you live a life doing good an their is a GOD in the end you have nothing to worry about than a life of wrong doing and in the end theirs God and have to worry bout trying to apologize for your doubt! Antheist act like believing in GOD is going to harm you our cause you to lose your pride. However for this debate im not sure how educated Kyle Butt is with the bible since most claim he didnt prove Dan wrong, but as for Christians of the Church Of Chirst every point Dan may have thought he made, their is CLEAR evidence to back it up. Also before you think you know your bible learn some Greek/Latin so you can fully interprut the bible in its correct content. Thats one of the main places were Dan is confused with many scriptures or he doesnt know the full situation for each book. In the bible is stories of ones own life and their experiences and how they dealt with them (everybody has diferent situations) and what GOD has told them to do so we can apply it to our every day lives and similar situations. People lets not be ignorant and when you do your so called "research" were does your evidence come? Form other non-believers? Well duh that will continue to support your bias. Also people what is it that GOD tells you to do thats so bad and you cannot believe? Just obey the 10 commandments. Thou shalt not steal,kill,commit adultry,covet,etc... However doing this will only make your own life easier people its not unreasonable or an impoossible task to accomplish.Also another point thats confused most is the difference between PRAYER & MIRACLES, one a prayer is just a communication with GOD literally just talking with him. Your not always praying to GOD asking for blessings but he gives you them because he is just making your life easier again I repeat. For as a miracle is a SUPERNATURAL act or event. For that is all no name calling or arguements like the atheist would say lets state the obvious. But lets all remember that when he does come "EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW AND EVERY TONGUE WILL CONFESS THY NAME AMEN", atheist are not excluded. Please no I am not passing judgement just stating THE truth not MY truth. Please ask more questions also I can give direct scripture for the confused!!!!
Whoever thinks that Dan won this debate is being a homer!!
I don't understand why you feel the need to proclaim a victor to this debate, much less the criteria by which you determined who "won." For instance, you have repeatedly referenced Kyle's historical inaccuracy regarding Hitler and the relation between prayer and miracles. If this were a history quiz, I guess you would be right. And if this were a debate about miracle and prayer, you might be heading in the right direction. Interestingly, you place a considerable amouhnt of weight behind whether the audience "booed" or liked or disliked a particular argument (like abortion). This may be one of the fundamental differences between atheists and theists. An atheist will look to the response of men for approval, whereas Christians (should) look to God alone for approval based on immovable (biblical) principles that do not fluctuate over time, like present day opinions on abortion. Are you saying that if this same debate took place 30 years ago and Kyle was not booed for his statements on abortion that he would be the "winner"? Of course not. Then please don't make that argument. If you don't believe Kyle's arguments, that is up to you. I appreciate young Kyle doing the very best he could in the limited time he had. We all know that it would take him hours to adequately respond to every alleged "contradiction," comment, or argument thrown out there. Just because he did not have time to get to every one of them or didn't manage his time well has nothing to do with the reality of whether there is God.
Post a Comment