Dark Virtue
New Member
I ran across this list at christiananswers.net and I thought I'd answer them for those on this board to help you understand my mindset. The list is long, so my answers will be short, if you'd like to discuss them further, I'll be happy to oblige.
Here we go:
Natural Law & Evolution (micro, not macro)
The same way I account for the vast archaeological documentation of the Enuma Elish and various other religious texts.
I don't believe this is a correct statement. Many "prophecies" are very vague and don't match properly the events attributed to them. Also, there is the problem of changing the texts to make them match real events.
While the physical manuscripts are real, that doesn't mean they aren't more than the retelling of a myth.
Absolutely.
No, for two reasons. One, I don't believe Pascal's Wager is intellectually honest and two, assuming I am wrong, would God really want me to convert just to be safe and not because I actually care about him?
Because the figure we know today as Jesus is a compilation of many different figures resulting in a mythical character.
Again, I believe Jesus is a mythified figure.
Misuse of the term "universally".
From society. It evolves as man has evolved.
Humanity's universal moral sense as noted in the question above.
I don't buy into macro evolution, so the first part of this question is moot. Science has shown that chaos is actually the highest form of order. Google mandlebrot as an example.
The entire story is a myth.
Because the figure we know as Jesus today is an amalgameted myth.
There have been many great thinkers that weren't believers. Am I to assume that the question means that the MAJORITY of history's greatest thinkers were CHRISTIAN believers?
Not as arrogant as it is to suggest that many people believed at one time that the earth was flat and that Zeus was responsible for thunder and lightning.
I don't account for the origin of life because I don't have the necessary evidence to postulate a cause. I don't need to make one up to make my life have meaning.
Again, I don't believe in Macro Evolution
Why? Why not? The Bible also said that Christ would return IN THE LIFETIME of his contemporaries.
On the same basis that every other religion base themselves.
It depends on what definition of TRUTH is being used.
This question assumes that I harbor an unbelief in God. As a weak atheist, I lack the belief in gods due to a lack of evidence/proof.
Absolutely.
The same way I explain the radically changed lives of other religous devotees.
This is an incorrect statement.
They are subjective works that lack objectability.
Because the early Christian church squashed any and all competitors by any means necessary.
Who said it wasn't absurd?
Another incorrect statement. See Mithras as an example.
The story is a myth. The "evidence" set forth is hardly irrefutable.
The story is a myth.
The story is a myth.
The story is a myth.
There was no testimony of 500 witnesses! What we have is the authored story of 500 witnesses, not the testimony of 500 witnesses.
Jesus is a mythical figure.
Incorrect statement, God definately changes as evidenced by his portrayal in the Bible.
As stated above, I not only do not have an unbelief in God, but I have not rejected him. What I have is a lack of evidence to make an assesment to his existence/nonexistence.
Incorrect statement. These men didn't set out to create one book, this book was edited from many, many sources and created to appear as a unified message. Google the Council of Nicea.
The Creator set forth in the DoI was a naturalistic Deity, as most of the framers were Deists of one flavor or another. No evidence supports this referred to the Christian God.
Science is not a "faith" system because it IS observable and verifiable.
Because theology is a construct of man to answer questions man couldn't answer themselves.
I don't.
If everything requires a creator, then who created God (the creator)? This is the problem with Intelligent Design and creates the problem of Infinite Regression.
Incontrovertible proof/evidence of the existence of a god.
Here we go:
Natural Law & Evolution (micro, not macro)
The same way I account for the vast archaeological documentation of the Enuma Elish and various other religious texts.
I don't believe this is a correct statement. Many "prophecies" are very vague and don't match properly the events attributed to them. Also, there is the problem of changing the texts to make them match real events.
While the physical manuscripts are real, that doesn't mean they aren't more than the retelling of a myth.
Absolutely.
No, for two reasons. One, I don't believe Pascal's Wager is intellectually honest and two, assuming I am wrong, would God really want me to convert just to be safe and not because I actually care about him?
Because the figure we know today as Jesus is a compilation of many different figures resulting in a mythical character.
Again, I believe Jesus is a mythified figure.
Misuse of the term "universally".
From society. It evolves as man has evolved.
Humanity's universal moral sense as noted in the question above.
I don't buy into macro evolution, so the first part of this question is moot. Science has shown that chaos is actually the highest form of order. Google mandlebrot as an example.
The entire story is a myth.
Because the figure we know as Jesus today is an amalgameted myth.
There have been many great thinkers that weren't believers. Am I to assume that the question means that the MAJORITY of history's greatest thinkers were CHRISTIAN believers?
Not as arrogant as it is to suggest that many people believed at one time that the earth was flat and that Zeus was responsible for thunder and lightning.
I don't account for the origin of life because I don't have the necessary evidence to postulate a cause. I don't need to make one up to make my life have meaning.
Again, I don't believe in Macro Evolution
Why? Why not? The Bible also said that Christ would return IN THE LIFETIME of his contemporaries.
On the same basis that every other religion base themselves.
It depends on what definition of TRUTH is being used.
This question assumes that I harbor an unbelief in God. As a weak atheist, I lack the belief in gods due to a lack of evidence/proof.
Absolutely.
The same way I explain the radically changed lives of other religous devotees.
This is an incorrect statement.
They are subjective works that lack objectability.
Because the early Christian church squashed any and all competitors by any means necessary.
Who said it wasn't absurd?
Another incorrect statement. See Mithras as an example.
The story is a myth. The "evidence" set forth is hardly irrefutable.
The story is a myth.
The story is a myth.
The story is a myth.
There was no testimony of 500 witnesses! What we have is the authored story of 500 witnesses, not the testimony of 500 witnesses.
Jesus is a mythical figure.
Incorrect statement, God definately changes as evidenced by his portrayal in the Bible.
As stated above, I not only do not have an unbelief in God, but I have not rejected him. What I have is a lack of evidence to make an assesment to his existence/nonexistence.
Incorrect statement. These men didn't set out to create one book, this book was edited from many, many sources and created to appear as a unified message. Google the Council of Nicea.
The Creator set forth in the DoI was a naturalistic Deity, as most of the framers were Deists of one flavor or another. No evidence supports this referred to the Christian God.
Science is not a "faith" system because it IS observable and verifiable.
Because theology is a construct of man to answer questions man couldn't answer themselves.
I don't.
If everything requires a creator, then who created God (the creator)? This is the problem with Intelligent Design and creates the problem of Infinite Regression.
Incontrovertible proof/evidence of the existence of a god.
![[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff](/forums/data/avatars/m/1/1206.jpg?1442680067){kind=avatar}
