Debate with “Boris” (aka “Fearless”) the Atheist
September 16, 2008 | 68 Comments
9/17/08: Debate Between Dr. Brown and “Boris” (aka “Fearless”) the Atheist
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Category:
Atheism
Comments
68 Responses to “Debate with “Boris” (aka “Fearless”) the Atheist”
Leave a Reply
Listen Live 2-4
E-Newsletter Signup
Ask Dr. Brown
Subscribe to the Podcast
Station List
September 18th, 2008 @ 8:28 am
If I correctly understand Boris’s argument if I say I am a ham sandwich I am a ham sandwich regardless of facts in evidence. Hitler may not have been an atheist, but an objective review of the facts shows that he followed neither protestant nor catholic doctrines.
Boris’s dicsussion of critical thinking implies that he learns nothing from previous generations. Say again?
September 18th, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
In all candor, I was expecting Boris to be quite a different person on the air and was disappointed that he did not have more to say — especially after he assured my assistant Eric that he would publicly humiliate me and shake up the listening audience. Just another reminder to pray for our non-believing friend!
September 18th, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Dr Brown
It was a very healthy debate.Enjoyed it.
John
September 18th, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
Dr Brown
Enjoyed the debate.Points well made.
Boris was a different person
September 18th, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
I’m going to share more background information on the show tonight (9-18). I think folks will find it amazing, given the nature of the “debate” last night.
September 18th, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
I was expecting a little more.
Fearless/Boris had some interesting comments, but the other atheist was more interesting in my opinion. I wanted to hear more from that guy. The Toronto guy was funny but I understood his points. It is always good to know there are those extremely passionate people out there…
September 18th, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
I found one portion of the discussion very interesting. Boris made the point that “our morals have constantly evolved as we have; they have gotten better and better”. Implicit in this statement is that there must be a standard beyond society by which it can be measured. If it is merely a matter or what is legal at the time, then one cannot argue that society is objectively better today than 100 years ago, because the laws have changed. How do we know the laws have been changed for the better, without a ground outside of the law?
As Dr. Brown pointed out—slavery was once the law of the land. Indeed, throughout most of history, the majority of the world supported it. Today slavery is considered heinous and is now illegal in most of the world. Without a moral ground, how do we know this change was for the better? And further who would care to make the argument that if the majority of the population decided that slavery should be legalized again, that it would then become right?
Boris may be quite right. The morals espoused by secular humanism may meet a high standard. In fact, I would wager to say that there are some atheists who maintain a higher moral standard than some that claim to be Christians. Indeed, Boris made the claim that “atheists that get their morals from critical thinking, come up with their own set of morals…are morally superior to anyone that is getting their ideas from a holy book”. But the question remains, how does he know his standards are superior? Once, again in order to know one set of morals is better than another, there has to be a standard by which to make the comparison, else it is just a matter of opinion that one set of morals is superior to another. Atheists often confuse the difference between living a moral standard and justifying that standard.
To paraphrase Ravi Zacharias—if there is anything that is absolutely wrong anywhere at any time (e.g. slavery, bigotry, child abuse) then there must be an objective standard. Such a truly absolute objective standard leads to God.
September 20th, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
First off… that guy Jeff from Toronto… he wasn’t reached by God in a cell. He thought he did. What really happened was that he realized he was a piece of [stuff] and he was finally being punished for it. Clearly he rationalized this 180 degree turn of outlook by convincing himself God was responsible.
Ryan Dube, he was not funny. He was crazy. ;-D
Let’s move on to the Hitler thing. Hitler borrowed alot of symbols and ideas from other cultures and religions. For those who are uninformed (probably most of you), Hitler did in fact ‘steal’ the Swastika from Eastern cultures (China, I believe), and simply flipped it, calling it his own and applying a whole new meaning to it, which was, to represent the Nazi party. There are others but it’s been a while since I found out so I don’t remember them. I don’t see it as much of a stretch of the imagination to say that Hitler simply ‘stole’ the Christian religion and made his own version of it. After all, he was a Christian inside, even if he made it seem otherwise. True, his ‘religion’ boldfacedly mocked Christianity and was considered blasphemous by others. But they say that the greatest compliment ever is to be copied by another.
Furthermore, is there no greater terrorist than “God” himself? You need only read the Bible itself to see this! Let’s review, kids! Open your Bibles and read with me!
God the Abortionist: Hosea 13:16= “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”
God the Slaver: Exodus 12:44= “But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.” Exodus 21:1-11= “(1, Laws for Manservants, 7, laws for womenservants) Now these are the judgements which thou shalt set before them. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him with another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.”
There are more but are too lengthy to quote them all so here they are for your convenience: Lev 25:39-55; and Deut 15: 12-18; 16:11, 14; 23:15-16.
God the Child Murderer: Psalm 137:9= “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”
God and sacrifice!: Leviticus 27:29 [rules for sacrifices to God]= “None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.” Judges 11:31= “Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon shall surely be the Lord’s and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” 32-39 go on to describe that he does exactly so, to his own daughter no less.
But enough about God the Bully! Let’s talk about you Bloggers, the Bullies! Easy, isn’t it, to beat up on Fearless when he is not here to rend you with scathing remarks. That’s okay guys. I’m here to defend him.
Dr Michael Brown, you bash him for not being more vehement on the radio (despite previous ‘promises’ that he would “publicly humiliate me and shake up the listening audience”). But if you think about it, I’m sure that you actually were, in the end, slightly frustrated by his professional attitude. He was courteous and polite, made his points well, and made a good show. Don’t lie, this behavior makes it alot harder for you to paint him as some kind of raving lunatic. We both know he’s not, but when the faith of Christians is threatened, the best and most efficient way to stop such a thing is to get them to see the person threatening their faith as a madman, rather than a rational speaker who should be listened to.
Mr S Johnson, Once again you have not failed to make my jaw drop… at your double-speak, that is. Look, boy, God, in the Bible, gives mankind SLAVERY LAWS, as I have pointed out above. How’s them apples, Bubba? Let’s examine this quote from your post:
“Indeed, Boris made the claim that “atheists that get their morals from critical thinking, come up with their own set of morals…are morally superior to anyone that is getting their ideas from a holy book”. But the question remains, how does he know his standards are superior? Once, again in order to know one set of morals is better than another, there has to be a standard by which to make the comparison, else it is just a matter of opinion that one set of morals is superior to another. ”
Well, good grief, man! It’s funny! How DOES he know his standards are superior? Because the Bible promotes violence, sacrifice, child abuse, slavery, you name it, it’s there.
I <3 you all for making me laugh so hard at your foolishness.
September 20th, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
I.O.,
I’m not sure what website (or person) you borrowed the Bible-bashing stuff from, but it appears that you haven’t read the Scriptures on your own and ever asked honest questions about the verses you mentioned. Anyone can pick and choose from the Bible without reading in the overall context of Scripture and history in an attempt to mock God’s Word, but it appears that’s your primary goal. When you’re seriously interested in knowing the truth, there are plenty of us who will be more than happy to assist you in your journey.
As for Jeff in Toronto, how do you know what happened to him? What gives you the right to determine how his own life was transformed? And how do you explain the fact that multiplied millions of people worldwide had simliar life transformations (including me) through faith in Jesus, also resulting in a radically improved standard of personal ethics and behavior?
As for being disappointed with Boris, it was not that he was polite. (I’m polite with folks too, so that is not the issue.) And despite his very ugly personal emails, I fully expected him to be nice on the air, as he stated he would be. I was disappointed with his lack of firepower, with his lack of solid arguments, especially given all the ridiculous threats he made online (you can hear them read at the beginning of the show the next day, as soon as it’s available online).
Really now, to say that all human beings are born atheists because he and his brother claim to be! To speak of Christianity alleged 2,000 year war with science when many of the founding fathers of the major scientific branches were Christians. And to claim online that Hitler was a devout Christian only to modify his statement the moment he first spoke. In all candor, I was expecting much more out Boris, but perhaps he does better writing than speaking, hence the lack of strength to his oral arguments.
And let me ask you one question in closing: Which books of the Bible have you read on your own, without commentary and in their entirety, and with a true desire to find out about the contents? I’m really interested in knowing the truthful answer to this.
September 21st, 2008 @ 9:22 am
I was dissapointed that he did not quote more from [i]his[/i] god, Mark Twain
I also expected Boris to be polite, but it was a very different Boris fromt eh one we were use to, by reading his blogs. You read my blogs on here and then you listent to the shows that I was on and you will see that there is no difference in my tone and attitude here than on the air.
September 21st, 2008 @ 10:02 am
The atheist who rang in challenged Dr Brown with the claim that “doesn’t the existence of evil prove that God doesn’t exist?” or words to that effect. Whilst I certainly agreed with Dr Brown’s answer which was basically a Christian apologetic explaining the existence of evil from within the Christian worldview, I don’t think that directly answered the caller’s challenge.
Like many atheists, the caller didn’t understand that the existence of evil is actually an argument for theism. No one can claim an action to be ‘evil’ without conceding the point that there exists some kind of external standard or absolute by which to judge that something is ‘evil’. The atheist, who is by definition also a philosophical naturalist, has no grounds upon which to make such a moral judgment. So when an atheist asks “what about evil?”, he should be challenged to explain how keeping within a naturalistic worldview he can claim an action to be evil? To do so he has to momentarily jump out of his naturalistic worldview and borrow a presupposition from theism that there exists a universal standard by which we can judge actions to be either moral or immoral (evil), otherwise ‘evil’ just becomes a subjective personal construct.
See also this quote: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4156/105/
September 21st, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
You said “How DOES he know his standards are superior? Because the Bible promotes violence, sacrifice, child abuse, slavery, you name it, it’s there.”
May I take it then that you think these things are wrong? It sounds like you believe in certain absolute moral standards. My question then, is how do you know those things you listed above are wrong? What is the ground/justification for your conclusion? Is it based on today’s culture? Is it based on majority opinion? Or are these things something you personally find distasteful?
There are two logical possibilities: Either certain moral values are objectively true, or they are not objectively true. But if the latter is the case, then we have no OBJECTIVE basis to complain about any morally repugnant act. The most we can say is “I personally don’t like it”. But why should anyone care about another’s personal tastes? If the latter is true, then all arguments over right and wrong become meaningless, there are no immoral wars or causes (just causes/wars we don’t like), because there is no objective standard by which they may be judged. But such beliefs seem unlivable. Francis Schaeffer would say any world view which is unlivable is false. Others would say that which is undeniable is true. So if objective moral standards are undeniable, then they must be true and in turn need a ground for their existence. Unlike natural laws, moral laws are prescriptive not descriptive. They tell us how we ought to act not how we do act. Prescriptions require a prescriber.
You may object to that ground being the God of Christianity, but that does not change the fact that a ground is still required for an objective moral standard. As slavery is so often used to impugn the character of God in discussions of morality, I will ask Dr. Brown to address this topic. While I think I could make a reasonable case against your interpretations above, I do not have anywhere near the scholarship of Dr. Brown on such matters, so I think his perspective would be more lucid.
September 21st, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Hey Bryen,
You still have yet to respond to our conversation. As to whether you agree, disagree, or have further enquiries.
All the best,
Glenn
September 23rd, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
Dr. Brown said: I’m not sure what website (or person) you borrowed the Bible-bashing stuff from, but it appears that you haven’t read the Scriptures on your own and ever asked honest questions about the verses you mentioned. Anyone can pick and choose from the Bible without reading in the overall context of Scripture and history in an attempt to mock God’s Word, but it appears that¢s your primary goal. When you¢re seriously interested in knowing the truth, there are plenty of us who will be more than happy to assist you in your journey.
I.O.: Scripture doesn’t line up with history. The Book of Daniel describes a succession of several kings during the lifetime of Daniel and the sequence is substantially inaccurate. Daniel gives the following succession of kings: 10 Nebuchadnezzar, 20 Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar, 3) Darius the Mede, and 4) Cyrus. Elsewhere, it says that Darius the Mede was the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes). Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar but of the later king named Nabonidus, and several of the predictions that Daniel made about Nebuchadnezzar actually refer to events in the life of Nabonidus. So it would appear that somehow Daniel the Wise confused Nebuchadnezzar with Nabonidus, who was actually the third king after Nebuchadnezzar according to historical records. History knows nothing of Darius the Mede. The Babylonian kings known as Darius were Persians and they followed after Cyrus, the Persian king who defeated Nabonidus. The actual Darius was the father of Ahasuerus, not the son. Daniel appears to be a prophet who has a better grasp on the future than the present, which leads to the obvious conclusion that the predictions were written after the fact, when the later events were well known but the earlier history was a bit fuzzy.
Dr. Brown said: As for Jeff in Toronto, how do you know what happened to him? What gives you the right to determine how his own life was transformed? And how do you explain the fact that multiplied millions of people worldwide had simliar life transformations (including me) through faith in Jesus, also resulting in a radically improved standard of personal ethics and behavior?
I.O. What about all the deconversion stories in books and on the Internet from ex-Christians? These people claim that their conversion was based on their imagination and their deconversion on a realization that their beliefs were imaginary. De-conversions therefore, seem to be based on reality and conversions on pure delusion and fear. he main thing is that deconversion stories are simply more convincing than conversion stories.
Dr. Brown said: As for being disappointed with Boris, it was not that he was polite. (I’m polite with folks too, so that is not the issue.) And despite his very ugly personal emails, I fully expected him to be nice on the air, as he stated he would be. I was disappointed with his lack of firepower, with his lack of solid arguments, especially given all the ridiculous threats he made online (you can hear them read at the beginning of the show the next day, as soon as it’s available online).
I.O.: Boris made several very good arguments that you had no answers for. The points he made about Christian colleges teaching the Theory of Evolution and other science that fundamentalist Christians like you preach against and the one about how you are in a minority even among believers with your views on abortion were devastating as your feeble non-response to them indicated. You’ve kicked him off your blog so now you feel you can safely slam him without him potently deconstructing your arguments as he did so well when he was posting here. The fact that you clearly lost the debate was never better illustrated by the fact that you attempted to discredit him the next day on your show when he couldn’t defend himself. Had you actually made any points at all in the debate with Boris you would not have felt compelled to do this. You not only are a bully like Boris said but a sore loser too. Oh you lost this debate badly Dr. Brown. Any impartial observer would give this debate to Boris and you know it.
Dr. Brown said: Really now, to say that all human beings are born atheists because he and his brother claim to be!
I.O.: Well, I was born an atheist too, so were all my family members and according to Sigmund Freud Boris is absolutely correct that all people are born atheists. What baby knows anything when they first pop out of the womb? God belief is learned just like language or math Dr. Brown. Do retarded babies believe in God, or like the caller from Toronto insisted, do deformed and retarded babies prove intelligent design? I think not.
Dr.Brown said: To speak of Christianity alleged 2,000 year war with science when many of the founding fathers of the major scientific branches were Christians. And to claim online that Hitler was a devout Christian only to modify his statement the moment he first spoke. In all candor, I was expecting much more out Boris, but perhaps he does better writing than speaking, hence the lack of strength to his oral arguments.
I.O.: Boris shot down your claim that many scientists were Christians.. No famous scientists were fundamentalist young earth creationists. They were all people who claimed to be Christians but would not be considered Christians by orthodox born-again Christians like you and your listeners. Besides up until a few hundred years ago one had to profess to be a Christian in order to avoid being arrested, tortured and burned at the stake.
Dr. Brown said: And let me ask you one question in closing: Which books of the Bible have you read on your own, without commentary and in their entirety, and with a true desire to find out about the contents? I’m really interested in knowing the truthful answer to this.
I.O.: I recently read the entire Bible all the way through. It took about three weeks. This is no great compilation of information like what scientists and historians have to study. It’s 66 short books and short stories that anyone can figure out quite easily on their own. The fact that people spend a lifetime studying this thing when it doesn’t take but an hour to figure it out proves literal Bible believers simply cannot figure the Bible out. It’s almost like they’re trying to read the Bible upside down and backwards. I don’t think you’ve ever taken a critical or skeptical look at the Bible yourself Dr. Brown. Perhaps it is YOU who should stop picking and choosing things out of the Bible and read the thing carefully with an open mind for once. Let me know when you have done this.
September 23rd, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
I.O.,
Thanks for your thorough reply which did not, in fact, answer my questions.
I will simply reply to your replies here, rather than reposting everything:
You wrote:
I.O.: Scripture doesn’t line up with history. The Book of Daniel describes a succession of several kings during the lifetime of Daniel and the sequence is substantially inaccurate. Daniel gives the following succession of kings: 10 Nebuchadnezzar, 20 Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar, 3) Darius the Mede, and 4) Cyrus. Elsewhere, it says that Darius the Mede was the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes). Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar but of the later king named Nabonidus, and several of the predictions that Daniel made about Nebuchadnezzar actually refer to events in the life of Nabonidus. So it would appear that somehow Daniel the Wise confused Nebuchadnezzar with Nabonidus, who was actually the third king after Nebuchadnezzar according to historical records. History knows nothing of Darius the Mede. The Babylonian kings known as Darius were Persians and they followed after Cyrus, the Persian king who defeated Nabonidus. The actual Darius was the father of Ahasuerus, not the son. Daniel appears to be a prophet who has a better grasp on the future than the present, which leads to the obvious conclusion that the predictions were written after the fact, when the later events were well known but the earlier history was a bit fuzzy.
My response: You did not answer my question about which website you got your earlier post from. As for your questions here, scholars have solid answers, but it appears you only want to raise arguments rather than look for answers.
You wrote: What about all the deconversion stories in books and on the Internet from ex-Christians? These people claim that their conversion was based on their imagination and their deconversion on a realization that their beliefs were imaginary. De-conversions therefore, seem to be based on reality and conversions on pure delusion and fear. he main thing is that deconversion stories are simply more convincing than conversion stories.
My response: Again, you failed to address the question of what gave you the right to determine what happened in the life of Jeff from Toronto. I could also point you to the thousands of testimonies of former atheists and agnostics and then claim that you are in the same state of denial that some of them were in, but that would not be fair to your own case, which must be judged by its own merits. This much I can tell you: I know firsthand many thousands of believers who had radical conversion stories, and it was the Lord who changed them, not some personal, fear-based experience.
You wrote: Boris made several very good arguments that you had no answers for. The points he made about Christian colleges teaching the Theory of Evolution and other science that fundamentalist Christians like you preach against and the one about how you are in a minority even among believers with your views on abortion were devastating as your feeble non-response to them indicated. You’ve kicked him off your blog so now you feel you can safely slam him without him potently deconstructing your arguments as he did so well when he was posting here. The fact that you clearly lost the debate was never better illustrated by the fact that you attempted to discredit him the next day on your show when he couldn’t defend himself. Had you actually made any points at all in the debate with Boris you would not have felt compelled to do this. You not only are a bully like Boris said but a sore loser too. Oh you lost this debate badly Dr. Brown. Any impartial observer would give this debate to Boris and you know it.
My response: Loud sigh. I hesitate even to respond to such drivel, but I’ll do so nonetheless. First, I would love to have discussed the other issues with Boris in more depth but time did not permit us even to finish some of the topics we previously agreed to discuss. Second, my views about abortion are in keeping with the vast majority of born-again believers around the world. I have no clue where you’re getting your information from. Third, the only responses I’ve received from people about the debate were that they were very disappointed with “Boris” (actually, Fred Weiss.) If he could do a better job of defending his position, I’d have him on in a heartbeat. Fourth, he was kicked off the blog because of abusive emails and breaking forum rules, plain and simple. Once again, you make clear that you would rather hold to your own views than accept the truth. Fifth, despite many weeks of abusive emails from Fred, I still had him on the air and did not read all the junk he sent us before the show. But when he sent a further abusive email after the show, I felt it was right and fair to let folks know who he really is. He is free to call into the show any night he wants to, and if time permits, I will gladly discuss the issues he wants to raise.
You wrote: Well, I was born an atheist too, so were all my family members and according to Sigmund Freud Boris is absolutely correct that all people are born atheists. What baby knows anything when they first pop out of the womb? God belief is learned just like language or math Dr. Brown. Do retarded babies believe in God, or like the caller from Toronto insisted, do deformed and retarded babies prove intelligent design? I think not.
My response: I know many people who always knew there was a God, some of whom were born into atheistic households, and also, in the most primitive cultures around the world, there is an inborn recognition that there is something more than the created world. As for retarded and deformed babies, they prove what the Bible says: God created everthing good, we chose sin as a race, and the consequences were disastrous.
You wrote: Boris shot down your claim that many scientists were Christians.. No famous scientists were fundamentalist young earth creationists. They were all people who claimed to be Christians but would not be considered Christians by orthodox born-again Christians like you and your listeners. Besides up until a few hundred years ago one had to profess to be a Christian in order to avoid being arrested, tortured and burned at the stake.
My response: Who ever said a word about young earth creationists? Fred doesn’t even know what I believe about any of these issues — nor do you — and yet you and he feel free to make assumptions. I was simply refuting his nonsenical claim that there was a 2,000 year old battle between Christianity and science. Even a popular book like Dinesh D’souza’s “What So Great about Christianity” refutes this error. Your statement is also so skewed that it bears little or no resemblance to reality.
You wrote: I recently read the entire Bible all the way through. It took about three weeks. This is no great compilation of information like what scientists and historians have to study. It’s 66 short books and short stories that anyone can figure out quite easily on their own. The fact that people spend a lifetime studying this thing when it doesn’t take but an hour to figure it out proves literal Bible believers simply cannot figure the Bible out. It’s almost like they’re trying to read the Bible upside down and backwards. I don’t think you’ve ever taken a critical or skeptical look at the Bible yourself Dr. Brown. Perhaps it is YOU who should stop picking and choosing things out of the Bible and read the thing carefully with an open mind for once. Let me know when you have done this.
My response: Keep reading. At some point, if your mind is open, you’ll start to see the beauty and riches of God’s Word. As for my own studies, again, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry in terms of your statements. In point of fact, all my studies were at secular universities with critical professors and scholars, and my personal library is filled with such books. I have looked at all these arguments and sought to read the Bible through the eyes of those who do not accept its authority, yet I found the arguments sadly lacking.
In all candor, you sound like someone making fun of Einstein’s theory of relativity saying that e = mc2 is nonsense, whereas it is that person’s lack of understanding that is being exposed. It’s the same in this case. If you can’t grasp the depth and riches and profundity of the Bible, it exposes a lack in you.
One last note about the debate with Boris. I have it here on this website for a reason, and that’s so people can listen to it! If I had the least issue with it being posted, I would not have it online. That in itself should tell you something. Also note that we haven’t blocked you from posting, and that’s because you’re not sending abusive emails or abusive posts. Again, the truth is quite plain, but you’re going to have to humble yourself in order to see it.
September 24th, 2008 @ 11:00 am
Boris’ sense of morality is completely subjective and he lacks any substantive evidence for his positions. Where are his references? His arguments seem vague and anemic. Truth, for him, is based upon what he thinks at the moment, or what he has experienced and projected upon humanity at large. That morality evolves, in his world view and as aptly addressed by Dr. Brown, shows the subjectivity and inherent flaw of his “truth”. And he knew it, which is why he verbally danced around Dr. Brown’s questions on that topic.
Babies in the womb are considered babies when they are desired, but “potential” babies when not desired. In Boris’ view, killing babies is bad, but killing potential babies is legal, morally acceptable, and a product of critical thinking. I strongly disagree. That the child exists is not in question… only the desire for the child. This means that the life of the child is destroyed out of a sense of convenience or whim.
Humanity, in his view, is tied to a sense of timing as well as desire. But the beginning of life is not just a cultural viewpoint, but tied to the more important outcome. Whether at conception, the first heartbeat, or the first breath, the ignobly labeled “potential baby” is a human offspring… not a tumor, viral invader, blob of unorganized flesh, vestigial organ, or any thing else. Even prior to tissue differentiation, does the zygote organize itself into anything other than a human? If we hold to the view of “potential babies”, at what moment does a fetus achieve full baby-hood? I’m sure that critical thinking has applied an arbitrary time scheme to describe this situation. What phenomenon occurs in the magical split-second between “potential” baby and true baby? Does a human zygote ever complete the 40 week gestation period without attaining the form of a human child? Achieving a proven, demonstrable, and repeatable outcome is the essence of scientific method (and critical thinking by the by). Human reproduction results in human children… argue otherwise when a woman with a “potential baby” gives birth to anything other than a true human baby… perhaps a skin culture, a puppy or a cheeseburger… or maybe a nice ficus.
Concerning Indomitable’s sense of history… he needs to check again. Belshazzar was not king when he died, but viceroy to his father Nabonidus. This is why he could only offer the third part of the kingdom to Daniel for deciphering the writing on the wall. He already held the second part of the kingdom, as he was viceroy. As viceroy (literally “in the place of the king”) he was responsible for the kingdom, ruling in his father’s place while Nabonidus was on campaign, and ruling as king in Nabonidus’ absence. Also, Belshazzar was son of Nebucchadnezzar (II) in the same lineal and legal sense that Jesus and David were sons of Abraham. But the literal translation of “avoohee” (alef, vet, vav, hey, yod) can be “father” or “grandfather”. If Belshazzar was the direct son of Nebucchadnezzar the word for “father” used in Dan 5:2 would have been “av” (alef vet) instead. “Darius” is both a name and a title coming from the Persian “darayawush” often shortened to “dara” meaning “king”. “Darius” was an honorific used in much the same way that “Augustus” was used by all Roman emperors. There is no historical or prophetic conflict concerning the book of Daniel. Truly, what is it that passes for classical education these days? Don’t believe everything you read in Wikipedia.
Indomitable also takes quotations out of context and makes some inflammatory (no pun intended), if not interesting, comments concerning them. For example: The assumption that Jephthah’s daughter was slain and burnt as an offering to God is not only laughable, but not supported by the text… not to mention against God’s own commandment to abhor the practice of Molech worshipers who made such sacrifices. It would seem that he has not truly read the Bible, as he claims, but (at best) skimmed it for words or phrases of seeming controversy in order to set up a straw man argument.
I.O. says: Easy, isn’t it, to beat up on Fearless when he is not here to rend you with scathing remarks.
I say: Eh? What movie are you quoting, and does it star Errol Flynn? His remarks on air did not even come close to scathing… but were vague, nebulous, under-whelming. So I expect his blog remarks would have been just as lukewarm and toothless. I actually looked forward to hearing the challenge of a reasoned, supported, coherent attack (upon theism). (The atheist call-in had more grit… and though I disagreed with him, I respected his clarity and volume of supporting points.) However, Boris’ ability to rend by debate is severely curtailed by his lack of tooth, horn, or claw in his arguments. I am disappointed and unimpressed. Perhaps next time, before attending a live radio debate, he should try sleeping at a Holiday Inn Express.
September 24th, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
Dez– you’re missing alot of background experience with Boris which the rest of us actually do possess. Therefore you unknowingly speak out of ignorance. Also you seem to have somehow missed the fact that several posts on this thread make the remark that there was a marked CONTRAST between Boris’ online behavior and his on-air behavior. See, you just don’t know about it from the beginning. Do your homework before you go poppin’ off at the mouth. Also, I very strongly recommend you actually take time to READ Judges 11:31 through 11:39 before you say that the daughter wasn’t sacrificed. You’ll find you are extremely incorrect.
Dr Brown! Let me preface this next part by making a simple statement. The Bible doesn’t truly need bashing, because in all honesty it already bashes itself! Anyways… more Q&A:
My response: You did not answer my question about which website you got your earlier post from. As for your questions here, scholars have solid answers, but it appears you only want to raise arguments rather than look for answers.
IO: I looked them up in the Bible myself. I used my friends study Bible to find where certain things were.
You: Again, you failed to address the question of what gave you the right to determine what happened in the life of Jeff from Toronto. I could also point you to the thousands of testimonies of former atheists and agnostics and then claim that you are in the same state of denial that some of them were in, but that would not be fair to your own case, which must be judged by its own merits. This much I can tell you: I know firsthand many thousands of believers who had radical conversion stories, and it was the Lord who changed them, not some personal, fear-based experience.
IO: Since experiences of God are good grounds for the existence of God, are not experiences of the absence of God good grounds for the nonexistence of God? (I didn’t see Him just the other day.)
You: Loud sigh. I hesitate even to respond to such drivel, but I’ll do so nonetheless. First, I would love to have discussed the other issues with Boris in more depth but time did not permit us even to finish some of the topics we previously agreed to discuss.
IO: That’s because you had to take so long to stop the bleeding every time Boris talked. The show went like this: Boris talked for 10 or 15 seconds and you spent 2 or 3 minutes trying to repair all the holes Boris punched in your arguments. That’s what happened.
You: Second, my views about abortion are in keeping with the vast majority of born-again believers around the world. I have no clue where you’re getting your information from.
IO: Yes but as Boris pointed out the views of born-again believers do not reflect the views of the majority of Christians. He was right that fundamentalists like you are in the minority in the Christian community itself, especially the academic community.
You: Third, the only responses I’ve received from people about the debate were that they were very disappointed with “Boris” (actually, Fred Weiss.) If he could do a better job of defending his position, I’d have him on in a heartbeat.
IO: Boris did the smart thing. He didn’t really try to defend any positions but when he did get a chance to get a word in edge wise he attacked your positions and showed that they were spurious or even ludicrous and actually not very widely held. I could tell he caught you off guard several times.
You: Fourth, he was kicked off the blog because of abusive emails and breaking forum rules, plain and simple. Once again, you make clear that you would rather hold to your own views than accept the truth.
IO: So you say. But I saw the last posts he made and if they are why he got banned my views stand unchallenged Dr. Brown.
You: Fifth, despite many weeks of abusive emails from Fred, I still had him on the air and did not read all the junk he sent us before the show. But when he sent a further abusive email after the show, I felt it was right and fair to let folks know who he really is. He is free to call into the show any night he wants to, and if time permits, I will gladly discuss the issues he wants to raise.
IO: I’ve listened to your show and been on this blog. Boris is the most interesting person I’ve encountered on either one. Again, had you done well in the debate you would not have resorted to stabbing him in the back after he was kind enough to come on your show and be such a gentleman and give us all an entertaining and informative (for a change) show.
you: I know many people who always knew there was a God, some of whom were born into atheistic households, and also, in the most primitive cultures around the world, there is an inborn recognition that there is something more than the created world. As for retarded and deformed babies, they prove what the Bible says: God created everthing good, we chose sin as a race, and the consequences were disastrous.
IO: No one knows if there really is a God, I’ve been looking for Him-Her-It myself and people in primitive cultures pray to rocks. Napoleon said if he gave his watch to a savage he would think it had a soul. To blame deformities and retardation on a stupid fairytale when we have very plausible scientific explanations for these things shows us how clearly the lines are drawn between a scientific worldview and one based on religious fairytales.
You: Who ever said a word about young earth creationists? Fred doesn’t even know what I believe about any of these issues — nor do you — and yet you and he feel free to make assumptions. I was simply refuting his nonsenical claim that there was a 2,000 year old battle between Christianity and science. Even a popular book like Dinesh D’souza’s “What So Great about Christianity” refutes this error. Your statement is also so skewed that it bears little or no resemblance to reality.
IO: I think Galileo, Copernicus, Hubble, Edison, Darwin etc. show that there has indeed been a Christian war on science for the last 2000 years. You are in some kind of denial here. Anyone who is denying evolutionary theory is certainly doing it based on the Bible not on any kind of science and is still fighting this war of religion on science.
You: Keep reading. At some point, if your mind is open, you’ll start to see the beauty and riches of God’s Word. As for my own studies, again, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry in terms of your statements. In point of fact, all my studies were at secular universities with critical professors and scholars, and my personal library is filled with such books. I have looked at all these arguments and sought to read the Bible through the eyes of those who do not accept its authority, yet I found the arguments sadly lacking.
In all candor, you sound like someone making fun of Einstein’s theory of relativity saying that e = mc2 is nonsense, whereas it is that person’s lack of understanding that is being exposed. It’s the same in this case. If you can’t grasp the depth and riches and profundity of the Bible, it exposes a lack in you.
IO: Boris said he got a Christian education and we can assume he found the arguments for the authority of the Bible as sadly lacking as you did those against it. Your argument is therefore nullified. The authority of the Bible doesn’t need to be argued against. The only authority it has is because some old guys voted on making the books in it the basis for their church. Anyone who wants to give it more authority than that better come up with some pretty good reasons. So far I’ve see none that even come close and I doubt anyone else has either.
You: One last note about the debate with Boris. I have it here on this website for a reason, and that’s so people can listen to it! If I had the least issue with it being posted, I would not have it online. That in itself should tell you something. Also note that we haven’t blocked you from posting, and that’s because you’re not sending abusive emails or abusive posts. Again, the truth is quite plain, but you’re going to have to humble yourself in order to see it.
IO: I know you think you did well or at least okay against Boris. Your regular bloggers probably do too. I disagree. Boris is on another blog and he usually gets multiple responses to his posts which he defends thoroughly just like he did on this one. He’s an interesting fellow. I’m calling for a rematch.
__________________________________________________________
Well in conclusion I am becoming more and more convinced that debating with any Christian is utterly [word deleted by Moderator] useless, because before you start they are already determined to be right no matter what. Which is just another way of saying their ear plugs are snugly in place and they’re poised with the megaphone at their lips ready to “debate.”
Suffice to say I am quickly becoming fed up with these blogs, especially this one.
_____________________________________________________
Glenn.
I will be very happy to get back to our debate from before, I simply haven’t had the time recently. Check it again in a few days, I should get to it by then. Unlike these other knuckleheads, you’re actually fun to debate with.
September 24th, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
I.O.,
Thanks for the response, and I’ll do my best to get back to you ASAP. As for your perceptions of what happened on the show, I can only wonder if you listened to the same broadcast as everyone else. Boris (Fred) is welcome to call in any time he wants (as are you, and as is every listener) and to raise any controversial subject he desires (or you desire). Of course, you’re welcome to spin things however you like, but those seeking the truth will find it, and in the case of the listeners to the show, your take on the debate is in the tiniest minority. (And this is not a test of who is the better debater but of who is siding with the truth.)
One last thing: I and millions of others around the world KNOW God exists and know Him personally, and I have enough indisputable evidence in my own life that I would have to be a complete fool and idiot to deny God’s reality.
Just for the record!
September 24th, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
I.O.,
I censored your last email due to profanity.
Rule #1 from http://lineoffireradio.wordpress.com/simple-rules-to-abide-by-when-commenting/ :
No Profanity
Marcus French
Line of Fire Moderator
September 24th, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
I.O. says: Also, I very strongly recommend you actually take time to READ Judges 11:31 through 11:39 before you say that the daughter wasn’t sacrificed. You’ll find you are extremely incorrect.
I say: Jephthah’s daughter and her companions do not spend 2 months bewailing her impending destruction. They lament her permanent virginity (betulim), as she is dedicated to God and will never be married or have children (Ex 38:8, 1 Sam 2:22). Her father is “brought low” because his line ends due to the fact that she was his only offspring. Many, like Gleason A. Archer, argue that Jephthah acted honorably by offering his daughter as a continual living sacrifice to God as believers are commanded to do in Romans 12:1 and God has a habit of accepting throughout the Bible. Further, mentioning that she bewailed her virginity would have been a meaningless comment if she were slain for sacrifice instead of given in dedication to God. Had he gone through with your scenario, Jephthah would have been put to death for it (Lev 18:21 & 20:2) because God forbids such sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:31 “Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.”). Also, had he gone through with your scenario, Jephthah would have been guilty of the same abomination as the Ammonites whom God enabled Jephthah to defeat. He also would not have been listed among the heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11. Due to the textual and cultural context, your conclusion cannot be supported. Please provide some support for your position. I believe you are reading meaning into the text that was never intended (eisegesis) instead of drawing out meaning from the text (exegesis).
I.O. says: Well in conclusion I am becoming more and more convinced that debating with any Christian is utterly [word deleted by Moderator] useless, because before you start they are already determined to be right no matter what. Which is just another way of saying their ear plugs are snugly in place and they’re poised with the megaphone at their lips ready to “debate.”
I say: Don’t be discouraged. Examine our evidence for validity; answer questions posed to you; and return with your own evidence and questions. We have and will return in kind. This is the dialogue. This is the example of critical thinking that “Boris” holds so dear (and for good reason). Taking a “sour grapes” attitude reflects poorly, as it makes one look like “the pot calling the kettle black.” You’ve taken some knocks. So regroup and get back in the fight. You are obviously upset because you feel that “Boris” has been slighted. Put that aside. Present a case for your position, pose legitimate questions, or restate what you feel Boris would have said if he wasn’t banned from the site. A last note, I welcome the acerbity of sarcasm, but I ain’t hip to profanity.
September 24th, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
I listened to the beginning of the show following this one to hear the various emails that Fearless had sent privately both before and after the show. I was amazed! How can such rantings and hyperbolic distortions be explained other than to suggest they emanate from someone who is at least a little mentally unhinged?
September 24th, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
I.O., Thanks again for taking the time to post.
First, with regard to Dez, he made some excellent points to which you did not even attempt to respond. I’d encourage you to do so. Second, with regard to the Jepthah account, scholars of all backgrounds have debated whether she remained single for life or whether her father killed her. The text is actually ambiguous. In any case, the scriptures are totally clear that God abhors human sacrifice.
You wrote: Dr Brown! Let me preface this next part by making a simple statement. The Bible doesn’t truly need bashing, because in all honesty it already bashes itself!
My response: The fact is the Bible has endured 2,000 years of opposition, persecution, banning, and maligning, and it remains the world’s bestselling book and the world’s most translated book, and some of the greatest minds of all times have explored its depths for their decades without mining all of its treasures. That being said, does God hide His truth in places that only the sincere and humble will find it? Absolutely, which is why Jesus taught in parables. I hope you can understand the point here. If not, go back and read the Gospels again.
You wrote: I looked them up in the Bible myself. I used my friends study Bible to find where certain things were.
My response: Glad to hear that. Your comments echoed some of the same easily-refuted arguments I’ve heard over and again, but if you feel any of your objections are particularly strong, let me know, and I’ll gladly answer them seriatim as schedule allows.
You wrote: Since experiences of God are good grounds for the existence of God, are not experiences of the absence of God good grounds for the nonexistence of God? (I didn’t see Him just the other day.)
My response: Actually, this is terrible logic. Let’s say I live in a place that never experiences snow but you live in northern Canada. You say, “But I have experienced the snow firsthand,” and I reply, “But my non-experience of snow is just as good a proof as your experience.” Hardly!
You wrote: That’s because you had to take so long to stop the bleeding every time Boris talked. The show went like this: Boris talked for 10 or 15 seconds and you spent 2 or 3 minutes trying to repair all the holes Boris punched in your arguments. That’s what happened.
My response: Louder sigh than before. Really, no hype here and no intent to score a point: The fact is I was terribly disappointed in Boris’s performance from his opening comments about Hitler (in which he contradicted his earlier online assertion that he had previously sought to defend so vigorously). I was honestly expecting the Boris (Fearless, Fred) I had come to know online, and the ridiculous emails he sent to me with all kinds of threats turned out to me completely vacuous. I.O., the fact is that there not only no bleeding, there was not even a point scored of substance on his side – and not because I’m a good debater. I actually went out of my way to be civil with him. You can make all the claims you want – just as he did – but again, I have the debate online for a reason, and I extended an invitation to Boris on the show to come back on again, and that invitation remains.
You wrote: Yes but as Boris pointed out the views of born-again believers do not reflect the views of the majority of Christians. He was right that fundamentalists like you are in the minority in the Christian community itself, especially the academic community.
My response: You obviously have no idea of Christian demographics worldwide. Catholics make up more than 1.1 billion people, and the vast majority of them are opposed to abortion on demand. I am part of the Pentecostal-Charismatic movement which numbers more than 500 million worldwide, and the vast majority in this movement are opposed to abortion on demand. That already is more than ¾ of the world’s Christians! If you’d like more info, I can refer you to scholarly volumes published by Oxford University Press that will validate these claims in detail – if, that is, you have any desire to seek out the truth.
You wrote: Boris did the smart thing. He didn’t really try to defend any positions but when he did get a chance to get a word in edge wise he attacked your positions and showed that they were spurious or even ludicrous and actually not very widely held. I could tell he caught you off guard several times.
My response: Yet another loud sigh. Boris threatened in his emails to do all kinds of things on the show and did none of them, and the only thing that caught me off guard was his lack of ammunition. I came prepared for a gun fight, so to say, and he brought a water pistol. Again, he’s welcome to call in whenever he likes, and he’s free to propose a date for another show by simply emailing Eric.
You wrote: So you say. But I saw the last posts he made and if they are why he got banned my views stand unchallenged Dr. Brown.
My response: Really, it’s infantile to go through this again and again. I might as well tell you every time that you are paid money by aliens to be on this blog, which you’ll deny, only for me to say, “That’s what you say.” No more comment on this one. I’ve explained it over and again and told you only the truth.
You wrote: I’ve listened to your show and been on this blog. Boris is the most interesting person I’ve encountered on either one. Again, had you done well in the debate you would not have resorted to stabbing him in the back after he was kind enough to come on your show and be such a gentleman and give us all an entertaining and informative (for a change) show.
My response: Thanks for listening! As for him being the most interesting, from your perspective that makes sense. His presence on the blog was great, because it drew lots of responses from folks, and we let him back on once after stopping his posts, only to have him get more abusive. Too bad!
You wrote: No one knows if there really is a God, I’ve been looking for Him-Her-It myself and people in primitive cultures pray to rocks. Napoleon said if he gave his watch to a savage he would think it had a soul. To blame deformities and retardation on a stupid fairytale when we have very plausible scientific explanations for these things shows us how clearly the lines are drawn between a scientific worldview and one based on religious fairytales.
My response: First, as I stated in my last post, I and millions of others around the world know that God is real, for a host of reasons and experiences. Second, science hasn’t been able to figure out the origin of life. (As Dawkins says, “We’re still working on that.” Right!) We’re fully aware of the genetic causes of various defects, etc., and I’m simply giving you information that tells a larger picture. Third, primitive people pray to rocks because they know there’s something more. We help to see the truth and then they come to know the living God personally.
You wrote: I think Galileo, Copernicus, Hubble, Edison, Darwin etc. show that there has indeed been a Christian war on science for the last 2000 years. You are in some kind of denial here. Anyone who is denying evolutionary theory is certainly doing it based on the Bible not on any kind of science and is still fighting this war of religion on science.
My response: I can point you to some of the greatest scientific minds in history, the founders of some of the major scientific disciplines, and many of them were Christians. Also, I note in your answer that Galileo was your earliest example, so how can you refer to a “2000 year” war with science? What a stretch! Not only so, but the so-called war with Galileo is a great exaggeration of reality, and the church was simply debating which scientific view to follow (remember Kepler, among others?). Finally, there are brilliant scholars today who feel that there are vast holes in Darwinian evolutionism, even though they recognize the soundness of many of his principles, and some of these men are not even Christians. If you want references, I’d be happy to get them to you.
You wrote: Boris said he got a Christian education and we can assume he found the arguments for the authority of the Bible as sadly lacking as you did those against it. Your argument is therefore nullified. The authority of the Bible doesn’t need to be argued against. The only authority it has is because some old guys voted on making the books in it the basis for their church. Anyone who wants to give it more authority than that better come up with some pretty good reasons. So far I’ve see none that even come close and I doubt anyone else has either.
My response: First, my academic training was on the Ph.D. level while Boris’s was on the Bachelor’s level (according to what he wrote to me privately), so there’s quite a difference there. Second, I was simply explaining to you that I’ve only studied with critical (and/or non-Christian) scholars, reading the relevant literature for many years and working through the arguments. Third, the authority of God’s Word stands for itself, and it needs no one to prop it up for fight for it. Jesus said that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would never pass away, and He doesn’t need to make this happen.
You wrote: I know you think you did well or at least okay against Boris. Your regular bloggers probably do too. I disagree. Boris is on another blog and he usually gets multiple responses to his posts which he defends thoroughly just like he did on this one. He’s an interesting fellow. I’m calling for a rematch.
My response: I think Boris did very poorly and, to repeat, I would gladly have him on again. I do agree, however, with other bloggers here who feel that Jeff the atheist who called in did a better job, and I’ve welcomed him to call in again too.
You wrote: Well in conclusion I am becoming more and more convinced that debating with any Christian is utterly [word deleted by Moderator] useless, because before you start they are already determined to be right no matter what. Which is just another way of saying their ear plugs are snugly in place and they’re poised with the megaphone at their lips ready to “debate.”
Suffice to say I am quickly becoming fed up with these blogs, especially this one.
My response: You have yet to work through a single argument in any depth at all, although I hope you will re-engage with Glen. And if you are honestly looking for answers, wherever those answers lead, I can provide you with plenty of them (as can others here on the blog). Did you ever read the works I referred you to some weeks ago?
As for being fed up, we’re not here to entertain anyone but rather to provide a forum for people to get into discussion about the topics I cover on the show. So, you’re always welcome here, but if you find better places to spend your time, more power to you.
September 25th, 2008 @ 12:13 am
Here are a couple of references to the Galileo affair.
The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
The Galileo ‘twist’
September 25th, 2008 @ 12:24 am
Bryen,
I’m looking forward to continuing our conversation. I’ll be checking the original conversation daily for your post.
September 25th, 2008 @ 7:31 am
IO wrote: That’s because you had to take so long to stop the bleeding every time Boris talked. The show went like this: Boris talked for 10 or 15 seconds and you spent 2 or 3 minutes trying to repair all the holes Boris punched in your arguments. That’s what happened.
Guess you heard the limited uncut version of the pseudo-debate in which Boris (Fred Weiss) had Dr. Brown pinned down with his irrefutable rhetoric. (pun intented)
September 25th, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
Alright guys, having some comp trouble so I’ll just post a little bit at a time to make sure I don’t lose my post again like I did earlier today. Remember, this is not a ‘full’ post.
_____________________________________________________________
Dez–
Clearly, I have to spell this out for you.
JUDGES|11:39 “And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man.”
I have just directly quoted the Bible. It is absolutely unarguable that I am right and you are wrong. It very clearly states that he offers up his virgin daughter as a burnt sacrifice to God. He had vowed to express his thanks to God for helping him with the Ammons and so he did just as he vowed. ‘Nuff said, no further questions your Honor, case closed.
September 25th, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
Dr Brown–
On Evolution:
Darwinian evolution is a thing of the past. Modern evolution owes its discovery to Darwin and Wallace but their original ideas were proven wrong decades ago. Darwin thought modern humans descended form Cro-manons which we now know is not true. Just because modern evolutionary theory cannot explian every detail of the diversity of life on Earth does not make it full of holes… Nothing else can explain anything about life on earth AT ALL, nor will it ever, especially Creationism. Evolution is the only explanation we will ever have. Besides as Boris pointed out on another blog and on your show, it isn’t just evolution you people are denying. It’s modern cosmology, geology and the rest of science as well. You people want to stop all science from advancing because the more pople know about the real world the less likely they’ll believe in an imaginary one.
Sure, Creationism “explains” life on Earth. They say “Oh well all this HAD to be Designed because otherwise how could such complexity have ever come about?!”
What that REALLY is… is simple pure laziness! Why look for answers through science when you can sit back and say “God did it, God made it, God this, God that.” It’s so much easier than doing actual work and research, isn’t it?! So much easier. Creationists are not only ignorant, they refuse to be educated! Pathetic, sir, pathetic.
And people insist on saying man is made in God’s own image. No sir. God was made in man’s own image, because God is an invention of mankind. It is such a powerful ego boost to say that the Almighty is a human, more specifically a man. Why do you think the Greeks did the same thing with their gods and goddesses? It is hubris, sir.
And so there is no confusion here: hu·bris –noun 1. excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.
September 25th, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
Bryen,
I’m still looking forward to continuing our conversation. Also, fyi, without addressing (directly and logically) those points that I’ve put forward – you have no place to continue to deny God’s existence as Creator of all. I’ve put forward my case systematically and logically and that case must be refuted before you can lay any logical claim that God doesn’t exist.
Best Regards,
Glenn
September 26th, 2008 @ 6:41 am
I.O. says: Clearly, I have to spell this out for you.
I say: Indeed? But let us say that I hear your point… that I haven’t, until just now (provided by you), read the passage and needed your assistance. I have now definitely read the passage, but still hold to my evidence, which you still have yet to address (Much like the Daniel topic).
Since you bring up the topic of direct quotes… it also says very clearly in Daniel that Belshazzar was king (Dan 5:1) and son of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 5:2)… but since you did not understand that he was son of Nabonidus, and grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, and viceroy, you mistakenly concluded that a false history was presented. You mistakenly assumed that Daniel’s Darius refers to a name when in fact it is a title… though such can be directly quoted from the Bible. You’re going to need to examine a bit more than the direct quotes that are right in front of your eyes, which is why the Jephthah passage stumps you.
Dispute, if you can, the points I provided to you. As Dr. Brown wrote (and Thanks, by the way), “with regard to Dez, he made some excellent points to which you did not even attempt to respond.” You still haven’t.
All you have accomplished is to provide a quoted verse and to state without support or logic that your grasp of it is the only possible interpretation. You demonstrate intellectual arrogance… just as it was arrogant and condescending to define “hubris” for Dr. Brown. Is it not hubris to declare, “It is absolutely unarguable that I am right and you are wrong.”? Ironic, no? As someone has already expressed, *Loud Sigh*.
September 26th, 2008 @ 7:54 am
I notice the one thing militant atheists have in common is faith in the religion of evolution – they like to claim this religion is supported by science and they like to invoke it in an attempt to disprove the Bible.
Of all the problems with the theory of evolution, and there are many, one of the biggest is the problem of abiogenesis – how to get life from non-life? Evolutionists generally try and bluff their way around this problem with pseudo-scientific hand waving, but the fact remains it is a basic biological law that life only comes from life (Pasteur’s Law of Biogenesis).
More here.
September 26th, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Dez–
“All you have accomplished is to provide a quoted verse and to state without support or logic that your grasp of it is the only possible interpretation. ”
That is because there is nothing hidden in those words of the passage. You have only to read it to understand it immediately. I now voice my own ‘loud sigh,’ sir, because this is what I feel like… I feel like I have just read the sentence “Roses are red, violets are blue” to a classroom of small children and one of them put his hand up and is trying to insist that what that sentence “actually” means is “Roses are BLUE and violets are RED.” Stop reinterpreting plain and simple language! You are quite simply wrong when you do so.
Your so-called evidence about her bewailing her virginity on the mountaintop being ‘pointless if he were to kill her’ …. that is utterly insufficient reasoning to brush aside the main thrust of Judges 11:31-39. The fact is she obviously bewailed her virginity because she was sad she would die without ever getting some. She knew she was going to die. Her father was going to sacrifice her to God and he did at the end of two months. Why two months? It is not explained and inferences in that direction will be hazy at best. I do find it remarkable though that even over such a simple passage that is so clear in its meaning, you are willing to fight tooth and nail like some screeching monkies over the last banana in the tree. Look around you, there are plenty more bananas to eat.
I’ll get back to you soon on the Daniel thing. Need to look some stuff up.
September 26th, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Ewan–
Please, you’re gonna make me puke if you say “religion of evolution” one more time.
Let me lay that out for you as well.
re·li·gion –noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects; ex: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow.
The word religion doesn’t work when talking about evolution! Evolution is SCIENCE, and none of it is based on “faith” or “belief” which are the two words contained in all of the above definitions. The only one that doesn’t is 6, but science is also not a matter of ethics or conscience.
ev·o·lu·tion –noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
8. Mathematics. the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution (def. 8).
9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.
10. any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.
September 26th, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
Hey I.O
In regards to Jepthath,here is my view on it.
Im not going to debate on whatever happened,however jepthath was the one who made that rash promise and he was the one who carried it out (or not).Why blame God for that?
God very clearly in the law(you can read) was against human sacrifice.
If we blame God for that then its like an example of a person who pours water in his gas tank and then blames the company manufacturer because the car doesnt run.
Why didnt God stop Jepthath from doing that?I wil save that answer for another time.
John
September 26th, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
clarifying earlier post
(Why didnt God stop Jepthath from doing that?I wil save that answer for another time).
Why didnt God stop Jepthath from doing that or wasnt actively involved in that situation from the beggining?I wil save that answer for another time.
September 26th, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
I.O.,
Thanks so much for taking the time to try to respond to several people at once. I know what it feels like!
Regarding Jepthah, of course, John’s point is well taken, namely, that he is famous in the Bible for making a rash vow and whether or not he carried it out, the fact is God never required it nor did He desire it. Certainly not! We might just as well hold God responsible for the positions you take on this post, as if they reflected on him.
Apparently, though, you’re not used to reading the Bible as the authors intended it be read, which means that sometimes it records errors people so we will learn from them and see their folly.
It’s also clear that as a newcomer to the Bible and as one who doesn’t read the original languages, you will inevitably miss certain points (just as I would in a field knew to me). So, everyone who knows the Semitic languges know that “son” is often used for “grandson” or “descendant” (which address some chronological objections). With regard to the Jepthah account, scholars have found the final words intriguing “and she knew no man.” Does it mean that she was killed by her father before she could ever marry — something utterly deplorable throughout the Scriptures, as human sacrifice is renounced categorically in the Bible — or does it mean that rather than kill her, she was simply consigned to live without marriage (hence, bewailing her virginity). It’s for these reasons that scholars debate the issue. As for the character of God involved, again, I reiterate John’s point.
And again, thanks for responding. I’ll get back to you evolution comments ASAP.
September 26th, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
But Dr Brown, it clearly states BEFORE that last bit that he did “as he had vowed.” What was his vow?? To offer to God a “burnt offering.” Where is the ambiguity?!?!
September 26th, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Sorry I.O. to burst your bubble here but evolution is definitely more religion than it is science as even the more honest evolutionists themselves admit. For a bunch of revealing quotes from evolutionists themselves see Evolution is Religion – Not Science. As this article says in its conclusion:
Ironically, the very first statement in your own quoted definition of what is religion, fits evolution perfectly – “1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe….”
Militant evolutionists usually go apoplectic when it is pointed out to them that evolution is not true science but more like a religious philosophy. The reason is that this way of looking at the creation/evolution issue properly puts the two competing theories on a level playing field. No longer can the evolutionist frame the debate within the false dichotomy of ‘religion versus reason’. It is simply a case of competing religions – in this case the religion of evolution/atheism versus the religion of biblical creation.
September 26th, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
Sorry Ewan but you are just wrong. Evolution is NOT a set of beliefs. It is a set of well-researched, well-supported, scientifically based observations and widely-upheld explanations. When it comes down to it, science is based on observations of reality. And religion is based on observations of things outside of reality, or things based in reality that promote non-reality (such as the Bible). So, I’m sorry to chop down your quickly growing tree of misconceptions, but that’s what happens when science and religion face off.
September 26th, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
In addition to last post: (such as the Bible, or people who “find God”… etc etc)
September 26th, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
Ewan, my main main (can’t you FEEL the sarcasm?). Just found a good list online that further extends my point that religion and science are two different things.
Philosophical Differences Separating Religion From Science:
1. Any religion worthy of the name, by definition, include some form of belief in the supernatural (e.g., gods, devils, holy ghosts, angels, heaven, hell). Science, however, addresses only naturally occurring phenomena ans thus, by definition, excludes consideration of the supernatural.
2. Religion derives its belief system from “Divine Revelation” and from “inner conviction.” Science, by contrast, derives its laws from real-world experimentation and through mathematical and logical reasoning.
3. The religious adherent believes that “all things are possible to them that love God.” If asked whether Jesus could throw a rock faster than the speed of light, the religious believer would unhesitating say yes. Science, however, establishes laws restricting Nature’s behavior. Science says, for example, that Jesus could not throw a rock faster than light.
4. Because religious doctrines are supposedly ordained of God, the religious adherent cannot easily question the teachings of his church, even when those teachings are provably false. The scientist, on the other hand, is most rewarded when he proves the conventional wisdom wrong and revolutionizes our understanding of the universe.
5. The religious individual strives to behave “morally” in order to please God and to gain heavenly reward. The science-minded individual derives his ethical system from the real-world consequences of his actions upon others and upon himself.
6. The religious individual tends to hold his beliefs rigidly, fanatically and with a closed mind – never seriously questioning the accuracy of his Church’s teachings. The scientist, however, is eagerly and open-mindedly searching for new theories and for evidence to topple old theories.
September 26th, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
Yes I agree that “science is based on observations of reality”. A pity then that evolution falls outside this definition.
So it’s not a question of biased religious creationists versus objective scientific evolutionists; rather, it is the biases of the Christian religion versus the biases of the religion of atheism resulting in different interpretations of the same scientific data.
See:
Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias
Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
Games some people play
The rules of the game
Here is a challenge for you. If evolution is so obvious and so clearly derived from the evidence, then you should have no trouble giving us an example of a scientific observation that points to evolution without having to rely upon evolutionary presuppositions.
September 27th, 2008 @ 1:24 am
I.O..
There are a few reasons scholars debate the issue of the Jepthah vow, one reason being that human sacrifice was so abhorred by God in the Scriptures. In any case, just FYI, here are the comments on some OT and ANE scholars on the matter, just for some background info.
?11:39?. fulfillment of the vow: women serving at tabernacle? It has been suggested by some interpreters that instead of being slaughtered as a sacrifice Jephthah’s daughter was consecrated to serve in the tabernacle in a state of celibacy. There are examples of lifelong dedication to sanctuary service (Samuel in ?1 Sam 1:28?) and of women serving at the sanctuary (?Ex 38:8?; ?1 Sam 2:22?). But there are no examples of women serving the sanctuary in a vow of celibacy or in lifelong consecration. In the ancient Near East as a whole, dedication to the sanctuary generally involved prostitution rather than celibacy (see comment on Deut 23:17–18). This sort of dedication has been viewed as comparable to sacrificing a son. Perhaps most significant is the class of women referred to as naditu in the Old Babylonian period (1800–1600). They were connected with the temple as “?bride of the god?” and were therefore prohibited from marriage, though they were not necessarily celibate. Hammurabi’s laws mention situations where a man marries a naditu, but in such situations she did not bear children. (The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. electronic ed. Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 2000)
BTW, your comments are sounding more and like those of Boris these days. It’s almost as if he’s helping you out a bit.
September 27th, 2008 @ 2:12 am
Thank you I.O. for keeping in the dialogue! Well done.
I.O. You obviously don’t take the discussion and points seriously… you quote “The fact is she obviously bewailed her virginity because she was sad she would die without ever getting some.” Your grasp of the culture is understandably small, as you are new to biblical study. You’re going to need to take a look at a wider picture, like the life of Sarah, Hannah, and others. If you understood the culture, you would see how meaningless your statement was. You seem to revere science. I encourage you to use it… employ the cornerstones of science, research and observation.
I will desist on the Jephthah topic for two reasons: 1) I agree with Dr. Brown that the passage is ambiguous. But if I.O. cannot refute my evidence, he cannot disprove my case… and therefore cannot prove his. 2) I.O. continues to dodge addressing my points. He merely restates his opinion. We are at an impasse. But this is OK. Once I.O. has had more time to study, he can re-engage a discussion.
I.O. says: Science, by contrast, derives its laws from real-world experimentation and through mathematical and logical reasoning.
I.O. says: Evolution is NOT a set of beliefs. It is a set of well-researched, well-supported, scientifically based observations and widely-upheld explanations. When it comes down to it, science is based on observations of reality. [my addition - Really? Name a scientist who has observed evolution. Doesn't this process require millions of years? Even Methuselah did not live so long. The best that can be said is that scientists have observed the supposed results of evolution.]
I say: Evolution is a system of faith. Because evolution cannot be observed, has no provable evidence, and cannot be conducted or repeated in controlled experiments, it will never climb higher in scientific classification than “theory.” Were it otherwise, that is to say “if there was proof” the “theory of evolution” would be elevated to the “law of evolution.” Without proof you believe the theory of evolution to be true, for (to you) it seems plausible.
“Unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence” is the definition of faith (Webster’s New World Dictionary); and aptly describes belief in evolution. Since you seem to enjoy definitions, here are definitions that you provided that argue the point that evolution is not just a system of faith, but also a religion:
Religion: (note: I selected the ones that show that religion is not necessarily tied to a belief in deity.)
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice
Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow.
ritual observance of faith
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
Here are some others from Webster’s New World Dictionary:
2a) any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy.
2b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system (humanism as a religion)
4) any object of conscientious regard and pursuit
I.O. says: Just found a good list online that further extends my point that religion and science are two different things.
I think (by your context) your argument is more that the two are incompatible… or unable to be unified (water and oil, so to speak). I disagree.
How do you then explain Isaac Newton (and many other scientists)? Apparently being a theologian and his belief in deity did not prevent him developing some very important scientific laws about the nature of reality… faith and science were not incompatible to him. Science was the tool he used to understand his God’s creation. Ever hear of Calculus? Thank Isaac Newton (and Leibniz). Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, was an Augustinian priest. Religion and science can stand together, supporting each other.
Here are some objections to your online list:
1. Any religion worthy of the name, by definition, include some form of belief in the supernatural
Not so, and proven by the definitions you provided… by the way, what does “worthy of the name” mean?
2. Religion derives its belief system from “Divine Revelation” and from “inner conviction.” Science, by contrast, derives its laws from real-world experimentation and through mathematical and logical reasoning.
This is partly true. Beliefs do come through divine revelation, but general knowledge through observation. But the contrast you present assumes that all scientific knowledge is refuted by religious belief and vice versa. This is just not so. Current scientific thought concerning the oscillating universe model owes its conceptual origins to the Hindu Vedas. It is not Biblical Scripture that denied a heliocentric planetary system. Geocentrism was adopted by theologians of the Middle Ages due largely to the influence of Aristotle’s teachings, not God’s. Had they listened to other teachings, pagan or otherwise, like the Greek Democritus, they would have seen proof for the shape of the earth, it’s approximate size, and the rudimentary data for the heliocentric model.
3. Science, however, establishes laws restricting Nature’s behavior. Science says, for example, that Jesus could not throw a rock faster than light.
Science has the power to restrict the behavior of nature? I thought you told us that science was based upon research and observation (which I agree with). How, without research or observation, can you know that Jesus cannot do it? Ah, but we are stepping back into that faith problem you are having. God created the universe as well as its laws. It would stand to reason that he can choose or not choose to limit Himself by them. Only He can restrict the behavior of nature. Also, if science can restrict the behavior of nature, why do scientists allow natural disasters to occur? That would put a hole in the ethics you present in point 5. All that science can do is describe nature, and even in this science is fallible. Scientists did not believe in germs until proven by Louis Pasteur (a devout Catholic). Scientists did not believe that ocean life could survive outside a dependence on photosynthesis or at extremely high temperatures until such was proven by the discovery of giant tube worms living on thermal vents. Imagine what cherished beliefs of well-meaning scientists will be destroyed next.
4. Because religious doctrines are supposedly ordained of God, the religious adherent cannot easily question the teachings of his church… The scientist, on the other hand, is most rewarded when he proves the conventional wisdom wrong and revolutionizes our understanding of the universe.
Not true, Scripture commands that we test for truth. One example is tithing. The Bereans in Acts were praised for not taking Paul’s testimony at face value, but researched to see if what he said was true.
Science is about discovery, not proving people or beliefs to be wrong… such is pride, not science. Science is rewarding when it revolutionizes our understanding of the universe (as stated above) but most rewarding when it saves or improves the quality of life, such as Dr. Charles Drew’s developments in blood plasma or Dr. G.W. Carver’s studies in agriculture, alternative crops, mycology, etc. His acclaimed Peanut Butter is used around the world to reverse the effects of starvation. His work brought treatments for plant diseases, improved soil conditions and crop outputs for farmers, treated polio, etc. And he was a devoted Christian. One biography of Carver is titled “Man’s Slave, God’s Scientist.”
5. The religious individual strives to behave “morally” in order to please God and to gain heavenly reward.
This is distorted. Some religious folks do exemplify this, however the Christian understands that he cannot earn God’s favor. He is commanded to love God AND love man. His eternal reward comes from grace through faith in Messiah, not deeds or behaviors.
5. The science-minded individual derives his ethical system from the real-world consequences of his actions upon others and upon himself.
Most often this is true, but some “sciences”, in the name of ethics, have destroyed many millions of lives… eugenics for one. Hilter abused religion to justify killing Jews, but also abused science. Scientific studies of his day “proved” the inferiority of certain races and justified his “final solution” toward Jews and many different groups of gentiles. Science was ethical, to be sure, but the ethics were deeply flawed. Stories of the holocaust are replete with Christians risking or giving their lives for the sake of their fellow man, but there are no stories of atheists standing up before the Reich to defend “truth.”
6. The religious individual tends to hold his beliefs rigidly, fanatically and with a closed mind – never seriously questioning the accuracy of his Church’s teachings. The scientist, however, is eagerly and open-mindedly searching for new theories and for evidence to topple old theories.
This is a wild generalization. These flaws are not the flaws of religion, and the virtues are not the exclusive domain of science. These traits are the flaws and virtues of men. Theists, atheists, scientists, and mystics can be equally rigid or open.
September 27th, 2008 @ 3:50 am
Some good points Dez.
Hey all,
I have a proposition with regard to the Evolution topic. In fairness to I.O. (aka Bryen) and the topic of Evolution, instead of I.O. taking time to respond to every single comment regarding what Evolution is and is not, let’s get down to the root of the issue: THE EVIDENCE.
I propose that I.O. has a chance to bring forth one piece of evidence or begin to build his case for evolution one point at a time and the audience has a chance to address their concerns and/or objections. Again, one piece of evidence at a time in order to stay on track.
All in favor please say “I”.
September 27th, 2008 @ 3:56 am
“Aye” says I
September 27th, 2008 @ 9:06 am
That’s basically what I asked for at the end of my previous comment:
September 27th, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
Finally got around to listening to this show. Boris and Dr. Brown- I enjoyed the dialog. Too short.
I would have to say that as an engineer (scientist) I see no conflict between Christianity (my fundamentalist beliefs) and my scientific work, but perhaps that can be dismissed as “non-critical thinking.” Whatever.
I would like to comment on some “non-critical” thinking I noticed in the show.
“Atheism has nothing to do really with belief, non-belief, or a world view or morals or anything”
Boris at 49:20
“I think we can demonstrate that an Atheistic world view is simply superior to a theistic world..”
Boris at 33:30
It is becoming very hard to understand where Boris is coming from. I guess if everything is subjective and there are no absolutes, this means you can contradict yourself within 15 minutes and that isn’t a problem.
Just wondering.
September 27th, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Bill,
Glad to know you’re an engineer – I’m sure your expertise will come in handy. What area of engineering are you involved in?
———
To all,
Unless anyone disagrees, we’ll go ahead with it.
**Great! So, I.O., bring the evidence – one point at a time so as to stay on track. Bring the best Evolutionary evidence you can possibly digg up.**
September 29th, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
Ewan—
You said: Yes I agree that “science is based on observations of reality”. A pity then that evolution falls outside this definition.
I say: What you meant to say was “A pity then that religion falls outside this definition.”
You said: Here is a challenge for you. If evolution is so obvious and so clearly derived from the evidence, then you should have no trouble giving us an example of a scientific observation that points to evolution without having to rely upon evolutionary presuppositions.
I say: Au contraire, my silly friend. The burden of proof lie on yourself, as Boris would say. Why? Simple. Evolutionary theory has a long-standing history of supporting evidence. Creationism does not. Creationism is nothing more than a repeated insistence that evolution makes no sense and that some sky-fairy—again, borrowing some Boris terminology—simply created everything and nothing has ever changed. People have always been this way, and no change has ever occurred. Which of course simply goes directly against all the opposing PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS. *smirks* So no, sir, it is all of you who should be defending Creationism!!
September 29th, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
Dr Michael Brown—
You said: It has been suggested by some interpreters that instead of being slaughtered as a sacrifice Jephthah’s daughter was consecrated to serve in the tabernacle in a state of celibacy…
I say: Preposterous. Why speculate about things that clearly were never stated as having happened? Especially when it IS clearly stated that she gets killed. How many times do you people have to read this stuff to get it through your thick skulls? Really. If your tactic is to make me go nuts then you might succeed just yet. It is very clearly stated, and once again I will quote directly from my father’s Bible. I will even italicize the part in the Bible that is italicized. Funny how such an italization seems to actually reinforce my statement, but here it is, pure direct quote:
Judges 11:39:
39 And it came to pass at the end of two moths, that she returned unto her fatehr who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthath the Gileadite four days in a year.
Honestly, how much more obvious can you get? I’m really beginning to doubt the intelligence around here. After all if we can’t even agree on something as simple as how to use the English %#@&ing language, how the $&%@ are we ever going to properly debate something?!?
You said: BTW, your comments are sounding more and like those of Boris these days. It’s almost as if he’s helping you out a bit.
I said: Actually I do keep up with Boris from time to time on another blog called Beliefnet. You should check it out and do some posting there.
September 29th, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
Dez—
You said: Thank you I.O. for keeping in the dialogue! Well done. I.O. You obviously don’t take the discussion and points seriously… you quote “The fact is she obviously bewailed her virginity because she was sad she would die without ever getting some.”
I say: Ask any scientist. Biologically speaking, the prime directive of all biological life forms is to reproduce. Do you deny that as well? Think carefully before you dive headfirst into another stupid statement.
You say: If you understood the culture, you would see how meaningless your statement was.
I say: See above statement!
You say: I will desist on the Jephthah topic for two reasons: 1) I agree with Dr. Brown that the passage is ambiguous. But if I.O. cannot refute my evidence, he cannot disprove my case… and therefore cannot prove his. 2) I.O. continues to dodge addressing my points. He merely restates his opinion. We are at an impasse. But this is OK. Once I.O. has had more time to study, he can re-engage a discussion.
I say: Negatory. I am simply stating what is obviously there. You and Dr Brown in a pathetic attempt to dodge the truth, are trying to make sideways alternate explanations. Not gonna work. As Christian fundies would say, “You can’t escape judgement.” Well, you can’t escape the truth. Sorry. It just always gets you in the end!
You say: Evolution is a system of faith.
I say: Wrong. Evolution is systematic but has nothing to do with faith in anything. That’s like saying astrology is a system of faith. In fact come to think of it a lot of Christians also deny other areas of science. Cosmology, anthropology, archaeology (because it disproves the Bible), chemistry, physics, geology, oceanography and all other science, not just evolution.
September 29th, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
All—
I challenge everybody here to answer Boris’ earlier question from the other thread about Irrelevant Church: “When has science ever had to revise one of its theories in the face of claims from Bible believers?”
September 29th, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
Moderator: In my post to Dr Brown… The words “according” in Judges 11:39 and the first word in Judges 11:40 “That” should both be italicized. I typed that in Word and thought the italics would carry over when I copy/pasted, but they didn’t. Please fix this.
September 29th, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
In 1984, Creationist Nuclear Physicist Dr Russell Humphreys made some predictions (based on biblical assumptions about the age and creation of the universe) of the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, the two giant gas planets beyond Saturn. His predictions were about 100,000 times the evolutionary dynamo predictions. The two rival models were inadvertently put to the test when the Voyager 2 spacecraft flew past these planets in 1986 and 1989. The fields for Uranus and Neptune were just as Humphreys had predicted. Evolutionists then had to revise their theories.
See here for more detail.
September 29th, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
Bryen,
If that’s the case, and you want to discuss Creationism, then you must begin to address the points that I made with regard to our last conversation. Those points that I made are the most basic points to prove Creationism. Until you address those, the Creationist position stands.
September 29th, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
And Bryen, if your statement, “Evolutionary theory has a long-standing history of supporting evidence.” is true, then it should be a walk-in-the-park for you to bring forth at least some evidence.
September 29th, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
Now IO, can you please provide that evidence that proves evolution? And remember only evidence that stands alone and doesn’t require evolutionary presuppositions. I’m calling your bluff that you can’t find any.
September 29th, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
I.O.,
You’re missing the whole point about Judges 11 and Jepthah. If he committed the horrific sin of sacrificing his daughter, so be it. That does not impinge on God’s character, since the Word is clear about God’s abhorrence of this. So, either way, your point has no substance to it at all.
I simply present other scholarly viewpoints, and in all candor, given your absolute novice status in biblical studies, you’re not the one to come here and teach with such dogmatism and hubris.
And I repeat yet again: There are clear and solid answers for each and every biblical question you raise, if, of course, you’re desiring truth rather than an argument.
September 30th, 2008 @ 1:23 am
Alright guys… I found a nifty bit online… here, I’ll copy/paste it.
The Torah is VERY errant and contradictive to that of scientific facts. The first book of Genesis alone should be enough to invalidate Judaism to any INTELLIGENT person. Sadly, not only is Judaism still one of the world’s leading religions, but it has spawned the most insane theism (Christianity). The goal of this page is to expose the inaccuracies of the Torah, hence shooting down its divine claim. All the verses shall appear in chronological order. Feel free to copy what ever you wish.
1) The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite.
2) “And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5), versus “And God said, ‘Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night….’ “And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also… And the evening and morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.
3) God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.
4) Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).
5) “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind… ‘And the evening and the morning were the third day” (Genesis 1:11-13), versus “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life… And God created – great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly… And the evening and the morning were the fifth day” (Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life long before vegetation and life appeared on land.
6) “And God said, ‘Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:20). Birds did not emerge from water.
7) “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, the beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made…every thing that creepth upon the earth after his kind…” (Genesis 1:24-25). Science contends that reptiles were created long before mammals, not simultaneously. While reptiles existed in the Carboniferous Age, mammals did not appear until the close of the Reptilian Age.
“So God created man in his own image,…male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27), and “the evening and the morning were the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31). If Adam was created on the 6th day, approximately 6,000 years ago (Bishop Usher’s calculations), then nobody lived before 4,000 B.C. Prehistoric men would be fictitious. By tracing the genealogy of Jesus back 77 generations to Adam, the third chapter of Luke also supports belief in a very young earth. If each man had lived approximately 100 years, then the world would be no more than 9,684 (7,700 + 1984) years old. If each of Jesus’ ancestors had lived to be 1,000 years old (an age not even reached by Methuselah), the earth would still be only 78,984 (77,000 + 1984) years old, according to creationists.
9) “And to every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so” (Genesis 1:30). Carnivorous beasts and fowl do not eat green herbs, nor were all animals originally herbivores. Simply consider tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, barracudas, tigers, etc.
10) In Genesis 1, the entire creation takes 6 days (Genesis 1:31), at the end of which the earth and its living things are pretty much as they are today. But we know from modern science that the universe (including the earth and life on earth) evolved slowly over billions of years.
11) In Genesis 2:7 humans are created instantaneously from dust and breath, whereas they actually evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. Science can in fact trace back human evolution CONCLUSIVELY 3 .2 million years.
12) God makes the animals (Genesis 2:18) and parades them before Adam to see if any would strike his fancy. But none seem to have what it takes to please him. After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while, why Adam would still have to be living for we haven’t even discovered nor named all the species. Also consider the idea of every living creature being brought to the Middle East, that would have killed many animals due to climatic changes.
13) God curses the serpent, making him crawl on his belly and eat dust (Genesis 3:14). One wonders how he got around before — by hopping on his tail, perhaps? But snakes don’t eat dust, do they?
14) “There were giants in the earth in those days.” Genesis 6:4 But there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of these giants. Also there is a reference to the “Nephilim” being on the earth. Which is a term used for half angel, half human. Why is there no archaeological evidence for the existence of the Nephilim either?
15) Noah is told to make an ark that is 450 feet long (Genesis 6:14-15). The largest wooden ships ever built were just over 300 feet, and they required diagonal iron strapping for support. Even so, they leaked so badly that they had to be pumped constantly. Are we to believe that Noah, with no shipbuilding knowledge and no shipbuilding tradition to rely upon, was able to construct a wooden ship that was longer than any that has been built since?
16) Whether by twos or by sevens, Noah takes male and female representatives from each species of “every thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 7:8). Now this must have taken some time, along with expert knowledge of taxonomy, genetics, biogeography, and anatomy. How did Noah manage to collect the endemic species from the New World, Australia, Polynesia, and other remote regions entirely unknown to him? How, once he found them, did he transport them back to his Near Eastern home? How could he tell the male and female beetles (there are more than 500,000 species) apart? How did he know how to care for these new and unfamiliar animals? How did he find the space on the ark? How did he manage to find and care for the hundreds of thousands of parasitic species or the hundreds of thousands of plant species? (Plants are ignored in the Genesis account, but the animals wouldn’t last long if the plants died in the flood.) No, wait, don’t tell me, a miracle happened, millions of them.
17) All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 per second. How did poor Noah and his family make sure that the correct number of each species entered through the door and then get them all settled into their proper living quarters so efficiently? I wish the airline companies could do as well!
18) The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with fifteen cubits to spare (Genesis 7:20). Where did all the water come from? Where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of such a massive flood in the geological record?
19) When the animals left the ark (Genesis 8:19), what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct.. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find there way back after the flood subsided?
20) Noah kills the “clean beasts” and burns their dead bodies for God (Genesis 8:20). According to Genesis 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all “clean” animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. So why is it that we still have “clean” animals?
21) God is filled with remorse for having drowned his creatures in the flood. He even puts the rainbow in the sky so that whenever the animals see it they will remember God’s promise not to do it again (Genesis 9:13). But rainbows are caused by the nature of light, the refractive index of water, and the shape of raindrops. There were rainbows billions of years before humans existed.
22) “The whole earth was of one language” (Genesis 11:1). But this could not be true, since by this time (around 2400 BCE) there were already many languages, each unintelligible to the others.
23) (Genesis. 11:4) According to the Tower of Babel story, the many human languages were created instantaneously by God (Genesis 11:9) But actually the various languages evolved gradually over long periods of time.
24) (Genesis 14:14) Abram goes into pursuit looking for his captive relative in the city of Dan. The problem here is that the city of Dan did not exist until over 300 years after Moses died. How is it that Abram could enter the city of Dan, when the city did not even exist?
25) Jacob displays his (and God’s) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats (Genesis 30:37). The author of Genesis (God?) believed that genetic characteristics of the offspring are determined by what the parents see at the moment of conception. This is a laughable belief. Ask any animal husbandrist.
26) Camels don’t divide the hoof (Leviticus 11:4). This statement is completely moronic for every TEENAGER knows what a “camel toe” and how it used to describe a specific split.
27) The bible says that hares and conies are unclean because they “chew the cud” but do not part the hoof (Leviticus 11:5-6). But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not “chew the cud.”
28) Bats are birds to the biblical God (Leviticus 11:13-19 & Deuteronomy 14:11-18).
29) Some birds have four feet (Leviticus 11:20-21).
30) If there is a God, there is one thing we know for sure about him: He really likes insects (particularly beetles). There are more species of insects, by far, than all other species of life on earth. As JBS Haldane said, “he has an inordinate fondness for beetles.” Yet insects are said to have four legs in Leviticus 11:22-23.
31) Unicorns have never existed, yet they are said to in Deuteronomy 33:17.
32) Fiery serpents have NEVER existed yet Numbers 21:6 claims they do and TO THIS DAY STILL inhabit certain cities.
Now… PLEASE… PLEASE… PLEASE MAKE ME LAUGH BY SAYING THAT ‘GOD MADE IT HAPPEN.’ Because all of you know [word censored by Moderator] WELL that THAT is a fallacy.
September 30th, 2008 @ 1:26 am
Also found this interesting bit. A direct parallel to humankind!!
“It is not hypothetical speculation that insect evolve rapidly. It is a fact. In the real world, farmers do regularly change their insecticides for just this reason. Companies marketing insecticides must often reformulate their products to keep pace with insect evolution.
“Although insect evolution is bad news for farmers, let’s consider for a moment the insect’s point of view. Suppose that you are among the tenth generation of grasshoppers to live in a farmer’s field. You have inherited an almost total immunity to the farmer’s brand of poison. Knowing nothing of your species’ recent evolution, nor of the near extermination of your forefathers, you marvel that the complex chemistry of your body is perfectly suited to resist insecticide. You ponder the unlikelihood that “random accident” designed your chemistry so precisely and efficaciously. You conclude that the only reasonable explanation for your highly developed state is the existence of a supernatural Creator. You scoff at, or even despise, your fellow grasshoppers that propose evolutionary theories explaining your immunity to insecticide. You consider the evolutionists to be immoral, lacking any basis for a system of ethics or grasshopper family values. You may even quote Scripture, “The foolish grasshopper hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’”
“When we, like the grasshopper, suffer gaps in our understanding of events, we summon our “God of the Gaps” to fill the void.”
Chew on that for a while!
September 30th, 2008 @ 5:16 am
Do you expect us to take seriously a challenge from a website called http://www.evilbible.com ? I will answer a few of those straw-man arguments a little later. Here is a link to the article Absurd Torah Science
September 30th, 2008 @ 7:58 am
Looks like back to the drawing board for you IO if you think that insect resistance to pesticides or bacteria resistance to antibiotics are examples of evolution in action. In every observed case of such resistance, the mechanisms involved do not increase the information content of the gnome, so therefore this is not an example of that type of evolution which is supposed to have turned fish into philosophers. See here. This is an excerpt:
September 30th, 2008 @ 8:41 am
My people….mishpocha!! Why in the world do we waste time with “The Indomitable One”????? Is it really worth it?
September 30th, 2008 @ 8:46 am
With regard to the 32 objections raised in Absurd Torah Science, I can’t be bothered answering them all, but here is a sample of the bad reasoning and strawman objections:
Objection #4: Plants were created on day three before the sun was created (on day 4) to drive their photosynthetic processes.
Answer: Light was created on the first day.
Objection #12: Adam had to name “several million species” in less than a day.
Answer: Strawman. Adam probably only had to name no more than 2500 different kinds – a task which could easily have been achieved in a few hours. See here for a more detailed explanation.
September 30th, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
Working backwards, because it’s easier on the scrolling…
I skipped over IO’s last section as Ewan handled it aptly.
Unicorn doesn’t just show up in Deut 33:17, but also Num 23:22, Num 24:8, Job 39:9, Job 39:10, Psalms 22:21, Psalms 29:6, Psalms 92:10, and Isa 34:7. The word unicorn is an English translation for the Hebrew word “re’em” which means “wild ox”. But you would have understood this from context already, if you had bothered to read the passage you quoted, or opened a concordance or a chumash. Rashi explains that this is an animal whose horns are noted for their beauty. Some have said that this animal is the oryx, which has highly prized, beautiful, long and slender horns. When this animal runs, it only presents itself in profile to predators, which keeps the observer from viewing the 2nd horn and giving the animal an appearance of only a single horn, therefore… unicorn.
In the KJV, Lev 11:21-23 describes insects that both crawl and fly, go about upon four legs, and have a pair of legs that allow them to leap… six legs in all. All other insects that crawl and fly that are missing these jumping legs are forbidden to be used as food. That is the context. But don’t take my word for it, read it for yourself in English and in the original Hebrew.
The use of “fowls” in the KJV for Lev 11:20 is clarified by looking at the original Hebrew, which does not use the word “fowls” but the phrase “sheretz ha’oph” meaning “flying swarming creatures.” These are insects such as flies, hornets, mites, etc. With the following passages, and noting the absence of jumping legs, we see that these are flying insects that are forbidden to be eaten, not birds with four legs.
Bats (atalaf), in this culture, were classified as “oph” meaning “fowl” or “flying creature” like some insects and birds. The emphasis on this section of acceptable and unacceptable animals was the fact that they flew… not whether or not they had feathers.
In the KJV, Lev 11:5-6, the phrase “chew the cud” comes from the Hebrew “maaleh gerah” meaning “raising up what has been swallowed”. Hares and rabbits do excrete moist pellets from their stomachs to their mouths, which they eat again. Carl Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy, originally classified these animals as ruminants even though they lacked the four stomachs for that classification. The Lev 11:5-6 passages do not distinguish between the regurgitation of cows and other ruminants and that of rabbits and hares. Also these passages do not call these animals ruminants.
You argue the point for us in the case of the camel. It truly doesn’t divide the hoof; and because it doesn’t, it is forbidden to be eaten… for the involved class of animals to be acceptable they needed to BOTH chew the cud AND have a completely divided hoof. The camel does not qualify as it only meets one of those requirements.
In Gen 14:14 Dan represents the region of Dan, not a city… no city is mentioned in this passage. Read the Bible.
The Bible doesn’t say that the rods caused the flocks to bear marks like the rods (the Talmud teaches that). Torah says that those flocks that were in the presence of the rods were stimulated to breed.
Really, is it necessary to go on? You aren’t even bothering to search this out for yourself. You are trusting in what others are telling you or providing for you. Here’s proof of this judgment.
You provide from your “online” source: Noah kills the “clean beasts” and burns their dead bodies for God (Genesis 8:20). According to Genesis 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all “clean” animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. So why is it that we still have “clean” animals?
Yes, Noah killed clean beasts, but not all of them. And if you bothered to read Genesis, particularly chapter 7:1-3, you would have seen that Noah brought a pair (one male and one female) of every unclean kind, and seven pairs of every clean kind. How did you get to Genesis 7:8 without having read Genesis 7:2? You’ve never read a verse of Scripture for yourself that wasn’t fed to you by another source. Read it for yourself. Read it without the preconceptions of theist or atheist doctrine.
IO, you are lying to yourself and everyone here when you tell us that you have read the Bible, and that you have critically thought out and researched your arguments. We are not wasting our time with you, as your questions lead to answers that bolster our faith. But you are wasting your own time because you are not honestly seeking the truth. You are seeking the path of pride… to be right, and seen as right. Examine for yourself, not necessarily what I believe, but be honest with yourself in asking why you believe in what you believe. Did you test it for yourself, or did you just accept what others told you what you should believe?
Dr. Brown said it best: “There are clear and solid answers for each and every biblical question you raise, if, of course, you’re desiring truth rather than an argument.” But right now you don’t want the truth, you want a way to win an argument. Until this changes, you can’t do yourself any good. All that you will likely acquire is more frustration.
September 30th, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Anthony, I know what you mean. The situation may make me verklempt, but yeah… he’s worth it.
Next thing I’m sure I’ll hear is someone talking about shaking the dust off their sandals…
September 30th, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
I.O.,
I censored your last post due to profanity. Please abstain from using it in the future.
Rule #1 from http://lineoffireradio.wordpress.com/simple-rules-to-abide-by-when-commenting/ : No Profanity
Marcus French
Line of Fire Moderator
October 30th, 2008 @ 5:57 am
Remember to pray for I.O., and for “Boris” as well. I hope they are sincerely seeking and finding the truth.