LETTERS OF DISAPPROVAL
Identities Withheld Automatically
Letters Containing Personal Correspondence May Be
Truncated
Writer Comments Appear In Black
My Comments Appear In Blue
The letters
of disapproval section has been closed and finalized effective
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr.
Jason Long,
Greetings. While I did do a high level read through your book (thorough
in the introduction and the age of the universe section), I was disappointed to
not find it filled with facts and thus I didn't do a thorough read. It is
interesting how you point to science as your evidence that the bible is wrong,
yet you do so in a very precursory manner by making high level statements that
claim something without the references to evidence to back them up and not
offering evidence to the contrary of what is stated (with reference). In
your defense, you do list reference books, but that isn't the same as precise
scientific reference. As a scientist it is very important to use
scientific methods without leaving out opposing evidence. Theories should
also be mentioned as theories and assumptions as assumptions.
The majority of the writer’s statements in the opening paragraph
were regarding an earlier version of the book that I had published online. His
chief complaint is that I do not spend enough time dealing with
counterevidence. As I mentioned several times, the goal of the book is to
provide the broadest possible look at biblical problems. It is simply
impossible to go into the detail that he wishes if I am to stay within my set
publication limits. Furthermore, if there was even a miniscule bit of evidence supporting
a young earth, as the writer insinuates, I would be more than happy to
reconsider my position. However, this evidence is 100% lacking. As I stated
several times in Thousands Or Billions,
any supposed evidence of a young earth has been thoroughly refuted.
You do a decent job at trying to show why the universe is billions of years
old, but once again, you leave out specifics - what elements are missing that
don't have a half life longer than 8 million years old and which ones that have
a half life are present (forgive me if I missed it somewhere).
Unfortunately, space constraints limit me from including every
single piece of supporting data that every single person would like for me to
include.
I
do know that the Hubble telescope has in recent years convinced the majority of
astronomers that the universe isn't billions of years old (I'm not an
astronomer, but it had something to do with the number of a certain type of
stars being few in number - hundreds instead of thousands).
The Hubble telescope story is one of those comforting myths that
Christians pass among each other to justify their beliefs. As a former
Christian, I was once guilty of this. Anyone who does a modest amount of
research will discover that there is only documentation for the contrasting
position.
I
would also caution you that linear extrapolation (things are as they always
have been: atmospheric pressure and exposure to air dramatically affect the
half-life of radioisotopes) and circular reasoning (dating earth layers based
on fossils that are based on the earth layer they were found in) are not
scientific (linear extrapolation is scientific if clearly stated as an
assumption, but linear extrapolation over billions of years would seam rather
presumptuous). The Earth strata layer date structure also has yet to be
proven - only linear extrapolation and circular reasoning justify it.
As for his linear extrapolation statement, one would consider it
wise to believe that the best assumption regarding a process, such as
radioactive decay, is that the process has indefinitely taken place in the same
manner unless we have good reason to believe it has been affected in some
fashion. It is astronomically improbable to assume that such an effect has
taken place regarding earth’s radioactive isotopes. The writer's incredulous
statements regarding the circular nature of fossil layers and radiometric
dating inspired their own paragraph in the final version of Poor Christian Reasoning. I do not claim
that they prove each other, only that both independently lead to the same
conclusion. A challenge to refute the
facts that I presented went unanswered.
As a science oriented society, we have fallen a long way from the roots of
science and tend to get wrapped up in arguing and emotion instead of facts.
A lead Chinese scientist (forgive me that I don't have his name) was quoted
recently as saying "In China it is okay to question
People are going to see what they want to see, I suppose.
Please let me know when you have a more thorough scientific explanation (proof
for your points and proof against the opposition) - I will be happy to read it.
Seeing as how the writer was not pleased with my work, I
recommended the talk origins archive.
They do an infinitely more thorough job on the issues of evolution and the
earth’s antiquity. In his subsequent response, he voiced his disappointment in
the archive for two reasons: not including direct counterarguments; and the
lengths that “evolutionists” will go through to stretch the truth. A quick
check at the archive will demonstrate the lack of veracity of this statement.
His subsequent response also included a list of “evidences,” such as Chinese
writings and dinosaurs in the Bible, that support the book’s scientific
veracity. Again, a modest amount of research will show the lack of validity in
these suggestions. I simply don’t have the time or patience to point out direct
references for every single “proof” offered by apologists. If this were a
formal debate, I would make the time. People must learn to be responsible for
doing their own research. While I am thankful that the writer took the time to
write, his letters forced me to make a policy of not sending personal responses
to those who will obviously not look at the data objectively.
Regards,
DR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I was just wondering why you were so full
of hate
I wonder if I would be full of hate if I attempted to demonstrate
the fraudulent nature of a religion to which the writer did not belong.
and trying to take it out on the only decent belief system the
world has to give people hope.
This is simple bigotry of other religions and philosophies.
I will not fight you on wheither it is true or not, it is a belief, it is apparent
you do not believe.
Being a belief does not take a proposition outside the realm of
logic. If I "believe" that
2+2=4, it is either true or not true. If
I "believe" that the world is a few thousand years old, it is either
true or not true. Religions do not get
immunity from examination just because they are beliefs. Either the events in the Bible did happen or
did not happen.
I suspect you have a
chemical imbalance, I have to tell you some people live a happier life with
medications.
I will let this statement speak for itself.
I had watched a show on the Discovery
Channel, the airing showed contravercy on extinction
of dinosaurs (I believe it was in
Scientific findings are not absolute. They are designed specifically to be testable
and falsifiable. Otherwise they become
part of a dogma, like religion. We no
doubt have incorrect and uncertain information about topics like
dinosaurs. The important part on which
mainstream scientists all strongly agree is that they lived millions of years
ago. This alone disproves a literal
interpretation of the creation story.
What did I come up with in my search was someone trying to
disprove what this world needs.
This is an opinion – and I have demonstrated to the best of my
ability that it should not be agreed with.
If we lose the respect of
the ten commandants, what type of world will we live in. Not a world I want to
live in, especialy not a world I want my children to
live in.
I don't think we should steal, murder, or lie unless it's for the
greater good. I think we should honor
our fathers and mothers unless they did us wrong. This is as far as most freethinkers will go
along with the commandments. Where I
disagree is that I believe in freedom for a person to have (not necessarily act
upon) their religious beliefs. I don't
think we should be disallowed from working on Saturday. I believe idols of other gods are okay to
have. I think that using God's name in
vain does harm to no one. I think that
adultery is okay if both responsible parties are willing to let the experience
happen. I go beyond not being jealous of
other people's slaves and believe that no one should own slaves. So, with just this paragraph, I have offered
a moral code superior to the one in the Bible.
The type of world we live in, according to the writer's question, I
think would be much more enlightened.
Honestly I read with interest, you only
held me for so long. I know why you do not yet have a publisher, (You are a
very good writer), your outlook (better word for saying it) is bleak!!!
That's pretty much on target.
The facts I present aren't popular.
I have lots to improve on myself, but I
get angry when someone disrespects my Lord, when they are so right brained,
without flexibility, that they find themselve
clueless.
I am willing to entertain any possibility presented, but from my
observations, many Christians will admit that nothing will change their
minds. I would say that the opposite is
true of what the writer says.
I was reading your excert
on Noah's
God lifted the souls of these Children
before the demise.
This is a classic case of adding something to the Bible that isn't
there. The writer knows that such an act
is cruel, begins with the premise that God is not cruel, and invents a
necessary scenario that will complete the thought.
Horrible fate? #1 they were animals.
Animals feel pain just like humans do. They may not be intelligent, but I personally
don't believe they should be drowned for no good reason.
Have we forgotten about the life cycle, or
are you surviving without?
I wish the writer had elaborated on this point. What on earth does it mean?
Are you okay with over population of every living thing?
No, but this wasn't why the flood took place. The reason was specifically stated as the
evil of humankind, not overpopulation of every living thing. Even if overpopulation was the problem, what
gives God the right to drown everyone?
I have not read all passages in the bible, God having
knowledge of the furture, I believe that would be
choice. I believe he did give us choice.
I realize that this is what many people believe, but I have already
demonstrated in the book that God knowing the future means that we must do
exactly what he knows we are going to do.
We cannot do things that God doesn't know we're going to do because this
would make God wrong. As demonstrated
more thoroughly in the book, omniscience and freewill cannot coexist. Philosophers without dogma to defend have
demonstrated this for centuries now.
I also believe we continue to make really bad choices. You so need
to take yourself away from negativitaty and find
something positive to "hold" onto!
Why does the writer assert that I have nothing positive to hold
onto? This letter has so many ad hominems
that I've lost count.
My rebutle of Noah's
God lifted the souls of these children
before the demise.
Horrible fate: they were animals.
Did we forget about the life cycle, or are you surviving without?
(
Are you okay with over population with every living thing?
Yes, this was included twice.
Omniscient, "God is a parent to earth as we are parent's to
our children".
What does this have to do with omniscience? Do parents kill and torture their children
for eternity for not doing what they are told?
God is not a dictator, he wants us to learn and be better, did you
miss that one?
I can't miss what is not there.
This characterization of God is way out of line with the Old Testament.
Okay, I can understand if you are an life time, physics, biology
and chemistry major, that is really bad when you don't believe in mircles,
People with thorough backgrounds in science tend not to believe in
miracles, superstitions, etc. We try to
explain phenomena via natural means. I
don't know what point the writer is trying to make here.
I am sending you a miracle,
because I want you to write better books. You will have a revelation and a
better aspect on life, all I want back is a smile, I think god sent me to you!
I hope you read this part,
If the writer thinks that God sent her to spray ad hominems as
a miracle for me, I again weep for society.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right now you are hellbound. I would be happy to show you the truth of your
mistaken assumptions of your 5 biggest hostilities towards Jesus Christ being
the 2nd Person of the Godhead and the completeness of God's Word, that is, the
66 books of the Bible.
The first letter
on this page was an example of the gullible; the second letter was the basket
case; now we have the question begging, philosophical preacher. If the writer
has something to offer that apologists haven’t rehashed a million times, I
invite him to share it with us. I have no idea what he’s referring to as my “5
biggest hostilities toward Jesus.” Since I have no real hostilities against the
biblical character, this is simply a case of the sender not taking time to
understand the perspective I offer.
This is your opportunity to
give your life to Christ when you see that the 5 biggest things you hold
against God's Word are in fact mistaken assumptions in your heart of hearts,
bad reasonings, and selfish imaginations. How vain to
live your life with these errors from your upbringing to now, ultimately
showing hell is what you really do want. All this time you had been living a
lie. Praise the Lord there is a way of salvation!
This is simply
condescending preacher nonsense with the typical designation of the
non-Christian as a vain individual who wants to go to hell.
URL:
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Christianity.htm
The sender’s URL
sent me to his homepage, which was filled with information about the rapture
and end times. Also present were book recommendations, some written by Lee Strobel, probably one of the top three worst apologists
that a Christian could recommend to someone.
Realize that agnosticism is
like sitting on a pedestal of pride in the world.
This is a common
apologetic statement, and it could very well be the most foolish one that they
offer. The sender is basically saying that it’s prideful and arrogant to admit
that you don’t know which religion, if any, offers the correct view of the world.
Preaching that you know the truth, were born into the truth, and claiming there
is no other truth, however, should not be regarded as prideful and arrogant.
Since
we know you were intelligently designed because you did not create the universe
and nature does not just happen all by itself (all things have cause and effect
except the uncreated), this proves that atheism and angosticism
are false. So this untruth you have is unresolved and needs to die on the
cross.
The sender’s
argument about cause and effect is called the “first cause” argument. This
argument basically states that all effects have causes, except for the uncaused
first cause, which is God. Four key problems invalidate this line of argument.
1. The field of
quantum mechanics demonstrates that some effects may not require causes.
2. The argument
attempts to circumvent its own axiom that all effects have causes by baselessly
inserting an exception.
3. The argument
does not deal with the much more simple explanation that the universe is the
first “uncaused cause.”
4. Causes and
effects are universal constructs; we cannot apply laws of the universe prior to
the creation of the universe.
Interjecting a
creator into the mix only needlessly complicates the issue. If all effects
except the first one need a cause, why must an infinitely complex creator need
to be part of the solution? Utilizing this line of argument, it is much more
feasible to say that the universe was the first uncaused cause (the uncreated,
as the sender put it). To circumvent this problem on his webpage, the sender
simply asserts, without proof, that only non-material (i.e. God) is exempt from
creation. What’s worse is that I don’t even reject the notion of a creator – I
just reject the one depicted in the Bible.
Additionally, 1001 words, or
1001 books don't solve this problem. People think they can fillibuster,
but it is just vanity no matter how many decades you have been at for see, in
just one setence I destroyed your whole approach.
I didn’t realize
that such a grammatically nightmarish sentence could destroy my “whole
approach.” Anyone can plainly see that
there is no substance to this attempted rhetoric.
For a further investigation
of the 4 point perfect proof for God:
URL:
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm
Summarized and
answered, they are:
1. Since we have
evolved so much in 6000 years, we would already be perfect if we had evolved
for millions of years.
A1. This is a
ridiculous (and incorrect) assertion without proof.
2. Nature does
not happen by itself.
A2. I covered
this previously.
3. God could not
have been created because he would no longer be God.
A3. Ignoring his
question begging of the nature of God, this “proof” has nothing to do with
proving God’s existence.
4. (Variation of
#1)
A4. See A1.
Hundreds of people have
tried, but they have always failed in trying to bring down the perfect proof
for God.
In other words, whatever
contention you will bring up I am infinitely ahead of you to eternal life as
has been revealed in previous discussions.
I see. I
encourage readers to visit his page to view a nice example of empty,
amateurish, pop-philosophical rhetoric.
Don't you know that once you
have eternal life you can never lose it. To say otherwise is unBiblical nonsense. Obviously, therefore, the god that you
believed in was not the God of the Bible since you did not enter into the new
creation, so that means it is impossible to be an ex-Chistian.
You have in fact never changed as though you are ex-nothing.
This is a good
example of the no true Scotsman fallacy: “If you left the faith, you were never
a true Christian.”
I don't want to see you
perish for losing even one soul to hell is not joyous.
Still, he thinks
he’s doing the right thing. You can’t argue with that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sirs, Please see my web page http://www.andrijar.com/other/climate.htm that deals with pressure drop, avalanchecondensation and meteor impact as mechanism for global flood, dinosaurs and huge animals extermination as proof thatBible is correct.The theory is copyright protected at 1996. As the theory becomes very popular these days please tell me if you read thaton some other source because I am willing to attempt all possible legal acts to protect me as author of the theory andthe device's patent pending process as well. If someone claims that he invented the same theory before the 1996, thanthe court will identify the truth. Thank you in advance for you kind understanding and cooperation, I remain. Best regards,AR
AR’s page is another good example of an author with a
flight-of-ideas approach that invents highly unlikely hypotheses to wrap
science around the story rather than dealing with the flood’s problems. His essay is definitely recommended reading. I believe English is not his native language,
so please try to overlook the grammar.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unoriginal
Nonsense Or, a Long, Hard Look
This is a link to a critical review
written by Biblical apologist James Patrick Holding (a.k.a. Robert Turkel). Aside from
the insults, Turkel does a very respectable job at addressing
a few of the points raised in the book.
I’m sure that had this society compelled him to believe a different
religion, he would achieve similar results in its defense as well.
My Response To Turkel's Critique
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be nonsense to you now. But my friend you will
find out soon enough who is talking nonsense. For a person so “logical” I would
be interested in hearing how we all got here???
Sincerely,
SB
SB’s rhetorical question is the
quintessential example of a logical fallacy known as the argument from incredulity or the god of the gaps fallacy. He
essentially insinuates that since I cannot answer his question, his belief is
the only solution that makes sense. This
line of thinking has been appropriately named the “god of the gaps” because
“God did it” has been used throughout history as a way of explaining the
apparently unexplainable gaps in our understanding. Similarly, as I point out in the book,
natural phenomena, such as earthquakes and eclipses, were once considered
direct interventions of God because there were no other suitable explanations.
Unfortunately, SB still utilizes this bankrupt line of reasoning.
Many Christians find comfort in the belief
that “God did it” solves any problem without an apparent solution. The problem that people like SB overlook is
that his proposal only creates a more difficult problem. If God created us all, who created God? If we suppose that God was created from
nothing, why can we not suppose that the universe (a system far less complex
than an all-powerful being) was also created from nothing? Answering the question of life’s origin by
supposing that it was created by an all-powerful being only complicates and
confounds the issue.
What’s worse than the utter lack of
rationale exhibited by SB is that he becomes yet another person who lacks the
capacity to understand my position correctly. I don’t discount the possibility
that a higher power exists, but theorizing that the one in the Bible must exist based on our failure to
explain the origin of the universe is patently absurd.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear LONG,
Concerning your book Biblical Nonsense.
Do you really
think that rise questions that common Christian never asked himself during his
devotional time reading his bible? I don’t know if anyone told you this and you
might be surprised but questions from Reality and the bible and Morality and
the bible, are normal in any reasonable Christian mind. Actually it is
beginning for real understanding of God. You just don’t need to stop on your
conclusions because they are wrong. Not facts but what you take out of them.
Anyway I think it
is nice introduction. Most of the questions of my 1-3 years of Christianity.
Continue your research and you might find the truth. Just don’t make the same
mistake, though opposite, that we are usually do, start reading the bible
knowing before we open even first page that there are no mistakes.
God bless you and
lead you.
OG
I
certainly do not propose that the questions I raise in the book have never been
contemplated by Christians. The problem lies with the process of thinking through
the potential problems. The vast
majority will only look for answers confirming the validity and benevolence of
the Bible. In other words, most
Christians will only look for an answer that satisfies the question the way
that they want it to be satisfied. It’s
not comfortable to look at a problem from an impartial standpoint. As I mentioned that the creationists only
look for answers to confirm Genesis, many doubting Christians will seek advice
only from sources to confirm the Bible.
Once an individual gains the ability to look at the situation without a
confirmation bias, it will become obvious that the book is one of hundreds that
falls short of its claims. The worst
thing we can ever do to solve the problem is “start reading the bible knowing
before we open even [the] first page that there are no mistakes.” This is precisely how scores of religions
have continued to survive for centuries.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are taking it literally. Your arrogance will be
your downfall.
Criticism
is more effective if constructive in some manner.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting site, to be fair an open mind should be
kept both ways. As far as the claim that the bible is wrong because it says the
earth is young.......A study in the original language of the scriptures should
be done. From what I find the Earth has had many ages. The scriptures start off
by saying the Earth had become waste and void, and that is when the Spirit of
the mighty one started the recreation of the earth. The flood till today would
be another age.
The
writer merely mentions "multiple ages" of the earth, which is a
commonly used form of the "figurative days" argument for Genesis. If
there is something in the original language to support multiple ages (as
opposed to forcing puzzle pieces to fit with known data), let the writer
present it. I’ve studied various
interpretations and have found them to be desperate attempts to reconcile the
Bible with scientific data. Author P’s
intent is clear. He wishes to convey
that the earth was literally created over six days about 6000 years ago. No amount of textual manipulation can change
that.
Mistranslations happen when going from one language
to another.
Based on the writer pointing this out, one
should wonder how much of my book was actually read.
For myself I am a reconciliationist.
I believe that it is and always has been the will of the ultimate being to
bring all his creatures to perfection. Hell and punishment has been another
terribly mistranslated subject. When trying to understand why the supreme being
punishes we should realize that the scriptures state that we are being created
in the image of this supreme being, therefore the human race will one day have
incredible powers which we will need to be able to handle.
The subject has now changed to a sermon
regarding hell, filled with one individual’s opinions and interpretations, but
without biblical support.
I realize from a human perspective the Almighty's
punishments are harsh but we must realize that they can be, because he can undo
all the effects of them.
Except that there is no support for the
idea that they will be undone.
Parents punishments seem hard to the child but they
are necessary because the parent is trying to create a good person. The
Almighty's punishments are harder because he is creating (super beings), beings
whose very thoughts can create realities. "Let us make man in our
image."
Again, there is no textual support for
this idea.
The scriptures state that when the Almighty wounds he
does it to heal, and when he kills he does it to make alive.
I’m not sure where the support for this
idea lies, but the writer is now begging the question of the Bible’s
legitimacy.
Imagine if you
will an all powerful being recreating himself. What would that involve?
Well, if I were all-powerful, I could wish
it to make it so. No creation, no
hellfire, no punishment. Why is this so
complicated?
The creation would have to be self willed but still
the creator is the source. The false view that we created ourselves or some
power without a mind created us causes us to cut ourselves off from our source.
Imagine living forever in this state, always incomplete. This is why the
Almighty drove men out of paradise, so we would not live forever in our own
false beliefs. Sometimes what is true can only be truly known when we have no
choice but to come face to face with it. Experience it for our selves. Death
for us is terrible, but we have no life apart from the life giver. When all
illusions about this and all the pain that comes with it are known by the human
race, all, it is written, will fall down on the knee and swear union with our maker
so the almighty can be "All in All." The Almighty knew how self
willed beings would act. He knew the situations and influences and environments
that would shape every man. We have our responsibilities and he has his. He
knew the first being he created would be the instrument he would use to perfect
others and he knew who the first rebel would be. But knowing this does not
remove our responsibilities either. He uses good and what we call evil to bring
about his purposes. Again I state that purpose is to create human beings in his
own image. This view of universal reconciliation was held by the early
assemblies before the pagan religions slipped in. You are questioning those
twisted views of the scriptures, this is good. But be open to the possibility that
The Almighty is perfecting all mankind.
This
letter is another good example of the flight-of-ideas approach for solving
objections to God’s ruthless actions. Notice how it says a lot without actually
saying much of anything? Opinions,
interpretations, fancy ideas, excuses, etc.
Do some research on the original language of the
scriptures, discover what is true.
A Fellow Truth Seeker,
M
Again, one should wonder how much of my
book was actually read.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Jason Long,
I’m somewhat disappointed in what appears to be a very
biased view of Christians and The God they worship.
Most Christians do not worship the God of
the Bible. They don’t know anything
about him because extremely few of them read the Old Testament, much less study
it in depth. They worship the one that
they hear about in Church. Most of my
book does not deal with mainstream Christianity. If one reads Biblical Nonsense in its entirety, this much is obvious. My views are not easily biased; they are
based on what is written directly in the text.
If someone presents a better translation or interpretation of that text,
I am more than open to accepting it. I
have no dogma to defend. Apologists will
defend inerrancy and the like no matter how grim their situation.
It seems that
you, yourself Sir have also been prejudiced by a view whether encouraged by the
conditions around you or views shaped and brought on by your inability to deal
with the problems you were unable to answer within the most profound book I and
thousands of others like me have ever come across.
Conditions around me play no discernable
part in the conclusions that I’ve made about the book. I’ve read the Bible, studied what it means,
and arrived at conclusions that are unavoidable to anyone who isn’t trying to defend
what they’ve been taught. I’m most
intrigued about these “problems [I’m] unable to answer.” I’ve read just about
all the apologetic answers there are to these problems, only to find them
attempting to sidestep the real issues.
If the Bible is the most profound book one comes across, I would
encourage more reading.
While it is very obvious that you are antagonistic
towards The Holy Bible and what you think the Christian world view is, You too,
it seems, have your biases and have been influenced by what appears to be
verses what actually is!
Now, this letter has just reduced itself
to “If you believed, you would understand.
I have the answers, and I’m sorry you don’t understand.”
I would like
to ask you if you would be willing to deal with some questions I have for you
and share with me back and forth on your time line why it is as you claim it is
in your introduction.
I’m more than willing to respond to any
questions.
How do you KNOW that you are correct? Are you sure!
Can you defend what it is you blieve?
I never claim to “KNOW” that I’m correct
in my conclusions. I admit this much in
the book. I don’t “KNOW” that fairies
don’t exist, but I can be reasonably sure based on the lack of evidence and
known hoaxes throughout history that they don’t. In the same manner, scientific errors,
historical mistakes, and other absurdities in the Bible lead me to the same
conclusion about this particular version of a creator. Demanding that I defend what I believe is
also an attempt to shift the burden of proof on the disbeliever. This, as I mentioned in Poor Christian Reasoning, is using fallacious logic. I am more than happy to explain what I
believe and why I believe it. If my
conclusions appear wrong based on further evidence or alternate avenues of
thought, my beliefs and thoughts change.
Those who make the positive claims have the burden of proof.
I will say without doubt that you definitely seem to
be a very intelligent man (probably much more intelligent than I ever will be)
from the way you write; however, as I am sure you would say to me just as
easily, "things are not always as they appear." Is it possible that you may be wrong about
what you believe today?
Yes.
I am most certainly wrong about a few things regarding the Bible. I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll probably be
wrong again. This is the scientific
method: forming tentative explanations, testing ideas, gathering data, and
making rational conclusions based on those tasks. Based on the problems presented in my book, I
think the stories on the cover of Weekly
World News are just as likely to be true as those in the Bible. Both have an awful lot of explaining to
do. The level of evidence against the
Bible is overwhelming, and that is highly unlikely to change.
I'm most
interested in having you share with me if you would. Would that be okay Sir?
Thank you
TH
Share away.
--
Update: After several months, TH has yet
to send me any questions. I’ll remove
this line and post them if TH ever does.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I came across your book and skimmed through some of it
and plan to spend some more time looking through it. It looks like you
cover a lot of material. I enjoyed your explanations about fallacious
reasoning as that is one of the things in life that just drives me crazy.
However, I was a little disappointed that the examples you gave were somewhat
disingenuous or as a result of a lack of good quality exposure to what I would
call “real” apologists. As a student of apologetics for about 12 years
now, the only places I have heard those kinds of ridiculous arguments were in
listening to uninformed Christians (unfortunately a large portion of the
Church) and televangelists (also an unfortunately blight on the Church).
Of course, reading through the “Letters of Disapproval” I can see where
you and others would get the idea that Christians are ignorant or brain
washed. It pains me to see my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ drag
His name through the mud with ridiculous arguments that hurt rather than help
our cause. You are probably aware of these authors already, but I will
mention them anyway, just in case because I believe they have some good sound
arguments and reasoning:
Greg Koukl (www.str.org – lots of short, topical
commentaries and discussions on a variety of issues)
Norman Geisler
Gary Habermaas
J.P. Moreland
If you haven’t checked any or all of them out, I
would encourage you to do so (in the order I put them) as they are not the
typical “’cuz the Bible sez
so” Christians. It is by no means exhaustive, but these are some of my
personal favorites and I am generally pleased with their intellectual honesty.
I don't consider the examples put forth in
"Poor Christian Reasoning" to be the best of the lot, just some of
the clearest violations that I've encountered. It wouldn't do much good
for me to include some long, drawn-out, thoughtful discussions that contained
these examples since it’s not the point of the chapter. I stand by my
observation and the identical observation made by others who have left
Christianity - almost all religious people have been conditioned to believe
what society has told them to believe. This does not apply solely to
Christianity. I hope the readers can appreciate that people tend to
believe whatever their parents and society in general believes and are
typically able to rationalize their beliefs with evidence pointing to the
contrary. Let’s take the writer of this letter, for example. Does he go into church and tell the kids that
they should impartially study both sides of the Christian/Atheist argument in
order to find out the truth, or does he tell them that Christianity is true and
give them reaffirming material if they have doubts? If it is the former, I would be very
impressed since I have not met any pastor who fits that choice. I have read arguments by the apologists
mentioned and consider them to be much more honest and eloquent than the likes
of the typical internet apologists, just as I find the sender of this letter to
be more respectable than other disagreeing people who have written me.
This does not change the fact that they are guilty of trying to cover obvious
errors with ridiculous explanations. What good is a researcher who will not
consider that his point of view may simply be wrong? Should we honestly
believe that these apologists think the Bible might be wrong? This is the problem with all religious
apologists, regardless of the belief. They will begin by assuming certain
premises to be true (e.g. talking donkey, man coming back to life, DNA changes
via peeled branches, moon splitting in half) and mold an explanation to patch
the error, no matter how unlikely it may be. This is how religions
thrive. Are these not the confirming answers doubting Christians want to
find? If the sender knows of a
particular argument that is especially compelling, by all means, I think it
should be shared. I’m almost certainly
wrong on a number of issues, but any freethinking individual realizes that the
Bible is errant on an overwhelming number of topics.
Also, you might want to check out some of the
information about Anthony Flew’s recent rejection of
his long held atheistic beliefs in favor of theism (specifically a deistic view
at this time, but Gary Habermaas is still working on
him J ) as a result of the argumentation for Intelligent
Design. You can find an interview with him at
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf. While it is not proof for
the existence of God, it is interesting to see an intellectual giant in the
field of atheistic and religious philosophical thought change after so many
years of strong atheistic belief.
Regarding Anthony Flew, readers will want
to look into the rest of the story. Flew withdrew his two sole reasons
for becoming a deist. Since this part of
the account is not newsworthy to Christians, the balance of the story doesn’t
get passed around. (I originally stated
that Flew completely rescinded his beliefs, but that does not appear to be
correct. I probably made a mistake by
saying so.) Still, at no point did he
endorse the ridiculous biblical god or biblical creation - and the writer is
correct by realizing that it would not amount to proof if he did. If such
things were proof, the readers should realize that five times as much proof is
amounting on the wrong side of the fence every day.
I hope you have a great day and I hope that you will
continue to honestly examine the evidence on both sides of the debate,
JA
Children’s Pastor
First Baptist Church B
JA has also informed me that he urges the children
to study both sides of the religious issue.
I felt that this was worth mentioning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were there any historians who were contemporary of
Jesus whose writings still exist. The historians you mention seem to be after
the fact.
Yes, Philo of Alexandria, as written in the
book. Others contemporaries who could have mentioned him include
Apollonius of Tyana, Valerius
Maximus, and possibly Seneca, not to mention the
thousands who allegedly witnessed these miracles but weren't moved enough to
write about them. All sorts of second century historians write about him,
but no contemporary and first century historians. To answer your
question, there are very few contemporaries who could have mentioned him, but
there were plenty a few decades later who should have recorded the reports.
Why not consider the apostles to be historians?
What did the apostles write? No unbiased
scholars and hardly any Christian scholars maintain that the Gospels were
written by the Apostles. The same goes for dating these texts as anything
earlier than the late first century. Otherwise, why not consider works
like the Gospel of Peter, James, and Thomas if we're going to consider Matthew
and John. The further contradictions destroy New Testament reliability.
You mention JEWISH historians did not mention Jesus. They would have
considered Jesus a false prophet. False prophets abounded; did they mention any
of them by name?