A.N. Wilson on why he has rejected atheism.

[SemperFiDawg]

So if I post a one time Christian that is now an atheist does that cancel your post out?

Probably won't work out too well for you. There are a lot more of us.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

And what is your excuse for this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language

What exactly?

 

[StriperrHunterr]

If you think scripture and science are in opposition, you have either a poor understanding of scripture, a poor understanding of science, a poor understanding of both, or
you are intentionally being misleading in your statement. I would suggest you start by reading John Lennox's book "Has Science Buried God?" before you keep repeating this less than informed mantra. You may be very surprised by what you learn, .......or maybe you just "don't need to know". Isn't that the stance you took on the 'origin of intelligence' which if I may say, is not a very intellectual stance for someone who touts empirical knowledge as the "be all, end all". Just saying.....

Burden of proof being on the accuser, go ahead and find the post where I stated that I took a stance of I don't need to know, and just left it at that, with regards to the origin of intelligence. Seems to me that if you're going to quote someone on something, that you should at least check your sources. Lest you be guilty of, in this case, libel.

Further, if you think that my position is of 100% religious inaccuracy then you're just not paying attention to anything I say.

I've frequenty said, and vehemently believe, that religion and science are two languages describing the same event.

But go ahead and attack the messenger since that's always the first sign of a valid argument.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

No......
I used those to explain the otherwise immeasurable nonsense you posted.

Quit, you got me laughing.

 

[bullethead]

Probably won't work out too well for you. There are a lot more of us.

There are a lot more atheists that turned christian?

 

[bullethead]

What exactly?

so many possibilities

 

[660griz]

Fair enough.

Show me that scripture.

Only if you disagree that the bible suggest the earth is 6000 years old and you have a Google handicap.


This should get you started.

"Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1–5). From there, we can begin to calculate the age of the earth.

Let’s do a rough calculation to show how this works. The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first five days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today.

Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).

So a simple calculation is:

5 days
+ ~2,000 years
+ ~4,000 years
~6,000 years
At this point, the first five days are negligible. Quite a few people have done this calculation using the Masoretic text (which is what most English translations are based on) and with careful attention to the biblical details, they have arrived at the same time frame of about 6,000 years, or about 4000 B.C. Two of the most popular, and perhaps best, are a recent work by Dr. Floyd Jones4 and a much earlier book by Archbishop James Ussher"

 

[SemperFiDawg]

There are a lot more atheists that turned christian?

Well seeing how every believer was a non-believer prior to believing, I'm gonna have to call that false.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Only if you disagree that the bible suggest the earth is 6000 years old and you have a Google handicap.


This should get you started.

"Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1–5). From there, we can begin to calculate the age of the earth.

Let’s do a rough calculation to show how this works. The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first five days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today.

Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).

So a simple calculation is:

5 days
+ ~2,000 years
+ ~4,000 years
~6,000 years
At this point, the first five days are negligible. Quite a few people have done this calculation using the Masoretic text (which is what most English translations are based on) and with careful attention to the biblical details, they have arrived at the same time frame of about 6,000 years, or about 4000 B.C. Two of the most popular, and perhaps best, are a recent work by Dr. Floyd Jones4 and a much earlier book by Archbishop James Ussher"

You said "Scripture" said the earth was 6000 years old. It appears you believe it since you are using it as evidence. My question to you is this: If you believe Scripture is correct on something so trivial as the age of the earth, then why don't you believe what it says about Christ coming and paying the penalty for your sin and offering you the free gift of eternal salvation? That's a bit more important.

 

[bullethead]

Well seeing how every believer was a non-believer prior to believing, I'm gonna have to call that false.

I think you did not understand that I was asking YOU if you were saying there are more atheists that turned christian than christians that turned atheist.

But now I see you are lumping in infants as atheists in order to try to pad the numbers.....

 

[bullethead]

You said "Scripture" said the earth was 6000 years old. It appears you believe it since you are using it as evidence. My question to you is this: If you believe Scripture is correct on something so trivial as the age of the earth, then why don't you believe what it says about Christ coming and paying the penalty for your sin and offering you the free gift of eternal salvation? That's a bit more important.

Again you are somehow trying to twist his words to say what YOU want them to mean.

It is clear that griz is saying scripture is wrong on both accounts, and without a doubt...many others.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Burden of proof being on the accuser, go ahead and find the post where I stated that I took a stance of I don't need to know, and just left it at that, with regards to the origin of intelligence. Seems to me that if you're going to quote someone on something, that you should at least check your sources. Lest you be guilty of, in this case, libel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFiDawg
Let's go back to the beginning. Even prior to evolution if you wish. Since you brought up math,and it's a great example along with the other natural laws, as to how rational and intelligible the universe is. How does one explain the regularity, rationality, and intelligence of the laws of nature.
Quote:

Your reply:

I don't try to. They are the way they are. I only seek in understanding the mechanics of their operation.

Would that about do it for you?

I've frequenty said, and vehemently believe, that religion and science are two languages describing the same event.

Come to think of it, religion is 0 for infinity against reality and the sciences.

Yeah, I totally see that now. They say the exact same thing. Can't believe I didn't catch it the first time. My bad. My eyesight just ain't what it used to be.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I think you did not understand that I was asking YOU if you were saying there are more atheists that turned christian than christians that turned atheist.

But now I see you are lumping in infants as atheists in order to try to pad the numbers.....

Infants?

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Again you are somehow trying to twist his words to say what YOU want them to mean.

It is clear that griz is saying scripture is wrong on both accounts, and without a doubt...many others.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm pointing out he's attempting to discredit scripture by in fact citing it as a credible source against itself. Doesn't that strike anyone other than me as absurd?

 

[bullethead]

Infants?

The original non believers

 

[bullethead]

I'm not twisting anything. I'm pointing out he's attempting to discredit scripture by in fact citing it as a credible source against itself. Doesn't that strike anyone other than me as absurd?

No he is pointing out that if you do the math according to the Bible the earth is around 6000 years old. He has to cite it as a source because no where else does it say the earth is about 6000 years old and it is the only source many of it's followers care to use. It strikes me as a perfect example of just one of many things the Bible is totally wrong about.
It is a dis-credible source against itself.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

No he is pointing out that if you do the math according to the Bible the earth is around 6000 years old. He has to cite it as a source because no where else does it say the earth is about 6000 years old and it is the only source many of it's followers care to use. It strikes me as a perfect example of just one of many things the Bible is totally wrong about.
It is a dis-credible source against itself.

Couple of points here

1). For the record. I don't think the Bible teaches the earth is 'young'.......you pick the number. Many do. I don't. I just wanted to see where Griz would go with his assertion that scripture states the earth was 6k years old. He went with the commonly accepted, stereotypical answer and reasoning.

2). The Bible isn't meant as a science book. Too many people are under a different impression. That being said, I don't think what the Bible does teach and the scientific data does show are contradictory IN THE FEW INSTANCES IN WHICH THE TWO OVERLAP, nor should we expect them to be. I think they reflect different pictures of the same image. In other words, they each describe the same truth albeit from separate perspectives. There are many things in science the Bible is silent on and there are many non empirical questions that science will never be able to address. For a scientist to posit supposedly scientific theories about theological questions is as fool-hardly as the theologian who posits theological theories on scientific concepts, but again, where they do overlap, I don't think they contradict each other. This is what in part Wilson is saying about materialism. It is simply not a coherent and comprehensive answer. It can address a few of the questions, but only a few, and it requires the same amount of faith as any other belief for significantly less return on the dollar so -to-speak.

 

[660griz]

This all started because you said:

If you think scripture and science are in opposition, you have either a poor understanding of scripture, a poor understanding of science, a poor understanding of both, or

My example of scripture and science being in opposition is the age of the earth. Then, you start on tangent.

You said "Scripture" said the earth was 6000 years old. It appears you believe it since you are using it as evidence.

he he What? It appears I believe it? You did see the part about science saying the earth is 4.2 billion years old right?

My question to you is this: If you believe Scripture is correct on something so trivial as the age of the earth,

I don't believe it. It is not trivial when considering evolution. 6000 year old earth = not much evolution. 4.2 billion = yes, that is enough time.

then why don't you believe what it says about Christ coming and paying the penalty for your sin and offering you the free gift of eternal salvation? That's a bit more important.

Yes. If it had any amount of logic to it at all. A "GOD" having to jump through hoops and sacrifice his son to pay for our sin. Does God have a mob boss?

 

[StriperrHunterr]

Your reply:




Would that about do it for you?






Yeah, I totally see that now. They say the exact same thing. Can't believe I didn't catch it the first time. My bad. My eyesight just ain't what it used to be.

Thank you for finding that quote. I do believe you're misinterpreting what I said, though.

Surely you've heard the saying, "It is what it is." Right?

In other words, since my beliefs about the possible existence of a Creator also hinge on the notion that they are no longer active in the universe (so the only time they interacted was before the BB, and on the other side of a singularity) and that any understanding of it can not be obtained that I just accept that things have happened the way they have, and that any intent that might have been behind it is as foreign to me as particle physics is to penguins.

So, since, within the bounds of current science, we can not understand, or experience, or relate to people on the other side, what occurs on the inside of the event horizon then it is something that I just take as it being what it is and move on. Now, if someone finds a way around that one day, in a way that I can observe myself, or once I cross the veil, then my position is open to changing.

My position isn't that there isn't a God. That would make me an atheist, and while I know some believers lump us skeptics together, there is a difference between atheist and agnostic. My position is that I can't know God, until He reveals himself to me in life in a way that makes sense to me, or when I'm standing before him at the Throne. My position on religion is that it is created by man, and is therefore fallible and a bad basis for trying to control the behaviors of others.

If people stopped calling religion a fact then I would shut up so fast that you'd wonder if I'd been killed. If they just put it out there that they believe that there is a God, and they believe the documents to be true for their lives, and they believe, but wouldn't force, other people should subscribe to their codices then we would have no problem.

If I came to you with a book, that you didn't see anyone write, and told you that a God told me to write it and that you would burn in doggone-nation for eternity if you didn't do everything this book said, you'd laugh me out of the room. Wouldn't you?

What makes this book any different? Nothing, but you won't admit that. You'll quote scripture, from the same book to me, to corroborate it, and when that fails anecdotal evidence from your life of times when your pleasure center was tickled after some important event that made you think the hand of God was upon you. I'm not saying it wasn't, just that you can't hold that up as factual to me, any more than I could to you, if you weren't inclined to believe it wholly in the first place.

When I say that religion is 0 for infinity against the universe it's purely in the same way that a metaphor is 0 against reality for describing the same event. I believe faith, and religion, to be metaphors, with the exception of some of the facts about the life of Christ that have been independently corroborated, where science deals in the literal.

Are they both trying to attain the same goal? Yes. A complete understanding of the reality around us. Science says here, check out this thing right here, play with it yourself, experiment with it, and only if it passes your logical judgment should you believe it. Climate science is a bad example of science since they believe in the absence of evidence. Religion says that there is naught but faith and a single book. Science also acknowledges its limitation in knowledge which is why things must be tried before they go from hypothesis, to theory, to law. Religion jumps from nothing to law. Faith doesn't, and that's an important distinction. My problem is not with faith, but with religion and purely because religion hold itself up as a science (theology- theo: dealing with a God; and -ology: the study of; anyone) and it's a very bad example of it. It's singularly sourced, and there's no ability for objective experimentation.

Faith is about belief. Religion is about ceremony, and dogma, and rules with laws and consequences based on little more than hearsay and books written by people who want you to believe in them.

I'm not saying you can't believe it, all I've ever asked is that you (infinitive you all throughout here) stop holding it up as fact, or that we change the definition of what a fact really is.

 

[HawgJawl]

Couple of points here

1). For the record. I don't think the Bible teaches the earth is 'young'.......you pick the number. Many do. I don't. I just wanted to see where Griz would go with his assertion that scripture states the earth was 6k years old. He went with the commonly accepted, stereotypical answer and reasoning.

2). The Bible isn't meant as a science book. Too many people are under a different impression. That being said, I don't think what the Bible does teach and the scientific data does show are contradictory IN THE FEW INSTANCES IN WHICH THE TWO OVERLAP, nor should we expect them to be. I think they reflect different pictures of the same image. In other words, they each describe the same truth albeit from separate perspectives. There are many things in science the Bible is silent on and there are many non empirical questions that science will never be able to address. For a scientist to posit supposedly scientific theories about theological questions is as fool-hardly as the theologian who posits theological theories on scientific concepts, but again, where they do overlap, I don't think they contradict each other. This is what in part Wilson is saying about materialism. It is simply not a coherent and comprehensive answer. It can address a few of the questions, but only a few, and it requires the same amount of faith as any other belief for significantly less return on the dollar so -to-speak.

Do you believe that the Bible provides an accurate lineage from Noah to Jesus? In other words do you believe that the time of the Great Flood can be calculated through scripture to within maybe 500 years?