Defenders of Islamic Mantra (DIMs)

The recent brouhaha with the Innocence of Muslims video has reignited not only Islamic violence across the globe (as predicted), but equally the asininity of my fellow liberals here at home. So I wanted to touch on the issues that really drive me bonkers when it comes to the ridicule of Islam and the glorious thing that is Freedom of Speech as established by the Constitution of the United States.

Muslims in Bangladesh burn a U.S. Flag in protest over the “Innocence of Muslims.”
(AP Photo/A.M. Ahad, CC)

The first response I usually see from my fellow liberals is how they support the Freedom of Speech and then they add the word “but” to the end of that. I immediately know that something really stupid and asinine is about to come out of their mouths and they are going to look like twits on my Facebook wall. Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech. There are only a few “buts” as established by the courts and this video met none of those “buts” – not even remotely close. So unless you want to change the Constitution or simply deny Freedom of Speech then, to quote my friend Matthew, “SHUT THE FUCK UP!” Just remember that when you say it you sound like this, “I’m not a pedophile, but…” (also see Concern Troll)

The second response I usually see is some statement about the ethics or morality of the video, comment, expression, etc. Being an unethical and immoral asshole is not against the law. You may not like it and I may not like what a person says, but that does not mean they do not have the right to say it. Just like you have the right to be a stupid twit by saying nonsense like this: you’re being wrong does not prevent you from using your Freedom of Speech.

But the worst is yet to come! There are two things that generally happen when Islam goes rabid around the world enough that the news covers it for more than 48 hours. I should note that Islam is rabid around the world every day, but the news only covers massive outbreaks and ignores the violence perpetuated by followers of Islam across the planet on a day-to-day basis.

The first is the irrational defense of Islam by my fellow liberals and atheists. I don’t see this nonsense when I “attack” Christianity, so why are they so compelled to suddenly defend Islam? Is it because they are afraid of Islam’s response to my criticism? Is it because they have swallowed the ridiculousness of multiculturalism, but only as it applies to any culture they’re not raised in, therefore it’s okay to criticize Christianity or American culture, but not anyone else’s who might be offended? I mean, if you honestly think that the subjugation of women is a great cultural thing, then you probably should not be my friend and you definitely should not consider yourself a freethinker or rational human being. Not every aspect of every culture is worth defending. No one has the right to not be offended.

I especially love it when they confuse the criticism of Islam as some blanket statement against all Muslims. Is the criticism of Christianity a blanket statement against all Christians? If I say that Christianity is an unethical religion because it is based on the immorality of the Forgiveness Doctrine and Original Sin, does that mean I am saying that all Christians are immoral and unethical? Nope. So how come when I say that Islam is a violent and immoral religion because of the doctrine of violence against apostates and Kafirs, do my liberal and Islamic-defending atheist friends immediately think I’m saying that all Muslims are violent and immoral? We know moderate Muslims exist and some have even spoken out against the violence.

This is a culture worth respecting? The subjugation of women and denying women equal rights? Stoning women to death? Beheading women? Public executions of women? No thanks! (Photo CC)

But worst of all is when anyone who speaks out against Islam is called a bigot or a racist. I wonder if anyone who criticizes Christianity is equally racist and bigoted. If you think the criticism of Islam is racist, then you are the actual racist because you are the idiot that thinks all Muslims are Arabs. First, Islam is not a race, it’s a religion. And Arabs are not the largest demographic of Muslims. The largest demographic of Muslims are South Asia and Southeast Asia with over 1 billion followers of Islam. The Middle East only contributes 321 million followers of Islam to the global believers. If you go by country, the top ten countries are Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria, Iran, Turkey, Algeria, and Morocco. There are white Muslims and Asian Muslims and Muslims in every demographic and ethnicity on the planet. Not all Arabs are Muslim. There are a lot of Christian Arabs, Jewish Arabs, Zoroastrian Arabs, and atheist Arabs. So stop being a racist by thinking that all Muslims are Arab and accusing the criticism of Islam as being racist. You sound like a horse’s ass and dolt when you say stupid shit like that.

It blows my mind that so many of my fellow atheists are so quick to defend Islam when they would never do such a thing with Christianity or Hinduism or other religions. I can post inflammatory and derogatory comments about Christianity on my Facebook page and get a bunch of “Hell yeah!” responses from my fellow atheists. But post one thing inflammatory or derogatory about Islam and the Defenders of Islamic Mantra (DIMs) come out of the woodwork to tell me how horrible I am and how racist and bigoted I am. Well, I’m glad they don’t think I’m a racist bigot when I criticize and mock Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Paganism and other stupid beliefs like Creationism, Homeopathy, Astrology, etc.

There is one other thing that always happens when Islam goes berserk around the world. The Islam-defenders among my fellow atheists quickly point out, “Islam is no different than Christianity, which had the Crusades, Inquisition, etc.”

Yes, Christianity certainly had its moments in history, didn’t it? Every religion has. Our criticism of the current violent state of Islam is irrelevant to the brutal histories of other religions. That doesn’t mean we’re not aware of those brutalities and horrors. We are not living during the Crusades, Conquistadors, or Inquisition. We are living in the here and now. Right now the most dangerous religion on the planet is Islam.

Poverty, culture, and politics play their part, but it is belief in martyrdom after death and glory in Paradise with Allah that allows this to happen.

Religion is like dogs: different breeds behave different ways. Some are yippy and annoying. Some are aggressive and dangerous. Some are docile and weak. Some are feral and rabid. Christianity has been mostly domesticated. Sure, it nips at you or scratches every now and then, but it’s mostly timid these days. It helps that Christianity is mostly the pet dog in secular households (countries) these days. Every now and then the Christian dog will try to shit and piss on the carpet, but that’s why there are groups to help fight that shit in the first place (and discipline the dog when it does via court cases). How many Christian terrorist attacks can you think of in the last ten years?

Islam in its current state is feral and wants to bite your head off every time you look at it funny. Some of the pups in Islam are rabid. How many Islamic terrorist attacks can you think of in the last ten years? (HINT: the answer is almost 20,000)

It also doesn’t mean we don’t recognize the role that culture and politics and poverty play, either. We understand that Islam is culture and politics: they are intertwined in the theocracies and dictatorships that exist around the globe. They are inseparable and feed off each other. Politics and poverty and lack of education may lead one to Islam, but Islam is what leads one to strap on dynamite and blow up innocent civilians at a market for the reward of virgins and martyrdom in Paradise.

Yes, all religions are bad, but some are worse than others. The trick is to keep a close eye on the most dangerous while not losing sight of the others to ensure you’re not getting flanked. Our criticism of Islam’s violent tendencies and barbaric texts does not mean we don’t think the Bible is not full of horrible things (it most certainly is) or that we don’t think the Vedas has some nasty shit in it (it definitely does). What it means is that we are currently criticizing Islam.

The sooner you realize how silly you look and sound when defending Islam and getting all bent out of shape when someone goes after Islam, the better.

The next time the Islamic heads get together to pass blasphemy laws at the United Nations… the DIMs out there can vote in favor of it. In the meantime, I plan on standing up for the Freedom of Speech, which includes the right to criticize EVERY religion and EVERY faith and EVERY prophet and to be as blasphemous as I want to no matter how much it bothers your hyper-sensitive multiculturalism nonsense.

Don’t be a DIM!

Praise Bacon!

Debate 029: Tracy rants and raves

Tracy Rebuttal #001:

Why do atheist say that their beliefs are not religious… and yet defend atheism religiously and fervently… It is not irrational to assume the possibility of a Divine Creator or intelligent design… You say the bible does not have the answers yet there is many unanswered questions in science..ex..the missing link… evolution has not been proven true nor conclusive… your God bashing is not going to solve any thing… What about the columbine school shootings… a student was shot for having faith in God… one was shot for being black… is that what atheism teaches. You have a system of belief that you abide by that you govern yourself up under.. yet criticize people for governing themselves under God. Atheist seem to blame God and religion for all the pain they feel… Pain is going to happen regardless that’s life… but taking God out of the picture is not going to solve nor prove anything… We all are here but for a short while… religion for some is how they deal… I dont see God as religion… I see a self aware entity… The ultimate scientist… controlling… laws, motion, matter, energy, life…etc. like an energy force that sets the universe turning… You see yourself.

Why do evolutionist say that the first humans evolved from monkeys… I especially take offense of the racist undertones of having an ape like creature emerge out of africa naked and dumb with dark skin and big lips… oh I guess if it was found in europe it would appear to walk even more upright and have cream colored skin and be smarter….. missing link…. neanderthal man,,,, humonoid.

 

Response to Tracy #001:

TRACY: “Why do atheist say that their beliefs are not religious…and yet defend atheism religiously and fervently”

Because they are not religious. Atheism has no beliefs. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in gods. Each Atheist adopts his or her own philosophy and ideology, and those are what they will defend “religiously.” Everyone defends his or her philosophies and ideologies, which is human nature. Why do you defend yours so fervently, as you have done in this email?

TRACY: “…It is not irrational to assume the possibility of a Divine Creator or intelligent design…”

If that is your view, you are certainly entitled to it. Why is it rational to believe in such? What evidence do you have to make your belief rational? If all you have is faith, then how is that rational? Faith is what allows people to believe in Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, alien abductions, unicorns, leprechauns, and other such things.

TRACY: “You say the bible does not have the answers yet there is many unanswered questions in science..ex..the missing link…”

The difference, of course, is that you cannot continue to look for the answer in the Bible. The Bible is static: no one is writing a new New Testament. You have what you have and you must make do with it.

Science, on the other hand, can continue to look, question, and continue to find more answers. Religionists used to criticize science because science did not know how lightning struck (it was angry gods) or how volcanoes erupted (it was Hades, demons, or Satan). When scientists figured it out, the religionists just changed their position to something else the scientists did not know about. This is what we call “God of the gaps.” Religionists insert their god into the gaps of knowledge, and then retreat from those gaps when science fills them in. Religionists are running out of gaps to hide their gods in.

What missing link are you talking about, anyway?

TRACY: “evolution has not been proven true nor conclusive…”

Scientists have proven evolution factual. Even Creationists now admit that microevolution occurs because they could no longer deny the overwhelming evidence. We know evolution happened and is happening. What remain is how and why evolution occurs and how much the environment actually plays in driving evolution, or is evolution purely reactionary.

TRACY: “your God bashing is not going to solve any thing…”

No one means for God-bashing to solve anything. It is a source of entertainment.

TRACY: “What about the columbine school shootings…a student was shot for having faith in God …one was shot for being black…is that what atheism teaches.”

Do you actually believe that they shot one of the students for believing in God? Did you did not hear all the news and reports that it was a fraud perpetuated by a couple of students and the parents of the child supposedly shot for saying it? The mother had to sell her book and make a profit and she had to perpetuate the story of them shooting poor Cassie for answering “yes” to the question of believing in God. Finally, some students that were in the same area came out and told the truth: that it never happened and someone made it up.

Salon Magazine, the Rocky Mountain News, Denver Post, and many others printed articles that retracted the Cassie Bernall story that made her mom thousands of dollars from her book. Cassie was hiding under a desk in the library praying aloud. This is how the shooter found her – because she was being noisy. A witness in the library said he was walking in the library and the noise attracted him to her. He looked under the desk, said “peek-a-boo” and then shot Cassie. He never asked her if she believed in god or not.

It is an urban legend that Christians believe on faith and faith alone because the facts show that it is false.

Both the shooters at Columbine were Christians. Both went to church with their parents and both believed in God. They were not Atheists.

TRACY: “You have a system of belief that you abide by that you govern yourself up under”

I was not aware of this. Can you please tell me what my system of belief is that I abide by? I do not know what it is.

TRACY: “…yet criticize people for governing themselves under God.”

Here is the difference. You have the right to believe whatever you want. We respect that right. We respect your right to be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Satanist, Judaic, or any other religion.

However, you do not have the right for those beliefs to be respected. I think your beliefs are silly and irrational. I respect your right to believe in them, but that does not mean I respect the beliefs.

My criticism is an equal opportunity criticizer, though. I equally criticize those that believe in alien abductions, psychics, ESP, NDE, ghosts, Big Foot, unicorns, and other such nonsense. You are not special – just another silly belief among a bunch of others.

TRACY: “Atheist seem to blame God and religion for all the pain they feel…Pain is going to happen regardless that’s life…”

Atheists do not believe in God, so therefore they do not blame him for their pain in life. What Atheists assert is that pain in life is a testament to the non-existence of God.

Atheists know that pain is going to happen in a natural world governed by chance and chaos. It is a world governed by a loving and intervening god that should not have pain.

TRACY: “but taking God out of the picture is not going to solve nor prove anything…”

Considering that the most civil and moral societies on the planet are also the most Atheistic, I think that is an incorrect assertion. Taking God out of the picture would solve most of man’s problems. We fight over our religious beliefs, we kill in the name of God, we commit atrocities in the name of God, and we bicker over our religious differences (even among denominations of the same religion). Religion is a virus that plagues humankind. The sooner we get rid of it the better humanity will be.

TRACY: “We all are here but for a short while…religion for some is how they deal…”

Exactly. For those that need religion in order to feel better about their death, then more power to them. I do not need religion to feel better about my death or to get rid of fear of death. I do not need religion to make me feel better. You do. So be it and more power to you.

TRACY: “I dont see God as religion…I see a self aware entity…The ultimate scientist…controlling…laws,motion,matter, energy,life…etc.like an energy force that sets the universe turning…You see yourself.”

Evidence? Proof?

TRACY: “Why do evolutionist say that the first humans evolved from monkeys…I especially take offense of the racist undertones of having an ape like creature emerge out of africa naked and dumb with dark skin and big lips…”

Yeah, many white people have a hard time accepting that they descended from black-skinned primates. Especially Christian groups like the KKK, Christian Identity, and others. Even if there ever were an Adam & Eve, they would have been black, not white.

TRACY: “oh I guess if it was found in europe it would appear to walk even more upright and have cream colored skin and be smarter…..missing link….neanderthal man,,,,humonoid.”

Now you are just being stupid. Ignorance is one thing, but do not be stupid on purpose

 

Tracy Rebuttal #002

It is obvious that you govern yourself under the belief system { to not believe}! You live by Atheism and you worship it, Atheism is your Personal Saviour. The Columbine killers were not Christians. One of them was even wearing a shirt that said Natural Selection. So they heard the girl praying and out of hatred for God….they killed her…and you Atheist blame the girl not the killers. You truely have a double standard…I mean no standards. You can not prove to the world that there is no God by your countless lies. Science is not with out flaw that’s why some medications have been pulled from shelves. I prefer to believe in God’s Holy Bible that is the ” In your face” truth than listen to a human being with no direction nor personal convictions. That’s why Atheist kill unborn babies and call it pro-choice. You say you respect my right to believe in God and yes…There will be more power to me! But if I prayed too loud I guess you’d shoot me.

The bible says that unbelievers are willfully ignorant THAT’S being stupid on purpose. I would rather be ignorant to the things of this world than be ignorant to the things of God. I am not saying that learning on this side is not important…I myself am a college student… but I prefer to be well rounded thus I study my Bible as well as my school books..I get the best of both world’s instead of walking around closed minded and confused..I find freedom in it!

Oh and another thing…God was the furthest thing from the columbine killers minds…they were acting out of self motivation much like Atheist do. If they did go to church they probably was forced to by their parents…they were not Holy-Ghost filled born again believers…they carried guns to school not bibles…they wore long black trenchcoats and called themsevles a mafia..they did not fit in at school people were afraid of them…they set around playing secular video games of death and they loved hitler…they were not christians nor were they saved..so stop lying.

 

Response to Tracy #002:

TRACY: “You live by Atheism and you worship it, Atheism is your Personal Saviour.”

If you think that, then you have misunderstood everything I have said. I will admit that I tend to worship the intellectual capacity that humans have; unfortunately, most humans choose to ignore their intellect.

TRACY: “The Columbine killers were not Christians. One of them was even wearing a shirt that said Natural Selection. So they heard the girl praying and out of hatred for God….they killed her…and you Atheist blame the girl not the killers.”

Your assertion that the Columbine killers were not Christians is incorrect. Your assertion that they killed the girl over her religion is incorrect. You have fallen prey to an urban legend that was further perpetuated by Cassie’s mother in her moneymaking book (you know, the book she wrote to take advantage of her daughter’s death).

I do not blame the girl. The shooters are to blame for their actions. At no point did I blame the girl; I simply said that they found her because she was making noise. Witnesses in the library said they did not ask her if she believed in God. Her noise drew them to her, they looked under the table at her, they said “peek-a-boo,” and then they shot her.

For additional information, since you do not believe me, check out some of these:

• Cassie Bernall @ “Truth or Fiction”
• Reprint of Rocky Mountain News article about the hoax
• Salon Magazine article about the hoax
• Religious Tolerance article
• Martyrdom Hoax hits “Hellhouse”

The irony of this tale is that Klebold did ask one girl in the library if she believed in God. Her name was Valeen Schnurr. After Klebold asked her if she believed in God, she said, “Yes.” Then Klebold spared her life and moved on.

TRACY: “You truely have a double standard…I mean no standards.”

I do not have double standards at all. The standards I apply to myself are the same standards I apply to humanity. The key difference between you and I is that you do things in order to get into Heaven and avoid Hell. I do things because they are the right thing to do. Perhaps you can explain to me what makes your method, doing it to avoid punishment and to gain reward, more moral.

TRACY: “You can not prove to the world that there is no God by your countless lies.”

You are right that I cannot prove that a god does not exist. I am not sure why you are going on and on about my lying. I have not told a single lie since we began talking. I have been honest with you from the beginning.

I cannot prove that Zeus does not exist. I cannot prove that Allah does not exist. I cannot prove that Krishna does not exist. I cannot prove that Zoroaster does not exist. I cannot prove that Yahweh does not exist.

I can show that their existence is so unlikely that it is not worth wasting our lives worshiping something we cannot prove to be true.

TRACY: “Science is not with out flaw that’s why some medications have been pulled from shelves.”

No one has averred that science is without flaw. Anything governed by man (including religion) can be mistaken. However, the scientific method is still the best method we have to arrive at the facts and understanding of our surroundings.

The key difference between science and religion is this: science asks the question, looks for an answer, and finds the answer in the evidence, whereas religion has the answer and looks for evidence to support the answer (ignoring all contradictory evidence).

Religion has been wrong before, too (including your Bible). Remember that religion used to think the Sun revolved around the Earth. Religion used to think that the Earth was flat with “four corners” (directly from the Bible). Religion used to think that lightning was angry gods. Religion used to think that earthquakes were angered gods. Luckily, for religion, they have listened to science (even if it took many decades in some cases) and changed their views to the correct one.

If it were not for science, we would still be teaching in schools that our solar system is geocentric instead of heliocentric. We would still be teaching that the Earth is flat instead of an elliptical sphere. We would still be teaching that people get sick because of demons instead of germs.

TRACY: “I prefer to believe in God’s Holy Bible that is the ” In your face” truth than listen to a human being with no direction nor personal convictions.”

Are you saying the Bible does not have any contradictions in it? Are you saying the Bible does not have any errors in it? The Bible says that bats are birds. Do you believe that bats are birds, or do you accept the scientific fact that bats are mammals?

TRACY: “That’s why Atheist kill unborn babies and call it pro-choice.”

LOL. You are funny; I will give you that. I guess you did not realize that Christians receive the majority of abortions in the United States. That is not because Christians. The percentages are higher than one would expect based on population alone. The key factor to abortions is education and economics, but I would not expect you to know that since you only see it as a black and white issue because of your religious book.

TRACY: “You say you respect my right to believe in God and yes…There will be more power to me! But if I prayed too loud I guess you’d shoot me.”

Now you are just being asinine. If you prayed too loud, I would ask you to respect those around you and pray quietly. Remember that Jesus wants you to pray in private, too. Just read Matthew 5:5-6 and see what Jesus has to say about public prayer and praying too loud. I bet you did not even know it was there. I bet you do not know your Bible very well at all.

TRACY: “The bible says that unbelievers are willfully ignorant THAT’S being stupid on purpose.”

The Bible also says that the Bible-God hardens the hearts and minds of people in order to make them non-believers. He does it on purpose according to the Bible. That means that anyone trying to convert Atheists is going against the will of God. Did you know your Bible said that? No, I suppose you did not since I can guarantee that I know more about your Bible than you ever will.

TRACY: “I would rather be ignorant to the things of this world than be ignorant to the things of God. I am not saying that learning on this side is not important…I myself am a college student…”

You are a college student? I must admit that I find that hard to believe based on the level of ignorance you have displayed in this dialogue. I especially find it hard to believe based on the many asinine and absurd comments you have made. If you are in college, I am willing to wager that you are in a Christian college where you will not receive a real education.

TRACY: “If they did go to church they probably was forced to by their parents…they were not Holy-Ghost filled born again believers…they carried guns to school not bibles…they wore long black trenchcoats and called themsevles a mafia..they did not fit in at school people were afraid of them…they set around playing secular video games of death and they loved hitler…they were not christians nor were they saved..so stop lying.”

So what you are saying is that Christians never behave in such a manner? How does that explain the Crusades, Inquisition, witch hunts, decimation of indigenous peoples for Christ, Hitler, anti-Jewish hatred (for killing Jesus), abortion clinic bombings and shootings, the bomb at the Atlanta Olympics, and much, much more?

Once you get over the urban legend of them killing the girl because she says “yes,” you will understand that they spared the girl that actually said “yes.” You are looking at it from the wrong perspective because you believe in what is not true. The other perspective is that they were killing people that teased and taunted them. They were doing the work of God and sending to Hell early. They were continuing the work of the Crusaders, Inquisitors, Conquistadors, and everyone else that killed in the name of God.

After reading that last bit were you offended and upset? Good. Perhaps you know how Atheists feel when you level equally unwarranted and erroneous charges against them.

Stay in school a lot longer… you have much to learn.

 

Tracy Rebuttal #003

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. Religion may not be the answer but even you have to admit that there are people who do good things in the name of religion and that there are people who do not abuse the bible…because people have tried to interpret the bible their own way…it has caused much confusion..so I apologize for any mud slinging…again it is up to the individual to decide…I am not trying to convert any one…I am not trying to push my religion on any one…People have their own opinions and we are all hoping we’re the right ones…Only God can say….I believe one day he will…I hear this word tolerance and I realize now that no one will tolerate a Christian person but will expect full submission of the Christian…A Christian is not expected to have any rights…but is expected to have tolerance.

 

Response to Tracy #003:

TRACY: “Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.”

You are correct. The Constitution allows everyone his or her own opinion. The Constitution allows everyone his or her own beliefs. We enjoy religious freedom in this country, which means you have the right to believe in the Bible-God, your neighbor has the right to believe in the Qur’an-God, and I have the right not to believe in any of the gods.

TRACY: “Religion may not be the answer but even you have to admit that there are people who do good things in the name of religion and that there are people who do not abuse the bible…”

Yes, there have been people that have done good things in the name of religion. That is why I do not like to play the “guilty by association card.” Every group would be guilty of such if we followed the biblical rule of “the sins of the fathers…”

The only reason I even brought up the Crusades, Inquisition, and others is that you were trying to tie Atheists together under the misconception that the Columbine shooters were Atheists. You tried to play the “guilty by association card,” and I simply reminded you that Christianity is not free from such guilt.

My point of contention of “good in the name of religion” is this: is it really a good thing (a moral thing) if it is done in order to receive a reward (Heaven) or to prevent punishment (Hell)? Is it not more moral for someone to do something simply because it is the right thing to do and not because we are afraid of going to Hell or to make sure we get to Heaven? It would seem that if an Atheist and a Christian fed the homeless at Thanksgiving, that the Atheist would be doing the more moral act because he or she is doing it because it is the right thing to do, whereas the Christian is doing it in order to look good in the eyes of his or her god.

TRACY: “…so I apologize for any mud slinging…”

Apology accepted. I return the apology for any return mud slinging that I did.

TRACY: “again it is up to the individual to decide…”

That is the beauty of religious freedom. Each of us can decide on our own whether or not we want to be religious and what religion we want to believe in. I may not agree with you theologically, and I may even think your beliefs are “silly,” but that does not mean I do not support your right to believe in what you do.

TRACY: “I hear this word tolerance and I realize now that no one will tolerate a Christian person but will expect full submission of the Christian…A Christian is not expected to have any rights…but is expected to have tolerance.”

Tolerance is the wrong word to use, anyway. I think it is more apropos to use the word acceptance. No one should be “tolerated.” It is a negative word for the person that people tolerate and the persons having to tolerate something. I would not want to know that someone hated me but was just tolerating me in order to be nice. That is not a moral thing to do. However, I think if someone accepted me for who I was, even if they disagreed with me, then that would be a much kinder thing to do – a more humanitarian way of looking at things. Do not tolerate anybody, but accept him or her for whom or what he or she is.

Christians have the same rights as everyone else. Everyone is equal under the Constitution. The history of Christianity, and its present-day course under the reign of Evangelicals like Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson, place Christianity (in the US, anyway) at odds with the Constitution. Christianity, by its theological nature, is a proselytizing and public religion. This means that most Christians, especially since they are the majority, want special rights beyond what the Constitution grants.

How many times have you heard Christians say, “But we are the majority!” Christians seem to be in the mindset that because they are the majority that they can get whatever they want, that they can have a “Christian nation.” The Constitution prevents this because everyone is equal: no matter how small or big his or her group is.

The Constitution gives us individual personal rights – not group rights. We cannot amass our individual rights in order to give ourselves more rights than those that are smaller. The Constitution provides for freedoms as long as those freedoms do not infringe upon the rights of others.

You have the right to be a Christian, but you do not have the right to violate the rights of others in order to practice your religion.

Do you understand the difference? You can believe that homosexuals are an abomination unto the Lord all you want, but you cannot use the Bible to prevent homosexuals from having the same rights as you. You can believe that Atheists are Satanists, but you cannot use the Bible to prevent Atheists from having the same rights as you.

To understand better, imagine that the United States was majority Muslim and you were among the minority religion of Christian. How would you feel if Allah were all over the money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, spoken by public officials at every public rally, and in every part of your life? You could not escape it. The Muslim majority frowned upon you and made your life miserable by ostracizing your children at school and discriminating against you at work.

If you can understand how you would feel in that situation, then you will understand how Atheists and minority religions feel on a daily basis in the United States. Luckily, we have a Constitution to protect us against an unruly majority that has no regards for the rights of the minority.

And that was the last I heard from Tacy…

Debate 028: Scott tries to prove the Bible

Scott sent this email to any Atheist that he could. Most people deleted it, but a few responded. I decided to take the time to break Scott’s “proof” down and show it to be not only flawed and fallacious, but downright silly. I didn’t expect a response back from Scott, and I didn’t get one. However, I wanted to share with readers this email because Scott is not the originator – he’s the messenger. I don’t know who created the “proof” list, but it certainly gets around. If you get it in your inbox, please feel free to reply with my rebuttal, just make sure you give proper credit.

 

Scott’s “Proof of the Bible”:

PROOF OF THE BIBLE

Part I: Bible Prophecy

Reason For Prophecy

History was in part recorded thousands of years in advance so that people can become aware of solid evidence of the truth that is more convincing than someone rising from the dead to warn about eternity (Luke 16:31).

Isaiah 46:8-10 “Remember this, and be assured…I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done…” Rev. 19:10 tells us, “…the testimony of Jesus is the spirit (purpose) of prophecy.”

Prophecy Of The Last Days

Daniel 12:4 “But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the time of the end; many will go (travel) back and forth, and knowledge will greatly increase.” Increased travel and knowledge are now very evident.

Prophecy so true today is in 2nd Tim. 3:1,13. “…in the last days…evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.”

The Bible foretold that in the end times Jewish people would return to the land of Israel, which became once again established as a nation in 1948 following the Holocaust of World War II. In Ezekiel 38:8 we can read, “…in the latter years…the land that is restored from the sword, whose inhabitants have been gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel which had been a continual waste…”

Mt. 24:3-14 “As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?’ And Jesus answered and said to them, ‘See to it that no one misleads you. For many will come in My name, saying, “I am the Christ,” and will mislead many. You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes (Lk. 21:11 also adds plagues). But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs (which increase in frequency and intensity as birth approaches). Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.”

Nuclear weaponry was prophesied in Rev. 6:14 “The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up (mushroom cloud), and every mountain and island were moved…”

Global TV was suggested to exist at the end in Rev. 1:7 and 11:8-9. AIDS was fortold in Rom. 1:27.

Many have laughed at the Bible in modern times, as was foretold in 2nd Peter 3:3-4

“Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.'”

False Christianity of today (practiced by many) is clearly found in prophecy in such places as Jer. 23:16-22,35-36 ; 2nd Tim. 3:1-9 and 4:3 ; and 2nd Peter 2:1-3. Prophet in the Old Testament generally meant a religious speaker, and prophesy, to speak on religious matters.

Prophecy About Messiah And Its Fulfillment

• *Mic. 5:1-2 would be from Bethlehem–Mt.2:1
• *Hos. 11:1 would be called out of Egypt — Mt. 2:13-15
• *Is. 40:3 ; Mal. 3:1 would be preceded by a messenger — Mt.3:1-3 ; Mk.1:2-4
• *Is. 42:1 would have Spirit of God — Jn. 1:32
• *Ps. 69:9 zeal would consume him–Jn 2:15-17
• *Is. 32:3-4 would heal every kind of disease — Mt. 9:35 ; 15:30-31
• *Is. 53:3 would be rejected — Jn. 1:11 ; 7:47-48 ; 12:37
• *Is. 53:7 would be silent when oppressed — Mt. 27:12-14 ; Lk. 23:7-10
• *Is. 50:6 ; Mic. 5:1 would be struck in the face, spit upon, and whipped — Mt. 26:67 ; Mk. 15:15 ; Lk. 22:63-64
• *Dan. 9:26 would be killed — Mt. 27:38,50
• *Is. 53:8-12 would die for sins of others–Jn. 1:29 ; 11:49-52
• *Is. 53:12 would be numbered with transgressors — Mk. 15:27-28 ; Lk. 22:37
• *Is. 53:9 would be with a rich man in death — Mt. 27:57-60
• *Ps. 16:10 his body would not decay–Mk.16:6

Part II: Advanced Scientific Knowledge In The Bible

On Physical Science

The universe is expanding. Job 9:8 ; Ps. 104:2 ; Is. 40:22 ; 44:24 ; 51:13.

The nuclear strong force is explained in Col. 1:17 and Heb. 1:3.

Human DNA is much like that of grass (and other living things). Is. 51:12 “…man…is made like grass…”

Only in the past 30 years or so has it been known that there are springs at the bottoms of the oceans. Job 38:16 told of this.

On Health Science

Gen. 1:29-30 shows that God’s original diet for people was vegetarian, now known to be beneficial. In line with this, God told Moses that the Jews were not to eat fat (Lv. 3:17). And they were not to eat those meats now known more unhealthy (Lv. 11:1-47 and Dt. 14:3-20).

The Jews were directed in sanitation and quarantine, although germs were not discovered until around 1890. Lv. 6:28 ; 13:45-59 ; 15:1-13.

Part III: Archaeology Has Proven The Bible

Much evidence has been found by archaeologists that supports the accounts written in The Bible. For example, Noah’s Ark has been discovered (Gen. chapters 6 through 8). You can see pictures of the ark and documentation in the book The Lost Ship Of Noah… by Charles Berlitz. Remains of one of the cities destroyed by fire and brimstone in Gen. 18:20 through 19:28 have been found– ashes and soot in the forms of buildings. Also chariot wheels and parts have been found at the bottom of The Red Sea (Exodus 14). The latter items are in materials by Dr. John Morris of The Institute For Creation Research.

Part IV: Suggested Info.

OT Verses

*Gen. 19:1-29 *Dt. 18:10-12 ; Lv. 20:6,27 ; Is. 47:11-15 *Dt. chapter 28 *1st Sam. 15:22-23 *Pr. 16:18 *Ps. 51:17 ; 34:19 ; 111:10 *Is. 5:14,20-22 ; chap. 55 ; 57:15 *Jer. 8:4 ; 31:21 *Mic. 6:8

NT Verses (Some OT)

*Mt. chapters 7 , 13 , and 25*Mt. 5:7 ; 9:13 ; see Hos. 6:6 *Mt. 5:6:25-34 *Mt. 6:14-15 ; 9:13 ; 18:1-7 ; 19:29-30 ; 22:35-40 *Mt.23:13,15,24,33 ; 28:18-20 *Mk. 16:16-18 *Lk. 6:46 ; 21:34-36 *Jn. 8:24 ; 14:16,21,26 ; 16:7 *Ac. 5:32 ; Heb. 5:9 *Ro. 10:17 ; 11:21-22 ;13:8-10 *1st Jn. 1:9 ; 2:3-5,29 ; 3:15,17,24 ; 5:3 *1st Cor. 6:9-10 ; 10:1-14 ; 12:1-11 *Gal. 5:13-23 *Eph. 2:8-9 ; 5:5-6 *2nd Thess. 1:7-10 *Titus 1:16 *1st Tim. 1:6-10 ; 4:1-4 ; 6:3-5 *2nd Tim. 2:14-26 *Heb. 6:4-8 ; 10:26-31,36-39 ; chap. 11 ; 12:14 *James 2:13-26 *1st Pet. 1:15-16 ; 5:5-10 *2nd Peter *Jude *Rev. 2:21-23 ; 3:1 ; 16:15 ; 20:11-15 ; chaps. 21 and 22

Rev. 9:21 predicted drug abuse in the end times. The word sorceries there is English for the Greek word pharmakeia, which also translates as pharmacy. (Notice how similar.)

The same word is translated as witchcraft in Gal. 5:20, and verses 19-21 reveal what God thinks about doing such things.

On abortion: About John The Baptist, Lk. 1:15 told “…he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.” Then consider Jer. 1:4-5 “Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you…”‘

About the marks of the beast and related info: read Rev. 13:16-18 ; 14:9-12 ; and 20:4. The only escape from that time of testing (see Rev. 3:10) besides passing on before it arrives is the rapture, found in Zeph. 2:3 ; 1st Cor. 15:50-52; and 1st Thess. 4:15-17.

Concerning learning to live the Christian life: You should not trust ministers or church people to give you sound Biblical advice and instruction. Many of them are very deceived, as you can plainly see if you carefully examine the verses mentioned in this writing. You need to study The Bible yourself. And every believer is to be baptized, if they have not been, in keeping with Mk. 16:16.

I Recommend:

*The book The Late Great Planet Earth and the video Evidences Of The End Time, both on Bible prophecy, by Hal Lindsey. *The book and tape, Dreams And Visions From God, by Dumitru Duduman — address Hand Of Help, 1012 S 3rd St, Watertown WI 53094. *Two books by Mary Baxter. A Divine Revelation Of Hell (partly also on tape), and A Divine Revelation Of Heaven. These are about tours of hell and heaven Jesus took her on. *Books, etc., by Kenneth Hagin. *The book We Saw Heaven, by Roberts Liardon. *The Bible on tape, CD, and DVD.

This may freely be copied, put in other forms and mediums, translated, and distributed.

 

Response to Scott’s “Proof”:

Thank you for sending your “proof of the Bible” to Atheism Awareness. Please allow me to completely dismantle your so-called proof…

PROOFS: “History was in part recorded thousands of years in advance so that people can become aware of solid evidence of the truth that is more convincing than someone rising from the dead to warn about eternity (Luke 16:31).”

You are right that someone rising from the dead to warn about eternity is not that convincing. There have been many resurrected gods throughout human history – Jesus is not a unique claim when it comes to resurrection.

Luke 16:31 states, “And he said unto him, if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”

Of course this isn’t a prophecy at all, since an unknown author wrote Luke after the fact. You can’t write something after it happens and call it prophecy.

PROOFS: “Daniel 12:4 “But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the time of the end; many will go (travel) back and forth, and knowledge will greatly increase.” Increased travel and knowledge are now very evident.”

This is not a prophecy; it is a general statement that apologists have placed their own views upon in order to make it fit their distorted view.

Increased knowledge and travel became available long before now from the time this was written. This statement could be applied to any era after the book of Daniel was written. What about when the “horseless carriage” was invented – were the Christians of the time insisting that it was the end of times? What happened when the steam ship was invented or airplanes? What happened at the dawn of the Space Age? To say that this statement refers to this time is absolutely ridiculous, at best. What if it is describing when we venture into space and go beyond our solar system?

Of course if you read chapter 12 of Daniel in its entirety, and you consider it to be prophecy, then it is failed prophecy. Daniel 12:12 states, “Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.” This means that Daniel and those in the river around him thought the end times were coming 1,335 days later, which is roughly 3.6 years later. That never happened, so if you consider Daniel to be a prophet, then you must consider him to be a failed prophet or a charlatan.

PROOFS: “Prophecy so true today is in 2nd Tim. 3:1,13. “…in the last days…evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.”

You mention this as if skepticism and non-belief are a new phenomenon. Every religion ever conceived by man, including Christianity, has made statements to this effect – that people will scoff and not believe the followers of the religion. The entire third chapter of II Timothy is nothing but a diatribe against those that refuse to believe in Jesus. It is certainly not prophecy.

Did Timothy mean when the Romans scoffed and persecuted Christians? Did Timothy mean when the Ottoman Empire encroached upon Christian villages across southern Europe? Did Timothy mean when Stalin killed millions? Perhaps Timothy was referring to the Enlightenment Age when Naturalism and Darwinism were on the rise and Deism instead of Christianity was more popular because it was the better intellectual position at the time.

You can attribute II Timothy chapter 3 to any era in history since the book was written. It is not prophetic at all.

Perhaps now is a good time to go over the criteria for a prophecy to be valid? A prophecy must fit five criteria in order for it to be considered valid. It should be noted that not a single so-called prophecy in the Bible meets all five criteria and the majority of them don’t even meet one or two of them. Let’s look at the five criteria:

1. The prophecy has to be clear and concise. It has to be detailed enough that it cannot be fulfilled by a large group of events. The prophecies that you have provided thus far fail this minimum criterion – they are vague and could have indicated many eras and times in the past (and future) since the books were written.

2. The prophecy must predict something that is unusual or unique in nature. In other words, you can’t make a prophecy about a woman having a baby, since most women will have a baby in their lifetime. Again, the prophecies that you have mentioned thus far fail this minimum criterion – they mention something that is commonplace among all religions: non-believers and skeptics.

3. The prophecy has to be made before the event. This would seem rather obvious, but a lot of prophecies are made after-the-fact and then the prophet insists he or she saw this coming beforehand. If that’s the case, they forgot to warn the rest of us ahead of time.

4. The prophecy cannot be about something that can be predicted with an educated guess. Someone that predicted war would break out in the balkans was not a prophet, but was putting the obvious pieces together to make an educated guess about the turnabout of events.

5. The prophecy cannot be staged or manipulated in order to achieve its fulfillment by persons aware of the prophecy. At the millennium celebrations in Jerusalem several Christian groups were arrested for plotting to bomb the temple in order to fulfill so-called biblical prophecy. It’s not a fulfillment if the prophecy is purposely brought about. Luckily, the Israeli security defense forces were on top of the Christian terrorists and stopped their plot.

PROOFS: “The Bible foretold that in the end times Jewish people would return to the land of Israel, which became once again established as a nation in 1948 following the Holocaust of World War II. In Ezekiel 38:8 we can read, “…in the latter years…the land that is restored from the sword, whose inhabitants have been gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel which had been a continual waste…””

Every nation or peoples that have been displaced have predicted their return to their home nation and lands. The Native American prophets predicted a return to their lands after the white man decimated their lands, people, and environment. Many Native Americans said the prophecies came true when the Federal Government allotted Reservations. If that’s fulfillment of prophecy, then I’m Santa Claus.

Let’s play along for a second and pretend the prophecy is legitimate. If so, then it is a failed prophecy. Ezekiel 38:8 states, “they shall dwell safely all of them.” This is certainly not the case. Israel has been involved in many wars since the founding of the nation in 1948. Israel is constantly under attack from surrounding nations and insurgents within the country.

The verse also says, “After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword…” To say that almost 2,000 years is the “latter years” is a far stretch of the imagination. The author of the book is saying that God told him he would be visited after many days (not years) and that in his latter years (emphasis on his), the nation of Israel would be restored by the sword. To be truly prophetic the author should have said exactly how long it was going to take. By making the statement so vague, the prophecy would be considered fulfilled by those wishful thinking followers at any time in the future that Jews returned to Israel.

Here’s what I can’t figure out, anyway. Why would God promise the Jews a return to Israel in safety if they rejected Jesus as the Messiah? Wouldn’t God have known that the Jews would reject the claims of Jesus being the Messiah?

Also, the Jews returned to Israel long before 1948. After all, Jewish priests and the Jewish King Herod sent Jesus to Pilate, not the Romans. The Temple wasn’t destroyed until 70 CE.

PROOFS: “Mt. 24:3-14 “As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?’ […]”

This section is very vague indeed, and certainly does not meet the criteria of a prophecy. Many times and eras could have fit this vague so-called prophecy. What about the Crusades? Did not the Crusades fit this prophecy? What about WWI and WWII?

One thing Christians often forget is that Jesus contradicted himself in Matthew 24. Matthew 24:24 states, “Verily, I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” This theme is repeated is Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32.

The disciples of Jesus thought that the Kingdom of God was coming during their time. They had no idea that 2,000 some odd years later we’d still be waiting for the failed prophesy of Jesus.

PROOFS: “Nuclear weaponry was prophesied in Rev. 6:14 “The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up (mushroom cloud), and every mountain and island were moved…””

Talk about a stretch of the imagination! I’m not sure what version of the Bible you’re using, but almost all the translations I have access to do not say that the sky was split. Instead, they say that the heavens receded or departed. For example:KJV: “And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.”

• MKJV: “Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place.”
• SV: “And the heaven was removed as a scroll when it is rolled up; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.”
• DBY: “And the heaven was removed as a book rolled up, and every mountain and island were removed out of their places.”
• BEB: “And the heaven was taken away like the roll of a book when it is rolled up; and all the mountains and islands were moved out of their places.”
• WEB: “The sky was removed as a scroll when it is rolled up. Every mountain and island were moved out of their places.”
• YNG: “and heaven departed as a scroll rolled up, and every mountain and island — out of their places they were moved;”
• DRB: “And the heaven departed as a book folded up: and every mountain, and the islands were moved out of their places.”
• WBT: “And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and isle were moved out of their places.”
• WEY: “The sky too passed away, as if a scroll were being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.”
• LAT: “et caelum recessit sicut liber involutus et omnis mons et insulae de locis suis motae sunt”

As you can see, all these translations mention nothing about the sky splitting. What Bible are you using? The fact remains that no mention of nuclear weapons is made and even if the translation of sky splitting were correct, it would still not suggest nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon does not split the sky and a mushroom cloud looks nothing like a rolled-up scroll. If your Bible-God were the know-it-all that Christians claim, one would think that he could at least be more specific. Perhaps he could have mentioned the splitting of the atom or even mention hydrogen. I’d be impressed if he said the sky would be filled with mushrooms.

PROOFS: “Global TV was suggested to exist at the end in Rev. 1:7 and 11:8-9. AIDS was fortold (sic) in Rom. 1:27.“

Revelation 1:7 states, “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.”

Are you serious? This is not in any way suggestive of global television at all. Early non-scientific Christians thought the Earth was flat and that across the Earth you could see anything that occurred at the highest point. This is emphasized by several Biblical verses stating that climbing to the tallest mountain you will be able to see the entire Earth and if you climb the highest tree you can see the ends of the Earth (Matthew 4:8, Daniel 4:10-11 as examples).

If the Earth is flat and someone is descending from the clouds, then every eye could see it. I find it amazing the disservice that Christians do to their Bible-God by stretching verses like this to fit their views. If your Bible-God were truly omniscient then he would have been a bit more specific. If God knew about television ahead of time then why didn’t he mention it exactly?

Romans 1:27 states, “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

You think this says something about AIDS? According to Coffman’s Commentary, this is not the case. Coffman states, “The horrible lusts mentioned here, burning with ever greater and greater intensity, descending constantly to lower and lower levels of uncleanness, and, at last, leaving the sinner consumed by an insatiable lust, cause this terminal condition to be one of utter pitiableness (sic) and misery. This is what is meant by the statement that such persons receive “in themselves” the reward justly due their conduct.”

Gill’s Concordia says that what they receive in themselves is “sin,” that God punishes sin with sin.

The Wesley Commentary states, “Their idolatry being punished with that unnatural lust, which was as horrible a dishonor to the body, as their idolatry was to God.”

The JFB Commentary states, “Alluding to the many physical and moral ways in which, under the righteous government of God, vice was made self-avenging.”

Biblical scholars and commentators disagree with your assessment completely. Each stated that the recompense mentioned was to increase the lust and reward the sin with sin. They even went so far as to mention a saying of the Jews, “One commandment draws on another, so one transgression draws on another; for the reward of the commandment is the commandment, and the reward of transgression is transgression.”

PROOFS: “Many have laughed at the Bible in modern times, as was foretold in 2nd Peter 3:3-4.”

II Peter 3:3-4 states, “(3) this first knowing, that there shall come in the latter end of the days scoffers, according to their own desires going on, (4) and saying, `Where is the promise of his presence? for since the fathers did fall asleep, all things so remain from the beginning of the creation.”

As we’ve already discussed, every religion ever created by man has said that scoffers and skeptics would come and religious leaders tried to prepare their followers for this. You can’t form a religion without having non-believers. Not everyone will buy the bologna being dished out by followers of a religion or the religion’s priests.

Again, this so-called prophecy fails to meet any of the criteria for a true prophecy. The statement is so vague that any time could have been attributed to it. The Enlightenment Age was a good candidate. So were the Renaissance and Industrial Age and other times of increased knowledge. Increased knowledge increases skepticism. As humans increase their knowledge they are less susceptible to religious mumbo-jumbo.

PROOFS: “False Christianity of today (practiced by many) is clearly found in prophecy in such places as Jer. 23:16-22,35-36 ; 2nd Tim. 3:1-9 and 4:3 ; and 2nd Peter 2:1-3. Prophet in the Old Testament generally meant a religious speaker, and prophesy, to speak on religious matters.”

Jeremiah 23:15-16 states, “(15) Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts concerning the prophets; Behold, I will feed them with wormwood, and make them drink the water of gall: for from the prophets of Jerusalem is profaneness gone forth into all the land. (16) Thus saith the LORD of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD.”

This is a clear statement from Yahweh that prophets are shams. Yahweh is telling his people to not listen to prophets. Yahweh is speaking in the present tense, so this is not a prophecy. Yahweh is not warning about prophets in the future, but prophets existing at the time.

Yahweh also only mentions prophets from Jerusalem. This means you have to trust any prophet from a place other than Jerusalem. This of course is a testament to the flat-earth view of the writers of the OT and NT. Jerusalem was the center for them and they had no idea that there were other continents and peoples on the planet. If they did they would not have been specific to prophets from Jerusalem, but prophets on the whole world. This is just one more example of the lack of omniscience on the part of the Bible-God, and the ignorance of the book’s writers.

Now let’s continue on to your so-called prophecies about the coming of the Messiah.

PROOFS: “Mic. 5:1-2 would be from Bethlehem–Mt.2:1”

Micah 5:1-2 states, “(1) Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. (2) But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”

How come Mark and John don’t mention the birth of Jesus? The virgin birth of Jesus, the Three Wise Men, the laying in the manger, the lack of space at the inn, etc., are major themes of Christmas, yet only two of the gospel writers seem to know anything about it.

Of course Mark later says that Jesus came from Nazareth (Mark 1:9), “And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.”

The author of the gospel titled “Mark” was the first book written and he has no idea about the virgin birth and no clue about Bethlehem. Why is that?

Anywhere from 5 to 20 years later (depending on what dating of Matthew you accept) Matthew has to place Jesus in Bethlehem to match the OT prophecies. Matthew also puts into writing the so-called Davidic lineage in order to match the other prophecy about the new Messiah being of the line of David. Matthew is the first apologist making stuff up to fit prophecy. Of course since Matthew was written somewhere around 85-90 CE, this makes sense. By this time there has been enough scoffing and skepticism (as well as competition from other virgin birth and resurrection religions), that Matthew has no choice but to worm things around to appeal to the Jews, which ultimately failed, and to the Gentiles.

Of course if Micah is a true prophecy then it is a failed prophecy. Jesus was not the ruler in Israel. Jesus lasted a few years and was killed – never having landed the position of “ruler of Israel.” If the prophecy in Micah were god-breathed, then you would think that it would be accurate and say that Israel would reject Jesus as the Messiah because he didn’t meet the prophecy criteria as interpreted by the Jewish high priests.

Next comes Luke, who writes after Mark and Matthew. Luke realizes that Mark forgot about the birth but did mention that Jesus came from Nazareth and that Matthew just mentions Bethlehem. How does Luke resolve this contradiction? Luke resolves it by having Joseph pull Mary and the Donkey “out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem” (Luke 2:4).

Then comes John, who wrote between 90 and 100 CE and he didn’t know a thing about a virgin birth or a prophecy about a birthplace – he’s silent on the issue.

PROOFS: “Hos. 11:1 would be called out of Egypt — Mt. 2:13-15”

Hosea 11:1 is not a reference to Jesus in any manner whatsoever. Hosea 11:1 states, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.”

This is a reference to the Jews. The “called my son out of Egypt” statement is a reference to the removal of the Jews from bondage at the hands of the Egyptians through the miracles of Moses. When God demanded Israel’s removal from the Pharaoh’s bondage, he referred to them as “his son,” “his children,” and “first born” (Exodus 3:10 for example).

The writer of Matthew obviously misunderstood this as well if he is referring to Hosea 11:1, which of course we cannot be sure of since he does not leave us any footnotes (what a convenience to apologists).

PROOFS: “Is. 40:3 ; Mal. 3:1 would be preceded by a messenger — Mt.3:1-3 ; Mk.1:2-4”

Malachi 3:1 states, “See, I am sending my servant, and he will make ready the way before me; and the Lord, whom you are looking for, will suddenly come to his Temple; and the angel of the agreement, in whom you have delight, see, he is coming, says the Lord of armies.”

Thanks to the complete vagueness of this passage, you can attribute anything you want to it. If Jesus is the Son of God, then why call him a servant? Why separate Lord from Jesus by referring to them separately and calling Jesus a servant? And if Jesus is the Messiah, then how come he did not come as the Lord of Armies? The Jews, based on all the unfulfilled prophecies rejected Jesus because he did not come as the Lord of Armies wielding a sword to free the Jews from oppression (just one reason Jesus is considered a false Messiah by the Jews).

In both the Matthew and Mark reference you give, they refer to this Messiah as a “servant.” This is hardly the title one would expect of the Son of God, a part of the Trinity, one born of a virgin that resurrects to heaven and will have a Second Coming.

Is Jesus the messenger or the Messiah? What messenger precedes Jesus? If Jesus is the messenger, then who is coming after him? If Jesus is nothing more than a messenger, then what was the point of the crucifixion? Dying for the sins of humanity is not something one would expect of a lowly messenger of God.

PROOFS: “Is. 42:1 would have Spirit of God — Jn. 1:32”

Isaiah 42:1 states, “See my servant, whom I am supporting, my loved one, in whom I take delight: I have put my spirit on him; he will give the knowledge of the true God to the nations.” John 1:32 states, “And John gave this witness, saying, I saw the Spirit coming down from heaven like a dove and resting on him.”

I find it rather amusing that you chose this verse. Ancient papyri of magic cults use a similar metaphor to describe receiving the spirit in order to become a god. The papyri describe how the heavens open up and the spirit comes down in the form of a bird. This is another fine example of how Christianity stole from ancient Pagan religions in order to more easily sell itself to the Pagan populations. Of course another theory proposed by a few biblical scholars is that Jesus was the leader of a magic cult, which would explain some of the cross-referenced metaphors, and would require the blending of ancient Jewish myths into the story.

Again, this so-called prophecy is so vague that anyone can fulfill it. How many times have we heard religious believers proclaim that they are feeling the spirit or have received the spirit of God when in a church-induced religious frenzy?

PROOFS: “Ps. 69:9 zeal would consume him–Jn 2:15-17”

Psalms 69:9 states, “For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” 69:1 says specifically that this Psalm is a song to David – not to the coming Messiah. The “zeal of thine house” is the current house of David – not a future generation that the gospel writers can’t agree on when it comes to lineage.

If the gospel writers remembered, “that it was written,” (John 2:15-17) then they remembered it wrong. The Psalm is not a prophecy, but a song to David. The house in Psalms is the house of David. The house in John is the Temple, where merchants are selling doves.

Again, how can this be prophecy? To say that the new Messiah will be filled with zeal is not prophetic; it is an educated guess. Any self-proclaimed Messiah would be full of zeal to spread his or her new religion. Saying someone will be zealous is not prophecy at all. Anyone could fit that description. Of course the Psalm in question is not a prophecy, anyway.

PROOFS: “Is. 32:3-4 would heal every kind of disease — Mt. 9:35 ; 15:30-31”

Isaiah 32:3-4 states, “And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken. The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly.”

How is this healing? Those that CAN see will still see. Those that CAN hear will still hear. Of course stammering people are ready to speak plainly. Isn’t that a bit obvious?

This passage is based on Isaiah 32:1, which states, “See, a king will be ruling in righteousness, and chiefs will give right decisions.” Jesus was never King of Jerusalem. This is another reason the Jews believed Jesus was a false Messiah, because he did not fulfill the prophecy. The Messiah was to come with a sword, would become King of Israel, and lead the Jews out of submission. The new Messiah would not be divine, but would be a prophet in line with Moses.

Matthew 9:35 states, “And Jesus went about all the towns and small places, teaching in their Synagogues and preaching the good news of the kingdom and making well all sorts of disease and pain.” Matthew 15:30-31 states, “And there came to him great numbers of people having with them those who were broken in body, or blind, or without voice, or wounded, or ill in any way, and a number of others; they put them down at his feet and he made them well: So that the people were full of wonder when they saw that those who had no voice were talking, the feeble were made strong, those whose bodies were broken had the power of walking, and the blind were able to see: and they gave glory to the God of Israel.”

I can see where this would inspire Christians that do not believe the mythological aspects of the gospels, but I can’t see where this relates back to Isaiah 32:3-4, which makes no reference whatsoever to diseases.

PROOFS: “Is. 53:3 would be rejected — Jn. 1:11 ; 7:47-48 ; 12:37”

I find it rather strange that Isaiah 53:3 is talking in the present tense and past tense. Isn’t prophecy supposed to be about the future? Apologists make this out to be a prophecy about the persecution of Jesus, but I see nothing in there to lead me to that conclusion other than vague insinuations. The passage, in every translation I read, is in past tense, talking about someone in the past that suffered these things. Nowhere is there anything specific about crucifixion, whipping, being turned in to the Romans by the Jewish priests, carrying a cross, or anything of that nature.

Vagueness is the rule when it comes to biblical prophecy because through vagueness the apologists and wishful thinkers can manipulate passages to fit whatever they want it to fit. We see this with every prophet’s prophecies. Nostradamus’ passages are manipulated every year by different people in order to fit the times and events of their choosing. Isn’t it odd that the passages always seem to fit times and events that help support their own beliefs?

PROOFS: “Is. 53:7 would be silent when oppressed — Mt. 27:12-14 ; Lk. 23:7-10”

Isaiah 53:7 states, “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.”

Notice again that we’re still talking about a past event in Isaiah – this happened to someone beforehand – this is not a prophecy. If it was, what is with the reference to a dumb sheep? Do you support the idea in Isaiah 53:7 that Jesus (we’ll play along for a second and pretend this is real prophecy) was a dumb sheep going dumbly to the shears?

PROOFS: “Is. 50:6 ; Mic. 5:1 would be struck in the face, spit upon, and whipped — Mt. 26:67 ; Mk. 15:15 ; Lk. 22:63-64”

Isaiah 50:6 states, “I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.” Micah 5:1 states, “Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.”

Again we see that all the translations give these passages in past tense. Again we see total vagueness that allows us to attribute these passages to any event we desire to.

PROOFS: “Dan. 9:26 would be killed — Mt. 27:38,50”

Daniel 9:26 states, “And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.”

If Daniel is a prophet then he sucks at it. According to apologists, and a simple timeline made by using the gospels, Jesus began his ministry around 30. It took more than two weeks before he was executed. Also, Jesus didn’t destroy Israel nor did he ravage us with flood (did the writer of Daniel forget about the promise made through the rainbow?). At least this passage is not in past tense.

Here we see the selective reading of Christians to justify their mythology. They choose to accept the part “Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself,” saying that is a reference to the crucifixion and death for the sins of mankind. But they choose to ignore the rest of the verse, which is clearly wrong on every account. I would expect 100% accuracy from an all-knowing God that “breathed” or “inspired” scripture.

PROOFS: “Is. 53:8-12 would die for sins of others–Jn. 1:29 ; 11:49-52”

Isaiah 53:8 states, “He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.”

Jesus was in prison? When was Jesus incarcerated? Again we see the talking in past tense about an event that already happened.

You know, one thing we’re missing here is the fact that anyone can go back 60 or 80 years after the fact and add stuff to the story to fit ancient prophecies about the event. Anyone can say that Jesus fulfilled prophecy from the OT, but proving it is another thing. You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible. It’s easy to go back now and pick and choose the passages we want to justify our beliefs, but that doesn’t validate the beliefs at all.

This is made especially more difficult by the glaring fact that the writers of the gospels were not witnesses to the events and wrote their books between 40 and 90 years after the events occurred. We have to assume that the writers did not manipulate the story in order to justify their own views, both politically and socially, and we have to assume that the writers did not add details in order to make their character more believable as a Messiah based on the Hebrew Torah and Tanakh.

PROOFS: “Is. 53:9 would be with a rich man in death — Mt. 27:57-60”

Isaiah 53:9 states, “And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death: because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.”

The rich is a reference to the greedy and sinful (easier for a laden camel to enter the eye of the needle than a rich man to enter the gates of heaven (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25)). The BEB translation states, “And they put his body into the earth with sinners, and his last resting-place was with the evil-doers, though he had done no wrong, and no deceit was in his mouth.” The use of “evil-doers” in place of rich is more apropos considering the NT’s stance on the rich in many verses.

The verse is not saying that he would be dead in the presence of a rich man, but that he would make his grave with a rich man, or evil-doer, a man less likely to get into heaven than a camel through the eye of the needle. Joseph of Arimathaea was neither dead nor buried with Jesus.

PROOFS: “Ps. 16:10 his body would not decay–Mk.16:6”

Psalms 16:10 states, “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption [KJV].” The BEB translation states, “For you will not let my soul be prisoned in the underworld; you will not let your loved one see the place of death.”

Psalm 16, if read in its entirety, is not a prophecy at all. At least it does not read like one. It reads like a personal confession and plea by the writer. Regardless, again we see a failure to meet any of the criteria for a prophecy.

Now let’s go on to your claim that the Bible is scientifically accurate.

PROOFS: “The universe is expanding. Job 9:8 ; Ps. 104:2 ; Is. 40:22 ; 44:24 ; 51:13.”

Psalms 104:2 states, “Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.” Job 9:8 states, “Stretching out the heavens by Himself, And treading on the heights of the sea.” Isaiah 40:22 states, “He who is sitting on the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants [are] as grasshoppers, He who is stretching out as a thin thing the heavens, And spreadeth them as a tent to dwell in.” Isaiah 44:24 states, “Thus said Jehovah, thy redeemer, And thy framer from the womb: `I [am] Jehovah, doing all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, Spreading out the earth — who [is] with Me?” Isaiah 51:13 states, “And thou dost forget Jehovah thy maker, Who is stretching out the heavens, and founding earth, And thou dost fear continually all the day, Because of the fury of the oppressor, As he hath prepared to destroy. And where [is] the fury of the oppressor?”

Notice that stretched is used in the past tense? That means that this verse does not support an expanding universe at all. If it did support an expanding universe it would say stretching – not stretched.

Regardless, we see a reference to the heavens being a curtain. A curtain is a single piece of cloth that is stretched over something, such as tent or dome-shaped firmament.

The circle referred to in Isaiah 40:22 is also telling. A circle is not a sphere. A circle is flat – a sphere is round, like a ball. A curtain is a flat item that covers a specific area. A tent is pitched on a flat area – not around a sphere. The heavens can only be a tent if the Earth is flat. Otherwise, it’s not like a tent if it is stretched over a sphere. The Isaiah passage confirms that the men that wrote the books of the OT thought the Earth was flat.

PROOFS: “The nuclear strong force is explained in Col. 1:17 and Heb. 1:3.”

Colossians 1:17 states, “and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted.” Perhaps you can explain why you think this verse has anything to do with the Strong Nuclear Force.

Hebrews 1:3 states, “who being the brightness of the glory, and the impress of His subsistence, bearing up also the all things by the saying of his might — through himself having made a cleansing of our sins, sat down at the right hand of the greatness in the highest.”

I fail to see how you can tie the Strong Nuclear Force into these verses. The job, if you will, of the Strong Nuclear Force, is to hold together the subatomic particles (protons and neutrons) of the nucleus (simply put, anyway). Where in the Bible is there any mention of protons, neutrons, nucleons, or atoms?

PROOFS: “Human DNA is much like that of grass (and other living things). Is. 51:12 “…man…is made like grass…””

Isaiah 51:12 states, “I, even I, am he that comforteth you: who art thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man that shall die, and of the son of man which shall be made as grass.” The BEB translation states, “I, even I, am your comforter: are you so poor in heart as to be in fear of man who will come to an end, and of the son of man who will be like grass?” The Darby translation states, “I, [even] I, am he that comforteth you: who art thou, that thou fearest a man that shall die, and the son of man that shall become as grass.” The SV translation states, “I, even I, am he that comforteth you: who art thou, that thou art afraid of man that shall die, and of the son of man that shall be made as grass.”

Being made like glass is not what is being said. The phrase, throughout the translations is “made as grass” or “will be like grass.” The JFB Concordia tells us that “be made as grass” means to “wither as grass” (reference Isaiah 40:6-7).

The cross-reference is clearly an indication that the phrase “made as grass” is a reference to the dying process and to death.

PROOFS: “Only in the past 30 years or so has it been known that there are springs at the bottoms of the oceans. Job 38:16 told of this.”

Job 38:16 states, “Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? Or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?” You forgot about Proverbs 8:28, which states, “When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep.”

According to the CCE the phrase is more likely “fountains beneath the sea,” not springs. It also elaborates, “Rather, “the inmost recesses;” literally, “that which is only found by searching,” the deep caverns of the ocean. The John Wesley Explanatory Notes (WES) goes further and says, “Springs – Hebrew for “the tears;” the several springs out of which the waters of the sea flow as tears do from the eyes.”

We’ve heard of these underwater springs from which all water flows before in Genesis 7:11, “…on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.” The “fountains of the deep” or “springs” are references to the Noachian flood. Of course we know from the water cycle that the oceans are not generated from fountains in the deep. The thermal springs discovered with deep submersibles are not water sources, but heated ocean water that has seeped below the sedimentary layer, heated by magma-warmed rocks and then rises as it is heated through thermal vents. These aren’t springs, but regurgitating vents. They are not sources of water, but a place where water is spat back out into the ocean.

The reference to springs is not a reference to thermal vents nor is it to underwater springs where fresh groundwater seeps into the ocean. The reference is to the so-called springs that burst forth with water to cause the Noachian flood along with the opening of heaven to cascade water upon the earth and flood it – killing all inhabitants save a single family led by a drunkard.

The reference made in Proverbs is a reference back to the Noachian flood as well. The strengthening of the “fountains of the deep” was necessary to prevent another Noachian flood, as the Bible-God promised and created the rainbow to sanctify his promise never to destroy all of humanity again.

Now let’s go to the part where you say the Bible supports good health science.

PROOFS: “Gen. 1:29-30 shows that God’s original diet for people was vegetarian, now known to be beneficial. In line with this, God told Moses that the Jews were not to eat fat (Lv. 3:17). And they were not to eat those meats now known more unhealthy (Lv. 11:1-47 and Dt. 14:3-20).”

Genesis 1:29-30 states, “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to 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.”

So, according to the Bible, all the animals on the Earth that have sharp teeth for tearing into flesh are supposed to eat the flesh of fruit – not the flesh of prey. All the niches for predators are a fantasy? If God created a bunch of vegetarian animals, then why did he give them the physical characteristics of a hunter? So much for “intelligent” in the ever-popular phrase “intelligent design argument.”

Of course God changed his mind and in Genesis 9:3 decided that a omnivorous diet would be better suited, “Every living and moving thing will be food for you; I give them all to you as before I gave you all green things.”

Leviticus 3:17 states, “It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.”

Of course the entire chapter is talking about a sacrifice of a goat – not all animals. The chapter explains exactly how to kill it and what parts have to be cut out before it is placed on the fire to make an odor pleasing to the Lord. Leviticus 3:16 states, “…all the fat is the Lord’s.” Follow this up with Leviticus 3:17 and it makes sense – the fat of the goat is not to be eaten because, as the previous verses states, the fat of the goat is to be burnt as an offering to the Lord.

The ban on eating blood was elaborated on at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:29, which states, “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”

We can see that this aversion to blood is directly related to sacrificial animals (meats offered to idols).

The listing of cud-chewing and cloven-footed animals that they can and cannot eat in Leviticus 11:1-47 is ludicrous, at best. Rabbit is bad for you?

They also had an aversion to water-dwelling animals that didn’t have scales and fins (anything other than fish). I guess I can’t blame them – I’m not into slimy water creatures like squid, octopus, and sea cucumbers, either. It’s disgusting looking – regardless of how good it is for you. It’s all about texture. ;-)

Funny, but Deuteronomy 14:3-20, while containing a repetition of Leviticus 11:1-47, also contains a scientific flaw. Deuteronomy 14:18 states that bats are birds.

PROOFS: “The Jews were directed in sanitation and quarantine, although germs were not discovered until around 1890. Lv. 6:28 ; 13:45-59 ; 15:1-13.”

Leviticus 6:28 needs to be stated in conjunction with verse 27. Leviticus 6:27-28 states, “Whatever shall touch the flesh of it shall be holy; and when there is sprinkled of the blood of it on any garment, you shall wash that whereon it was sprinkled in a holy place. But the earthen vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken; and if it be boiled in a brazen vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water.”

Here again we see the aversion to blood – not sanitary requirements, but a religious ritual regarding the spilling of blood on garments worn in a holy place. This has nothing to do with germs or sanitation, and everything to do with getting blood (as discussed already regarding their aversion to it) getting on any garment that is to be worn in a holy place. In other words, it’s about wearing clean clothes to church.

Leviticus 13:45-49 is not adequate. You cannot dismiss the rest of the rules for lepers. You need to quote Leviticus 13:45-59. This is far from sanitary and clearly they are the rules of a society that is not aware of germs and contagions. The have the priest hide the garment for seven days and then examine it closely, and then simply wash it if it hasn’t turned a certain color is not the best advice for anything dealing with lepers. Telling the priest to burn the garment after it has sat for seven days in a spot where it can breed is hardly what I would call sanitary advice. The entire passage of leper law for priests is so far from sanitary that it makes me cringe when I read it – to think about all those hapless priests that developed leprosy from exposing themselves to a super-gestated batch of leper clothing. Normally leprosy is considered mildly infectious, but under the conditions established in Leviticus, it can be highly contagious. The actions of the priests under the Leper Laws helped spread leprosy – not contain it.

Now let’s move on to your so-called archaeological proof of the Bible.

PROOFS: “For example, Noah’s Ark has been discovered (Gen. chapters 6 through 8). You can see pictures of the ark and documentation in the book The Lost Ship Of Noah… by Charles Berlitz.”

Are you kidding me? Do you know who Charles Berlitz is? Charles Berlitz has written “authoritative” books on the Bermuda Triangle, Atlantis, the Philadelphia Experiment, the Roswell Incident, and the Dragon’s Triangle to name a few. Berlitz is the author of such great titles as “World of the Odd and Awesome” and “World of Incredible but True.”

The Ark has not been discovered. Many expeditions to Mount Ararat in Turkey have come up with nothing. Satellite imagery has produced nothing. Infrared and full-spectrum scanning of the mountain has produced nothing. There have been many hoaxes, but no Ark has been found.

Many people have been fooled into thinking that a volcanic formation near Mount Judi, which is located about 15 miles from Mount Ararat, is the Ark. A tear-shaped air bubble in a volcanic flow created a formation that looks like the hull of a ship. However, this hull-shaped basaltic formation is in the shape of a tear, which is a modern boat hull shape and does not match the dimensions of the Ark given in the Bible.

Fundamentalists have tried everything to convince people the Ark is there, but the fact remains that it is not. Many gullible people (especially those already engaged in gullible activities, such as god belief) have been fooled by hoax pictures and scientific-sounding words like “siliconization” to describe why the volcanic formation is the way it is. The bottom line is that the formation (And I call it a formation because there are thousands of these around the world – are they suggesting there was a fleet of Arks?) is basalt, a volcanically formed rock.

PROOFS: “Remains of one of the cities destroyed by fire and brimstone in Gen. 18:20 through 19:28 have been found– ashes and soot in the forms of buildings.”

The site you are referring to was discovered near the Dead Sea. There were actually two cities found at the site – one built on top of the other. The upper city was discovered after a sandstorm exposed a part of it. When digging in the area they discovered that the city had been built on top of another city that had burnt down. There was no sulfur, as mentioned in Genesis 19:24, discovered at the site. What were found were a city that had burned and a new one that was built on top of it. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the city is either Sodom or Gomorrah. Fundamentalists insisted that archaeologists had found Sodom and Gomorrah, but no archaeologists made that claim.

PROOFS: “Also chariot wheels and parts have been found at the bottom of The Red Sea (Exodus 14). The latter items are in materials by Dr. John Morris of The Institute For Creation Research.”

Leave it to “Dr.” Morris to screw up perfectly good archaeology. The Egyptians were known to throw their used chariots and parts into the Red Sea. The types of chariots and parts found in the Red Sea span a large timeframe of Egyptian development. If the parting of the Red Sea and subsequent swallowing of the Egyptian army were the cause, then one would expect to find that all the parts and remnants to be from the same period, under the same Pharaoh.

However, such is not the case. The remnants of chariots and other items in the Red Sea cover the reigns of many Pharaohs and periods of Egypt. Egyptologists have also discovered papyri and drawings depicting the act of dumping broken chariots and other items into the Red Sea via barges made of reed.

Only a Fundamentalist Creationist would bend this information to fit his needs to believe in a mythological event.

PROOFS: “Rev. 9:21 predicted drug abuse in the end times. The word sorceries there is English for the Greek word pharmakeia, which also translates as pharmacy. (sic)(Notice how similar.)”

Revelation 9:21 states, “Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.”

You are correct that the Greek word is pharmakeia, but you are wrong that the word is a strict translation of pharmacy. The Greek use of pharmakeia was used to describe “the use or administration of drugs,” which is why we used it as a foundation for the modern word pharmacy, “poisoning,” “sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it,” and as a metaphor for the deceptions and seductions of idolatry.

The word “sorceries” or “sorcerers” is used at least five times in Revelation and in each case you cannot aver it to be a reference to the “drug culture.” The use of the word is intermingled with words like “whoremongers,” “idolaters,” “unbelieving,” “abominable,” and liars.

One would think that an all-knowing God would be a bit more specific in order to avoid the confusion. Perhaps saying something like, “And those that burned the spoon and stuck the needle in their arms will perish in the fires of Hell with the adulterers and unbelievers.” Then you’d really be able to make your case.

PROOFS: “Concerning learning to live the Christian life: You should not trust ministers or church people to give you sound Biblical advice and instruction.”

Should we trust you? Why are you any different than ministers or church people? How do you know you are giving sound biblical advice? If anything, I have shown that you are giving far from sound biblical advice. You’re actually helping people become Atheists if they actually research what you’re saying. I’ve always said that the fastest way to Atheism is to read the Bible.

PROOFS: “You need to study The Bible yourself.”

That is the first sound piece of biblical advice that you have given. I encourage all Christians to actually read the Bible and study it for themselves. In doing so they will begin to understand the fallacies, errors, contradictions, inconsistencies, and hypocrisies (just to name a few) of the Bible and Christian mythology.

I will read your recommended reading list if you read mine: Recommended Reading. (I no longer maintain a recommended reading list and stopped doing book reviews)

PROOFS: “This may freely be copied, put in other forms and mediums, translated, and distributed.”

Who wrote this, anyway? Are you the original author or did you forward it to me?

Debate 027: Radona asks Blair some questions for her Sunday School class

Radona Rebuttal #001:

I am doing some research for a Sunday School class I’m teaching in November…good ol Methodists…and I came across your site. I read the Q & A section and was intriqued by the statement that all humans are born atheist. Would you be willing to share your documented research? I’m interested in knowing how many newborns were interviewed and the demographics of the study. Were the responses recorded or did the subjects merely complete a questionaire at the time of their births?

Sarcasm aside, I really have been doing some soul-searching lately (no pun intended), and I do have some sincere questions in need of sincere answers.

1. The word “spirituality” is not defined in the Study Hall section of the site and yet you make the statement “everyone needs a form of spirituality.” I know what my definition is and I’ve read Mr. Webster’s. How would you define spirituality?

2. Why do you celebrate Christmas?

3. Is the concious act of deceit immoral? If a future son-in-law were to deceive you in a manner similar to your deceit, would you be able to accept the fact that he had fun doing it?

4. Why does anti-social behavior exist in social beings?

5. If tragedy strikes and you are suddenly rendered inable of movement or speech, will your children know you love them? How will they know? Actually, how do they know now? You can say you love them. You can do things to show that you love them. But you’ve also proven yourself to be a master of deceit. You can’t see love…or touch it…or hear it…or taste it…or smell it. Love is intangible. How do they know you love them? How do you know they love you? Does love even exist? Prove it.

6. How are we here?

If you can give me your thoughts on some or all of these I would greatly appreciate it.

 

Response to Radona #001:

Thank you for the humorous beginning. It’s always good to hear from someone with a sense of humor that can laugh at the whole thing. Thank you.

Now, let’s get down to business and answer your questions:

RADONA: “1. The word “spirituality” is not defined in the Study Hall section of the site and yet you make the statement “everyone needs a form of spirituality.” I know what my definition is and I’ve read Mr. Webster’s. How would you define spirituality?”

Spirituality itself is the state or act of being spiritual, so I guess we should define spiritual. Spiritual, in its most basic definition, is anything to do that “affects the soul.” Of course the definition of soul for you and me are probably significantly different. My view of spirituality is the everyday enjoyment of life, the recognition of that which awes us and makes us smile, the realization of the beauty of the world, especially when that beauty is dissected and made more beautiful.

An example of my spirituality would be my two-weekend visit to Yosemite in California where I walked roughly 20 miles by myself in the woods and encountered nature (bears, deer, etc) and marveled at the wonderful beauty of nature. The knowledge I had of nature and how things work and the science behind it made that experience even more awe-inspiring, thus, spiritual.

Unfortunately, theistic religion has hijacked the word spiritual, so many non-religious people are afraid to use it (spirit of God, feeling the spirit, etc). Some of the atheistic religions in the world (Taoism, Buddhism, etc) are very spiritual. New Age religions are spiritual-based, but they have no deity.

I decided that my feelings, my awe, my love of nature and humanity, were spiritual in nature and I wasn’t going to let religion hijack that word from me. So for me, spirituality is the awe we sense whenever we look upon something, or feel something, or we hear something, that inspires us, gives us goose bumps, makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. Of course I recognize that all those feelings and the awe are nothing more than chemical reactions, but it is the recognition of the biology behind spirituality that to me makes it even better.

RADONA: “2. Why do you celebrate Christmas?”

I’ve already written a page on Christmas, so I’ll refer you to that answer Do Atheists Celebrate Christmas?

RADONA: “3. Is the concious [sic] act of deceit immoral? If a future son-in-law were to deceive you in a manner similar to your deceit, would you be able to accept the fact that he had fun doing it?”

The conscious act of deceit can be moral or immoral – depending on the context. Situational ethics are a very hazy thing, and often it is the eye of the beholder that views such items as moral or immoral. The decision to actively deceive my in-laws at the time I saw as the moral thing to do in order to help my wife and her sister. They needed someone to rescue them from their persecutors and the only way to do it was to convince the persecutors that I was “one of them.” I would hope that if I were doing the same thing to my children that someone would have the courage to deceive me to rescue them from my grasp.

RADONA: “4. Why does anti-social behavior exist in social beings?”

That depends on who you ask: psychologists or biologists. ;-)

Of course it also depends on the anti-social behavior that one is talking about. What we do know is that memetics play just as an important role in our shaping as do genetics. Lately, our society has been advancing faster socially (memetics) than biologically (genetics). This has put our biology at odds with our society. Just 100 years ago we were marrying our daughters off at 15 and now anyone that thinks of having sexual relations with a 15-year-old is considered “anti-social.” It is society that has changed too quickly for the biology to catch up. For those that can control their biological urges, they are seen as “staples of society.” For those that cannot control their biological urges, they are seen as “the criminal element” or “anti-social.”

Humans are not the only social beings that experience anti-social individuals. Documented cases of anti-social primates indicate that they deal with many of the same biological problems that we do – only a chimpanzee or bonobos will have a much harder time controlling those biological urges. There are also cases of exile among the primates when a single primate does something the troop doesn’t like, the troop may ostracize the individual or expel him or her from the troop.

Are all the single whales from species that normally herd just lost or are they being anti-social? We may never know, but it certainly is an interesting question.

RADONA: “5. If tragedy strikes and you are suddenly rendered inable [sic] of movement or speech, will your children know you love them? How will they know? Actually, how do they know now? You can say you love them. You can do things to show that you love them. But you’ve also proven yourself to be a master of deceit. You can’t see love…or touch it…or hear it…or taste it…or smell it. Love is intangible. How do they know you love them? How do you know they love you? Does love even exist? Prove it.”

That’s more than one question! ;-)

You make it sounds as if my deceit were something that I continue to do. The deceit was not something that was mastered. It’s not hard to pretend that you believe in Santa Claus when you know he doesn’t exist. It’s not like it takes a genius to pretend to believe in God and do the Happy Jesus Dance. The deceit was necessary in order to save two women from an abusive household. In that case of situational ethics, the necessity of saving a life overruled any moral dilemma with lying.

Love is very tangible, actually. We know that love is based on chemicals that are produced in our bodies – chemicals such as dopamine. As we fall in love, we can see those chemicals reacting in our body. When we fall in love, we have become addicted to the chemical makeup of our hormones that a particular person creates in us.

The love we have for family is a bit different – in that it is the “safe and secure” mode of Love – the love we feel when someone provides a sense of security and safety to us (which also occurs in non-familial love). So you can see love, because we can see these chemicals under the microscope. We can touch love, because you can touch these chemicals. We can’t really hear love, so I’ll give you that one. We can taste and smell it, though in human pheromones and chemicals.

RADONA: “6. How are we here?”

You don’t really need a lecture on the “birds and the bees,” do you? Surely you and your mother had that talk? If you want me to walk you through the reproductive process just let me know and I will. ;-)

For a more serious answer, I have it in my Q&A section: Where Did It All Come From?

 

Radona Rebuttal #002:

Okay, I’ll accept your Christmas diatribe…my husband feels basically the same way and he is a Christian man so what can I say…however; I always find it a little silly that people think Santa doesn’t exist. When my kids found out there was no Santa, I told them they were wrong. If there’s no stinkin’ Santa why am I staying up late at night on Christmas Eve helping to put together all that crap I went out and purchased by myself because Scrooge refused to go with me? Do you ever do the Angel Tree thing? You know, buy for the disadvantaged?…to me, that’s being Santa too. Maybe Santa is symbolic. I believe Santa’s in all of us. Santa is everywhere. Kinda like G…oops…never mind.

Also, if you keep (sic)ing me for my mistakes, bub, I’m gonna do the same for your little website and I’m not the one professing the great love of knowledge and learning so cut it out….

I’m thinking you were a little vague on that love thing. Yes, we can see chemical reactions in the body/brain…but isn’t there research to indicate we can also see chemical reactions taking place during intense religious and spiritual (my definition, not yours) moments? Really, I don’t know much about that research but I know it’s been done by neuroscientists….Andrew Newburg? Is he one? So, if chemical reactions can prove love exists, why can’t they prove God exists?

And obviously, aside from birds and bees, you’re as clueless as the rest of the world on how we got here.

Not all Christians are fundamentalists…or cultists. I think most are just aware that there is a being higher than themselves.

What about miracles. Do you believe in miracles?

Do you believe Jesus (the man) ever lived on earth?

I’m finished for now…have a migraine…there’s chemical reactions for that too…thanks for responding…I’ll be sharing your responses with the SS class in November and I’ll give you feedback on the comments/ responses….

 

Radona Rebuttal #003:

Before I got a chance to respond to Radona’s last email, she sent me this one. I decided to ignore the last one and continue with her new one because they were questions directly from her Sunday School students. I felt that addressing the student’s questions was more important.

I wrote you a while back with some questions because of a class I’m teaching this month. I spoke with the class today about your views/definitions on atheism. They had some questions for which I had no answers and I told the class I’d e-mail. If you have time to respond, here are the questions:

1. I mentioned to them your research indicating more christians turn to atheism than atheists to christianity; they wanted more info on this: specific resources, documentation…now, I can’t even find that section on the web site…did I dream this up or get it somewhere else? Can you point me in the right direction?

2. What is your educational background? Your wife’s?

3. What is your true relationship with your in-laws?

4. IF you had to pretend there was one God who made the heavens and earth and everything in and on them, which would you choose?

a) A God who controlled every aspect of our lives and never allowed mistakes, wrong choices, bad decisions, sort of “The Stepford Universe” where everything is perfect?

b) A God who gave humans control of the earth and universe to use as our own, along with minds, hearts, and souls to use as we chose?

 

Response to Radona #003:

RADONA: “1. I mentioned to them your research indicating more Christians turn to atheism than atheists to Christianity; they wanted more info on this: specific resources, documentation… now, I can’t even find that section on the web site… did I dream this up or get it somewhere else? Can you point me in the right direction?”

The research was completed in 2000 and it was done worldwide. Christianity rose less than 1% worldwide and Islam only rose less than 1% worldwide during the 35 years that the research was conducted. Judaism dropped because it is not an active proselytizing religion. The fastest growing “religion” during that time was atheism/non-religion, which rose almost 125% during that same 35-year period. Most of this information comes from Adherents.Com, which showcases religious beliefs and other religious-related topics worldwide. Other sources include the Christian-based Barna Research Organization in San Diego, CA. Of course information comes equally from known sources such as the Census, Gallup, etc.

The issue at stake here is not really the increase, decrease or stagnation of any particular religion or non-religion. The issue is why the increases, decreases and stagnations occurred. That is where the research is now going. I’m personally inclined to think there are two factors playing into the major increase in non-religion worldwide: 1) increase in scientific knowledge, which includes mass media (Internet, cable, satellite) and the subsequent access to that information on a wide scale arena – especially in the middle and upper-lower class, which the churches had previously relied upon as the staple of their masses, and 2) memetic and genetic variations in the evolutionary advances of the species. Socially (memetics) the human species is evolving and religion is, to put it one way, going out of style. As for the genetics, research is currently underway that is looking at the genetic differences between non-religionists and religionists and the results are intriguing. Obviously the research is too premature to make any conclusions, but preliminary results indicate that religious thought may be hardwired in our brains – a biological reaction (evolutionary cause) for religious thought. It will be interesting to see where the filed of neurotheology and neurophilosophy go from here.

RADONA: “2. What is your educational background? Your wife’s?”

I finished high school and joined the Navy in order to get the GI Bill for college. Instead of doing my four years and going to college, I fell in love with the Navy and stayed in. During my time in the Navy I went to tons of schools. I left the Navy with 8 NEC (Naval Education Code), which included electronics, communications and computers (to name the major levels). In addition, I took some vocational schooling from civilian schools, especially in electronics and computers. Mostly I studied on my own and studied with scholars and professors that are friends of mine (my best friends in Mobile are a paleobotanist, anthropologist, archaeologist, radiologist, psychologist, and geologist). The thing that has helped me the most is reading. I read new books all the time (both for and against any topic – to truly learn about something you must learn both sides of the issue – both to know it and to make an educated decision about your views on that issue) and never stop reading. I read science, theology, history and others.

My ex-wife was home-schooled by her radical extremist Christian parents. Being schooled at home by them left her wanting in the realm of education. If her education level from being home-schooled were compared to public schools, her graduation level would have been at about the 8th grade (and I’m being generous). After we got married we studied and I helped her gain a better education. Since then she has gone to vocational school to become a pet groomer and veterinary technician.

RADONA: “3. What is your true relationship with your in-laws?”

I don’t like them and they hate me. They think I’m the devil-incarnate sometimes. They blame me for all their problems with their children. Their children were beginning to rebel against their Bible-based child hatred long before I showed up. The home was physically and mentally abusive. They quoted the Bible to prove their point about their right to beat their children and make the demands that they put on them. My ex-wife and my ex-sister-in-law were both sneaking out of the house at night to have fun with the local Italian boys and when my ex-wife got caught, my ex-father-in-law tried to strangle her with both his hands firmly around her neck and cutting off her air supply. I hated them for the way they treated their children, but I played the role to gain their trust so I could take my ex-wife away and get help for my ex-sister-in-law.

When my daughters were born they made no effort to adhere to our wishes and stabbed us in the back repeatedly. They preferred to be preachers than grandparents. They told my children to lie to me about many things (So much for the Ten Commandments, huh?) and began to teach my children to disrespect me (There goes another Ten Commandment down the drain.). This culminated into a huge fight after I repeatedly tried to give them wiggle room and offer the proverbial olive branch. Ultimately I had no choice but to keep them from seeing my daughters. My ex-wife agreed completely and she setup the rules for visitation.

Since my ex-wife left, my ex-in-laws actually took my side. Apparently atheism is a lesser evil in their eyes than lesbianism (my ex-wife “converted” to lesbianism) – so they were all for me keeping the children (I do have custody of the children).

My ex-sister-in-law now also lives in the area and has severed her ties with her parents as well. The religious nature of my ex-in-laws cost them both of their daughters and many family and friends. There are family members in Florida that are very uncomfortable around them and a few that do not like them, but act respectfully around them (like I did until it got out of control and I had to put my foot down).

My ex-in-laws are a danger to children (I spoke out against their desire to adopt and wrote a letter to the Florida adoption board and I wrote a similar letter to the Foster Care Center in Florida when they were considering foster care at their church/home). My in-laws have started four churches that I know of in the past few years and all of them have failed. My ex-father-in-law is an alcoholic that went through Alcoholics Anonymous many years ago (when my ex-wife was 6-years-old) and replaced his alcohol addiction with a Jesus addiction.

As much as I hate to admit it, I will shed no tear when they die.

RADONA: “4. IF you had to pretend there was one God who made the heavens and earth and everything in and on them, which would you choose? a) A God who controlled every aspect of our lives and never allowed mistakes, wrong choices, bad decisions, sort of “The Stepford Universe” where everything is perfect? b) A God who gave humans control of the earth and universe to use as our own, along with minds, hearts, and souls to use as we chose?”

That’s tougher than it sounds. As a freethinker that enjoys using my mental auspices, I would prefer B. However, if A were the reality, then I wouldn’t know what I was missing. If the conditions were from the onset of my life, then I would prefer A. If the conditions were established after having knowledge of freedom and having tasted it, then I would prefer B. Once freedom is tasted, there’s no going back to shackles: either physical or mental.

 

Radona Rebuttal #004:

Just wanted to say thank you for your responses….I haven’t checked my mail in a while and wish I’d looked last night so I could have shared your responses today….we’ve moved on from the atheism topic. Some were angered by you, most respected your opinions, none agreed with you…except perhaps where the fanatical in-laws were concerned. I shared with them some web sites of “christians” that made our hair stand on end. Fanaticals are always scary. Again, thank you and if you’re ever in Dallas, e-mail me. I’ll invite you to church.

 

Response to Radona #004:

Sorry the class didn’t hear my last responses. I’ve enjoyed the correspondence and helping out. Please pass my best wishes to your class – even those that are angry with me. ;-)

If I’m ever in Dallas, you won’t get me in your church, but I’ll email you anyway.

Debate 026: Terry and Blair discuss creationism and Pascal’s Wager

Terry Rebuttal #001:

HI, MY NAME IS TERRY, I HAVE A FRIEND THAT IS AN ATHEIST AND IM TRYING TO SHARE GOD WITH HIM, BUT HE REFERRED ME TO THIS SITE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO DEBATE YOU ON A FEW THOUGHTS. I WOULD BE INTERESTED FIRST IN YOUR THOUGHTS ON: IF IM RIGHT AND THERE IS A GOD AND A HELL THEN THE BEST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IS I WOULD GO TO HEAVEN, BUT IF YOU ARE RIGHT THE WORST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN TO ME IS I WOULD ROT AWAY IN A GRAVE. HOWEVER, WITH YOUR BELIEF, IF YOU ARE WRONG THE BEST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IS YOU WILL BE IN A GRAVE ROTTING AWAY BUT IF YOU ARE WRONG YOU WILL SPEND ETERNITY IN HELL. NOW I AM NOT TRYING TO PREACH HELLFIRE DAMNATION TO YOU NOW , IT IS JUST THE COLD HARD TRUTH. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS OF THE TWO ALTERNATIVES IT SEEMS THAT BELIEVING IN GOD IS THE NO BRAINER. IT’S NO MYSTERY THAT CHRISTIANITY AND EVOLUTION ARE BOTH RELIGIOUS IN THAT IT TAKES FAITH TO BELIEVE EITHER ONE. IN MY OPINION IT TAKES MORE FAITH TO BELIEVE EVOLUTION THAN TO BELIEVE THAT AN INTELLIGENT BEING CREATED THIS WHOLE COSMOS.

THE OTHER THING I ASK YOU IS FOR A REFERENCE FOR THE STATEMENT THAT YOU MADE IN A DEBATE WITH CLAY THAT SOUTHERN BAPTIST HAVE A QUOTA TO MEET IN ORDER TO GET INTO HEAVEN OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. I AM A BAPTIST BUT NOT A SOUTHERN BAPTIST, BUT I DO KNOW THAT SOUTHERN BAPTIST DO NOT BELIEVE THEY GET TO HEAVEN BY ANYTHING BUT FAITH. THAT STATEMENT ABOUT THEM IS AN ERRONEOUS STATEMENT, UNLESS YOU HAVE A REFERENCE THAT YOU GOT THAT FROM.

IF YOU DO HAVE A REFERENCE, THEN THAT PERSON IS ABOUT AS IGNORANT AS THE MAJORITY OF THE OTHER CHRISTIANS. I CONFESS THAT MOST CHURCH MEMBERS PROBALLY WILL NOT GET INTO TO HEAVEN DUE TO THEIR FAKE IMPERSONATIONS AS CHRISTIANS, BUT I CONFESS THE IGNORANCE OF 90%+ CHURCH MEMBERS DO NOT EVER PICK THEIR BIBLE EXCEPT ON SUNDAY MORNING ABOUT 11:00 AM. I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS DISCUSSION. AND I WILL TRY MY BEST TO GO BY YOUR RULES SEEING THAT THIS IS YOUR WEBSITE. YOU ARE PROBALLY LIKE ME IN THAT I LIKE TO TRIP PEOPLE UP IN THEIR ON BELIEFS WITH TRUTH. I AM A FIREFIGHTER AND WORK A CRAZY SCHEDULE BUT I WILL MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO RETURN ALL REBUTTALS AS PROMPTLY AS POSSIBLE.GOOD DAY.

 

Response to Terry #001:

First let me thank you for your comments and feedback; they are greatly appreciated. Would you also please pass on my gratitude to your friend for his kind referral to my website.

Allow me to address the issues you raised independently.

TERRY: “I WOULD BE INTERESTED FIRST IN YOUR THOUGHTS ON: IF IM RIGHT AND THERE IS A GOD AND A HELL THEN THE BEST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IS I WOULD GO TO HEAVEN, BUT IF YOU ARE RIGHT THE WORST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN TO ME IS I WOULD ROT AWAY IN A GRAVE. HOWEVER, WITH YOUR BELIEF, IF YOU ARE WRONG THE BEST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IS YOU WILL BE IN A GRAVE ROTTING AWAY BUT IF YOU ARE WRONG YOU WILL SPEND ETERNITY IN HELL.”

This type of “logic” originated with Blaise Pascal in what has become known as Pascal’s Wager.

Simply put, Pascal’s Wager goes something like this:

Either the believer or the non-believer will be correct – one of them has to be wrong.

• If you are a believer and you are correct – then you will be rewarded with eternal life.
• If you are a non-believer and you are correct – then you will die and nothing will happen.
• If you are a believer and you are wrong – then will you will die and nothing will happen.
• If you are a non-believer and you are wrong – then you will be punished with eternal damnation in the pits of hell.

Therefore, if you are a believer you have a chance of eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven – even if you are wrong. If you are a nonbeliever you have zero chance. Why should we not be a believer? Just in case the believers are right?

Pascal’s Wager has been proven wrong countless times and shown to have serious defects. I have to admit that I find it odd that mainstream and sect Christians are using Pascal’s Wager since Pascal used it to convert people to Jansenism. That issue aside, there are many reasons the Wager does not work. Instead of repeating myself, I would refer you to the web page where I address Pascal’s Wager specifically: What If You Are Wrong?

If you are still confused or have additional questions after reading that page, please let me know and I will be more than happy to address any you bring up.

TERRY: “MY QUESTION TO YOU IS OF THE TWO ALTERNATIVES IT SEEMS THAT BELIEVING IN GOD IS THE NO BRAINER.”

What would lead you to that conclusion? Do you have evidence of God’s existence that apologists and theologians have failed to produce? In order for something to be a “no brainer” there must be substantial evidence in favor of it. The lack of evidence (100% lack of evidence) for God would immediately disqualify God as a “no brainer” contestant. If you have substantial proof of your God then I’d be happy to hear about it.

TERRY: “IN MY OPINION IT TAKES MORE FAITH TO BELIEVE EVOLUTION THAN TO BELIEVE THAT AN INTELLIGENT BEING CREATED THIS WHOLE COSMOS.”

If you believe that it takes faith to accept the scientific validity of the Theory of Evolution through the means of Natural Selection then you do not understand the Theory of Evolution at all. Anyone that understands the Theory of Evolution does not question the evidence or make a declaration of faith in regards to the theory. If there is anything about the Theory of Evolution that you do not understand I will be more than happy to help you understand it. What makes you draw such a conclusion if not ignorance of the Theory of Evolution itself?

TERRY: “THE OTHER THING I ASK YOU IS FOR A REFERENCE FOR THE STATEMENT THAT YOU MADE IN A DEBATE WITH CLAY THAT SOUTHERN BAPTIST HAVE A QUOTA TO MEET IN ORDER TO GET INTO HEAVEN OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.”

That statement was not a factual statement, but a statement of jest. I was joking that as much as Southern Baptists try to convert that they, like State Troopers, must meet a conversion quote in order to get into Heaven. It was a joke and not intended to be taken as a literal statement.

TERRY: “IF YOU DO HAVE A REFERENCE, THEN THAT PERSON IS ABOUT AS IGNORANT AS THE MAJORITY OF THE OTHER CHRISTIANS.”

What does that say about the person that took that statement as fact instead of jest or sarcasm?

TERRY: “…BUT I CONFESS THE IGNORANCE OF 90%+ CHURCH MEMBERS DO NOT EVER PICK THEIR BIBLE EXCEPT ON SUNDAY MORNING ABOUT 11:00 AM.”

You can confess if you must, but I’d be willing to wager that Atheists and other non-believers no more about the Bible than most Christians (yourself included). It is the knowledge of the Bible that makes an Atheist. It is the lack of knowledge in the churches that keeps the pews full. If every Christian knew the history of the Bible and knew more about the Bible then they would no longer be attending church.

TERRY: “YOU ARE PROBALLY [SIC] LIKE ME IN THAT I LIKE TO TRIP PEOPLE UP IN THEIR ON BELIEFS WITH TRUTH.”

No offense, but I have not seen any truth from you yet. I have read about your beliefs and your speculations. I have read about your ideas and convictions, but I have not seen any truth. I’m looking forward to hearing it, though.

TERRY: “I AM A FIREFIGHTER AND WORK A CRAZY SCHEDULE…”

Allow me to take this opportunity to applaud your actions as a firefighter. There are three professions in this world that are relied on heavily: firefighters, police, and teachers. Those same three professions are also the most underpaid professions. Anyone that has the dedication to take on one of those services deserves kudos from all. You have my deepest appreciation for that.

 

Terry Rebuttal #002:

I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE TO MY EMAIL AND I WAS NOT TRYING TO GET INTO ANY HEAVY SUBJECTS IN MY INITIAL EMAIL JUST A LITTLE SOMETHING TO GET THE BALL ROLLING. NOW I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW A FEW THINGS FROM YOU : WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE BIBLE? DOES IT CONTAIN ANY TRUTH OR DO YOU THINK THE WHOLE THING IS A FAIRYTALE?

CONCERNING PASCHAL, YOUR WEB SITE DID NOT WORK ON THIS LINK, SO I NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU MEANT BY DEFECTS IN THE THEORY. ALSO I DID NOT EVEN KNOW WHO HE WAS UNTIL YOU BROUGHT IT UP AND YOU MADE ME DO RESEARCH AND I APPRECIATE THAT, I NOW KNOW WHO HE IS SO I HAVE ALREADY LEARNED SOMETHING THANKS. I DID NOT GET INTO HIS BELIEFS TOO HEAVILY, BUT IF YOU ARE WONDERING WHY CHRISTIANS ARE USING HIS THEORY DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE CONVERTED PEOPLE TO JANSENISM THEN I DO NOT SEE WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THAT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN PREDESTINATION AND LEAN TOWARD CALVINISTIC VIEWS. ALSO, SO IT IS NOT A SHOT IN MY ARM TO SIDE WITH HIM ON THAT ISSUE. NOW THIS IS NOT A ENDORSEMENT OF ALL HIS BELIEFS BUT JUST THE PREDESTINATION WHICH I BELIEVE YOU WERE PROBALLY REFERRING TO WHEN YOU SAID YOU WERE SURPRISED TO SEE CHRISTIANS USING HIS THEORY. I DISAGREE WITH YOU THAT HE ORIGINATED THE THEORY BECAUSE I USED IT IN MY OPENING EMAIL TO YOU, I HAD NO IDEA HE EXISTED, BUT LIKE ME, I ASSUME HE TOOK THAT “LOGIC” FROM THE BIBLE WHICH IS TRUE AND I BELIEVE EVERY WORD OF IT IS TRUE AND WAS WRITTEN BEFORE HIS TIME, SO IT COULD NOT HAVE ORIGINATED WITH HIM. IT IS PLAIN AND SIMPLE WE HAVE BELIEVERS AND NON BELIEVERS IN THIS WORLD AND I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE DIFFERENCES… I.E. ATHEIST, AGNOSTICS, REINCARNATIONIST, ETC.. BUT TO MAKE ALL THAT MORE SIMPLER- EITHER WE ARE ALL GONNA ROT IN A GRAVE AND CEASE TO EXIST OR THERE ARE TWO KIND OF PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO HEAVEN AND THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO HELL. SO BASED ON THE TWO BELIEF SYSTEMS YOU CAN CONCLUDE THAT PASCALS THEORY IS NOT SOMETHING IT TAKES A PHYSICIST TO COME UP WITH , BUT IT’S SO SIMPLE THAT A CHILD CAN UNDERSTAND (A CHILD OLD ENOUGH TO COMPREHEND) IT. I AM NOT A COLLEGE EDUCATED PERSON BUT ALL IT TOOK FOR ME TO FIGURE OUT PASCHALS THEORY WAS COMMON SENSE. I THINK AND CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, YOU WOULD PROBALLY SAY ONE OF TWO THINGS AND THATS “THAT THERE EITHER IS A GOD OR THERE IS NOT” AND THATS THE TWO GENERAL BELIEFS IN THIS WORLD, ONE CARRIES REWARDS AND THE OTHER PUNISHMENT LEADING ONE TO THE CONCLUSION IF THERE IS A GOD I MUST BELIEVE OR I DONT BELIEVE AND TAKE A CHANCE OF BEING WRONG AND FRIEND ETERNITY IS A LONG TIME TO BE WRONG.

WE DO NOT EVEN NEED TO ADDRESS THE IF I’M RIGHT STUFF OR IF YOU ARE WRONG STUFF BECAUSE THATS IRRELEVANT, FIGURING OUT IF THERE IS A GOD IS THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE FOR A HUMAN, DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT IS THE ONLY BELIEF THAT CARRIES CONSEQUENCES, IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE THEN WHO CARES WHAT HAPPENS AFTER DEATH BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONSEQUENCES THERE, SO THERE IS NO NEED TO SAY IF YOU ARE RIGHT (ATHEISM) THEN THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO ME IS ILL DECAY IN THE GRAVE.SO WHAT? WHAT ONE SHOULD SAY IS THERE ARE THINGS IN THE BIBLE THAT SCARE ME IF IT’S TRUE SUCH AS THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH, WHOSOEVERS NAME IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE LAMBS BOOK OF LIFE SHALL BE CAST IN THE LAKE OF FIRE, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT CONCERN ME, NOT MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION AND THE BIG BANG BECAUSE THOSE THINGS HAVE NO ETERNAL THREAT TO ME. SO I BELIEVE BEFORE ONE DECIDES TO DENY GOD THEY BETTER MAKE DARN SURE THEY ARE RIGHT, FOR EXAMPLE BEFORE I WOULD BELIEVE EVOLUTION WHICH HAS NO ETERNAL THREATS I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE IN MY HAND, BECAUSE IT IS NOT GOOD TO TRUST IN MAN, MAN WILL LET YOU DOWN, I WOULD NEED TO HAVE BEEN THERE WHEN THE BIG BANG HAPPENED OR KNOW SOMEONE RELIABLE WHO WAS THERE, BEFORE I BASE MY ETERNITY ON IT. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS NO ONE THERE TO WITNESS IT SO UNTIL SOMEONE SHOWS UP, THERE IS NO WAY I’LL BELIEVE IT. SCIENTIST ONE DAY SAY VITAMIN C WILL REDUCE YOUR RISK FOR CANCER THEN A WEEK LATER IT CAUSES CANCER. THEY ARE SO WISHY WASHY IT’S HARDLY A RESPECTFUL OCCUPATION FOR ME AND I KNOW THEY DO SOME USEFUL STUDIES BUT THEY ARE NOT RELIABLE ENOUGH TO BANK YOUR ETERNITY ON.

NOW YOU ASKED IF I HAD PROOF AND THE ANSWER IS NO. I AM NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE PROOF BECAUSE GOD SAID IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH. THERE IS NO SIGN THERE HE TRIED TO PROVE HIMSELF SO NEITHER WILL I BECAUSE I CANNOT. THIS RELIGIOUS CONCEPT IS ALL BASED ON FAITH. IF I COULD SEE GOD AND PROVE HIM IT WOULD NOT BE FAITH. FAITH IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THINGS HOPED FOR THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN. THEREFORE WE CAN NOT SEE HIM PHYSICALLY BUT ONLY SPIRITUALLY. NOW PHYSICALLY THE HEAVENS DECLARE HIS GLORY BUT HE DID NOT SET OUT TO PROVE HIMSELF, NEITHER WILL I, HE SIMPLY SAID REPENT AND BELIEVE AND THATS ALL HE IS OFFERING. THE HUMANIST SAID TO JESUS “YEAH RIGHT YOU WILL REBUILD THIS TEMPLE IN THREE DAYS”. BUT JESUS WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE EARTHLY TEMPLE HE WAS SPEAKING OF HIS RESURRECTION. THATS HOW MEN WHO ARE LOOKING FOR A SIGN ACT TODAY, THERE ARE NO SIGNS, IT IS WHOLLY FAITH. THIS MEANS I CANNOT PROVE GOD, IT WOULD GO AGAINST ONE OF THE MAJOR DOCTRINES OF MY RELIGION WHICH IS FAITH. OK IT’S YOUR TURN, PLEASE IF YOU CAN, WOULD YOU PRESENT ME WITH SOME EVIDENCE THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE BECAUSE IN MY RESEARCH I’VE NOT SEEN ANYTHING THAT IS WRIITTEN IN STONE TO PROVE TO ME ANY OF IT IS TRUE. I’M NOT TALKING MILLIONS OF THINGS, JUST A COUPLE THAT ARE CONCRETE .THE ONLY THING I BELIEVE IS THAT MICROEVOLUTION IS TRUE BECAUSE I CAN SEE IT, LIKE GRAVITY I BELIEVE IN IT BECAUSE IT IS FAIL PROOF IT IS SOUND, AND MAN WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD WILL BE LIKE NOT BELIEVING IN GRAVITY, IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN GRAVITY AND JUMP FROM A BUILDING YOU WILL STILL BE SUBJECT TO IT AND SO WILL HE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD WILL STILL BE SUBJECT TO HIM. I REMIND YOU ALSO THAT ALL MY LOGIC IS BASED ON BELIEVING IN SOMETHING WHICH HAS CONSEQUENCES. FOR INSTANCE YOU MAY RESPOND BACK TO ME AND SAY MAN WROTE THE BIBLE WHICH I DO NOT BELIEVE, BUT MY POINT IS THAT MY BELIEF HAS REWARDS NOT CONSEQUENCES SO IT DOES NOT MATTER IF I AM WRONG IT ONLY MATTERS IF YOU’RE WRONG.

DEAR FRIEND, I KNOW THAT YOU ARE A SINCERE PERSON BUT IF YOU ARE SINCERELY WRONG IT WON’T HAVE NO MERIT WITH GOD ,WHO IS THE ONE THAT POURS OUT THE CONSEQUENCES.THE BIG BANG HAS ONLY A MODEL THAT SOME MAN BUILT WHICH I UNDERSTAND DID NOT EVEN HAVE THE RIGHT GASES TO DUPLICATE IT, BUT PEOPLE BELIEVE IT AS SCIENCE. I AM SURE THERE IS A MODEL OF NOAHS ARK SOMEWHERE BUT ARE YOU GONNA BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE BECAUSE YOU SEEN A MODEL OF THE ARK? NO I WOULD WANT TO SEE THE REAL THING BEFORE I RISK ETERNITY. WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE ME A GOOD DEFINITION OF SCIENCE. MY DEFINITION IS THAT SCIENCE MUST BE OBSERVED, MEASURED AND TESTED, I WILL DISCUSS THIS MORE AFTER I SEE YOUR DEFINITION AND REBUTTAL.

BACK TO PASCHAL- ORIGINATING -WHICH I DIASAGREE WITH YOU ON. TEST SOME OF THESE SUPPOSED ORIGINATIONS.

1. WHO WAS THE FIRST PERSON THAT DISCOVERED THE EARTH WAS ROUND AND NOT FLAT. 1475 COPRENICUS DISCOVERED THAT, BUT 2000 YEARS EARLIER THE BIBLE DECLARED IT. IS 40:22,JOB 26:7

2. IN 1615, WILLIAM HARVEY MADE A BRILLANT DISCOVERY THAT THE LIFE OF THE FLESH IS IN THE BLOOD AND I CAN CONFIRM THAT BECAUSE I AM ALSO A PARAMEDIC AND IF YOUR BLOOD IS NOT PUMPING ,YOUR BODY IS NOT LIVING. THE BIBLE HAD DECLARED THAT ALSO 3000 YEARS EARLIER IN LEV 17:11.

3. IN THE 1840’s, LORD ROSSE WITH HIS NEWEST INVENTED SUPER TELESCOPE DISCOVERED THE GREAT EMPTY SPACE OVER THE NORTH BUT JOB DECLARED THAT WAY BEFORE LORD ROSSE DID. JOB 26:7

YOU SEE NONE OF THOSE MEN WERE THE ORIGINALS AND THE BIBLE WAS TRUTHFUL IN THOSE THREE THINGS BEFORE MAN WITH HIS EGOTISTICAL SELF STEPPED IN. YOU SEE, I THINK WE WOULD PROBALLY DISCOVER MORE SCIENCE IF WE WOULD GO TO THE BIBLE FIRST TO FIND THE IDEAS. IT IS NOT WHETHER WE CAN PROVE THE BIBLE TRUE, IT’S CAN YOU PROVE IT WRONG. IF THE ABOVE OR BELOW EXAMPLES ARE TRUE THEN THE PART ABOUT JESUS AND HELL MAY ALSO BE TRUE. RESEARCH IF YOU LIKE, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE JESUS AND THE PARTS ABOUT HELL ARE TRUE AND IT WILL SAVE YOU ALOT OF TIME. I AM JUST AS CONVICTED THAT I AM RIGHT AS YOU ARE THAT YOU ARE RIGHT SO DO NOT HOLD THIS AGAINST ME OR MISUNDERSTAND THAT I AM BEING SARCASTIC BECAUSE I AM NOT, IT’S JUST THAT JESUS IS MY STORY AND I AM STICKING TO IT.

OTHER EXAMPLES

4. WHAT ABOUT THE UNDER SEA CURRENTS THE BIBLE TALKED ABOUT WAY BEFORE MATTHEW MAURY DISCOVERED IT AS A MATTER OF FACT HE READ IT IN THE BIBLE AND THEN WENT TO DISCOVER IT, THIS IS WHAT I CALL A SMART SCIENTIST. PSALM 8:8

5. THE ATMOSPHERE HAS WEIGHT JOB 28:25, THEN THIS WAS DISCOVERED IN THE 1600’s BY GALILEO?

6. I KNOW YOU WILL RUBUKE THIS BUT THE UNIVERSE IS RUNNING DOWN BY THE 2nd LAW OF THERMO DYNAMICS PS 102:25-26. NOW I KNOW ATHEIST DO NOT AGREE WITH CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST ON THIS, BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN ONE PROVE IT WRONG YET.

7. TRILLIONS OF STARS IN OUTER SPACE, SEE GEN 22:17 AND JER 32:22.

8. THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING PS 104:2 ISA 42:5 IS THIS TRUE THAT OUR WHOLE SOLAR SYSTEM IS BEING HURLED INTO OUTER SPACE AT 600,000 MILES PER HOUR, THE BIBLE DECLARED IT.

9. WHERE DID THE DAY NIGHT CALENDER COME FROM? I’LL GO ON THE LIMB HERE AND SUGGEST THAT MAN TOOK THIS IDEA FROM GEN 1 IT HAD BEEN DECLARED.

10. IT SHOWS US THERE ARE WATER FOUNTAINS UNDER THE OCEANS , SEE JOB 38:16,PRO 8:28.

11. IT SHOWS US THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE OF WATER ECCL 1:7, GALILEO DISCOVERED EVAPORATION AND CONDENSATION OF WATER IN 1630.

12. IT SHOWS US LIGHT CAN BE PARTED JOB 38:24. WHITE LIGHT WHILE PASSING THRU THE PRISM CAN BE SEPERATED INTO SEVEN COLORS. THIS WAS NOT DISCOVERED UNTO 1600’s.

13. IT SHOWS US HOW THE SUN IS THE SOURCE OF THE EARTH’S WIND SYSTEM JOB 38:24. MIND YOU ALSO THAT JOB IS ONE OF THE OLDEST BOOKS IN THE BIBLE.

14. IT SHOWS US THE WINDS DO BLOW IN CIRCUIT ECC 1:6

15. IT SHOWS US THE PRACTICE OF CIRCUMCISION ON THE EIGHT DAY.

GOD KNEW THAT BLEEDING WOULD BE MINIMIZED IF CIRCUMCISION WAS DONE ON THE EIGHT DAY. PROTHROMBIN IS MADE IN LIVER AND BECOMES WELL DEPLETED AND DOES NOT REPLENISH UNTIL THE EIGHT DAY.

ALL THAT IS PROOF ENOUGH TO ME.

NOW THE BIBLE SAYS THAT ALL THINGS WILL YIELD BY SEED AFTER IT’S OWN KIND. DO YOU HAVE PROOF THAT ANYTHING EVER TURNED INTO SOMETHING ELSE, FOR INSTANCE HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A MAN TURN INTO AND APE OR VICE VERSA, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A PLANT TURN INTO A CAT? I DO NOT THINK ANYBODY HAS EVER SEEN THIS PHENOMENON. WILLIE BEE, WAS A WELL KNOWN APE IN THE ATLANTA AREA HERE WHERE I LIVE, BUT HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN APE. THEY SAY THAT ALL THESE MACROEVOLUTIONARY THINGS HAPPENED BUT HOW COME THEY ARE NOT FINDING MORE OF THESE CREATURES THAT ARE HALF AND HALF. RIGHT NOW AND MAYBE YOU CAN AT LEAST GIVE ME A BETTER ILLUSTRATION, BUT RIGHT NOW THIS IS HOW I SEE EVOLUTION: I SEE A EXPLOSION HAPPENING AT THE FORD PLANT WITHOUT THE NECCESSARY FIRE TETRAHEDRON AND PIECES OF METAL FLYING ACROSS THE SKY AND LANDING IN MY DRIVEWAY ASSEMBLING THEMSELVES INTO A BRAND NEW 3001 ( I MEAN 3000 FOR METAPHORIC ADVANCEMENT, WHICH THE HUMAN BODY REFLECTS AN ADVANCED MACHINE) MUSTANG CONVERTIBLE. HARDLY! NOW AT THIS POINT YOU ARE PROBALLY THINKING NOW I KNOW THIS GUY IS IGNORANT OF EVOLUTION, BUT I WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT I HAVE READ COUNTLESS HOURS ON EVOLUTION AND THEY DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING OUT MORE THAN DR BOTTLESTOPPER SAYS IN THE SCIENCE FIELD TODAY THAT “HE THINKS THAT WHAT MAY HAVE HAPPEN BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO IS THAT THERE WAS A BIG BANG. I NEED MORE THAN SOMEBODY THINKING, I THINK I CAN SING BUT THERE WILL BE ALOT OF PEOPLE WHO WILL DISAGREE WITH ME, SOMEBODY WROTE A COUNTRY SONG CALLED “THIS AIN’T NO THINKING THING” AND THAT’S RIGHT IT IS NOT A THINKING THING BECAUSE ETERNAL LIFE IS AT STAKE HERE. THERE IS TWO PEOPLE AND I DON’T MEAN ALL BUT MOST SCIENTIST AND THEOLOGIANS ARE TO SMART FOR THEIR ON GOOD. THEY WOULD RATHER USE THEORY,S THAN COMMON SENSE.

FOR INSTANCE OUR BASEBALL COACH HERE BOBBY [name deleted by Blair] MAKES ME SO MAD WHEN HE PINCH HITS A BATTER TO BAT AGAINST THE OPPOSITE HAND PITCHER, THERE HAS BEEN MANY CLUTCH HITS FROM RIGHT HAND BATTERS AGAINST RIGHT HAND PITCHERS, THE COMMON SENSE THING ALWAYS COME THRU. FOR INSTANCE IT’S COMMON SENSE FOR ME TO SPELL THRU THIS WAY BECAUSE IT’S LESS TYPING AND THE POINT IS STILL CLEAR. WHEN ARE WE GONNA QUIT LETTING STATISTICS AND THEORY’S RULE THIS PLACE.

STATISTICS ARE STATISTICS BUT COMMON SENSE IS THE WAY. IF THIS IS TOO MUCH INFO FOR ONE ROUND PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND I WILL SHORTEN IT. ALSO I HOPE TO CONTINUE THIS DIALOGUE WITH YOU BECAUSE MY GOAL IS NOT TO CONVERT YOU ALTHOUGH IT WOULD ANSWER ONE OF MY PRAYERS, BUT ONE OF THE PURPOSES IS TO DEBATE OPPONENTS OF MY BELIEF SO THAT I WILL BE FORCED TOO DIG DEEPER AND MATURE MY KNOWLEDGE AND FAITH. IF YOU EVER HAVE TROUBLE SENDING A REBUTTAL TO [email address deleted by Blair] BECAUSE OF THEIR TECHNICAL ISSUES AND THEY HAVE BEEN HAVING ALOT OF THEM WITH EMAIL THEN MY ALTERNATIVE AND MORE SECURE SERVICE IS AOL. I WOULD PREFER YOU MOVE THIS WHOLE DEBATE TO CASE SENSITIVE [email address deleted by Blair] IF IT IS NOT TOO MUCH TROUBLE, IF IT IS WE CAN STAY HERE ,THAT WILL BE FINE, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE NOT DEPENDABLE JUST CHEAPER. IF YOU CARE TO, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LOOK UP PROVERBS 1524 IT IS MY FAVORITE VERSE. BUT BE SURE TO LOOK IT UP IN THE KJV. ALSO IF YOU LIKE, I WILL GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY I SAID KJV WHICH WILL BE A RATHER LENGTHY EMAIL. ALSO IF YOU WOULD CARE TO KNOW MY DENOMINATION AND MY MAJOR BELIEFS LET ME KNOW ON YOUR NEXT REBUTTAL AND I WILL GLADLY TELL YOU. BUT I WILL LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN BUSH I AM A REPUBLICAN AND I TOTALLY 100% AGREE WITH SHAWN HANNITY. THANKS LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR REBUTTAL. I AM SENDING THIS TO THE FRIEND THAT REFERRED ME TO YOUR SITE TO KEEP HIM INFORMED OF OUR DIALOGUE AT HIS REQUEST I AM SURE YOU DO NOT MIND. THANKS

Response to Terry #002:

TERRY: “WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE BIBLE? DOES IT CONTAIN ANY TRUTH OR DO YOU THINK THE WHOLE THING IS A FAIRYTALE?”

There is some truth in the Bible. It is obvious that the Bible mentions historical figures and places – as most works of fiction do. The fact that the Bible contains such references does not validate the book in its entirety. It is obvious that a lot of the Bible is mythology intertwined with historical references to put things into perspective for the reader. This is a common practice for all fictional works – it allows the readers to immerse themselves into the story better.

There are historically accurate references to legitimate cities, people, and government positions in the book Escape from New York, but that does not make the book a work of non-fiction. These references allow the reader to better imagine the story line and understand the context. If books did not use realistic concepts and reference terms and places that the readers understood, we might as well be reading gobbledygook.

The issue for most Christians is discerning the historicity from the mythology. For example, we know that the Noachian flood did not occur. If we cannot rely on the factuality of this story, then how do we ascertain what in the Bible is factual and what is mythological? How do you discern what is a metaphor and what is historic? This has been a problem for Christian apologists since the years before the Council of Nicea.

What do you take literally and what to you take metaphorically? If we know that parts of the Bible are fictional, how can we trust the rest of it, and more importantly, who decides what is historical and fictional? Obviously, archaeologists have done their part to prove some parts, but they have also dismantled others and proved them false. This, of course, further exacerbates the dilemma for the Christian and Jewish apologist.

TERRY: “CONCERNING PASCHAL, YOUR WEB SITE DID NOT WORK ON THIS LINK, SO I NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU MEANT BY DEFECTS IN THE THEORY.”

Sorry about that. I was in the middle of moving my web page to a new permanent location. Atheism Awareness is now located at Alabama Atheist. The page with Pascal’s Wager is at: What If You Are Wrong?

TERRY: “NOW THIS IS NOT A ENDORSEMENT OF ALL HIS BELIEFS BUT JUST THE PREDESTINATION WHICH I BELIEVE YOU WERE PROBALLY (sic) REFERRING TO WHEN YOU SAID YOU WERE SURPRISED TO SEE CHRISTIANS USING HIS THEORY.”

That is one reason for my surprise at the Christian insistence of using Pascal’s Wager. The other reasons are detailed on the page above, which includes the faults in the theory and the fact that it has been shown to be invalid for hundreds of years.

TERRY: “I DISAGREE WITH YOU THAT HE ORIGINATED THE THEORY BECAUSE I USED IT IN MY OPENING EMAIL TO YOU, I HAD NO IDEA HE EXISTED, BUT LIKE ME, I ASSUME HE TOOK THAT “LOGIC” FROM THE BIBLE WHICH IS TRUE AND I BELIEVE EVERY WORD OF IT IS TRUE AND WAS WRITTEN BEFORE HIS TIME, SO IT COULD NOT HAVE ORIGINATED WITH HIM.”

While Pascal based his wager on the Bible, it is still his wager. The exact wager – the formatting of the “ifs” is his. The use of that argument is known as Pascal’s Wager to this day because he wrote in a way that was familiar with everyone, was easily understandable, and was, in lack of other words, simple. Simple as it may be, that does not preclude it from being seriously flawed. If the wager is biblically based, then the logical conclusion is that the biblical version of the argument is equally flawed.

As to you believing that every word in the Bible is true, I am sure we will get more into that as the debate continues – so there is no point in dissecting such a statement right now.

TERRY: “BUT TO MAKE ALL THAT MORE SIMPLER- EITHER WE ARE ALL GONNA ROT IN A GRAVE AND CEASE TO EXIST OR THERE ARE TWO KIND OF PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO HEAVEN AND THOSE WHO ARE GOING TO HELL.”

You have biased the argument to reflect your specific religious beliefs. There are thousands of religions in the world and not all of them believe in Heaven and Hell. What if the Norsemen were right and we’re all going to Valhalla? What if our final destination is a spirit form? What if our energy at death is transferred to Gaia? When you assume that there are only two kinds of people in the world, you assume such with religious arrogance or ignorance.

TERRY: “SO BASED ON THE TWO BELIEF SYSTEMS YOU CAN CONCLUDE THAT PASCALS (sic) THEORY IS NOT SOMETHING IT TAKES A PHYSICIST TO COME UP WITH , BUT IT’S SO SIMPLE THAT A CHILD CAN UNDERSTAND (A CHILD OLD ENOUGH TO COMPREHEND) IT.”

You have emphasized one of the biggest problems with Pascal’s Wager. The fact that it incorrectly assumes in a two-belief system (hell or no hell) is a major problem that has not been successfully dealt with by any apologist. There is a smorgasbord of beliefs out there and many of them do not believe in a Heaven or Hell. One-third of all the world’s religions are atheistic in nature – meaning they do not believe in a deity, but have a religious system of rites and rituals. Many religions believe that everyone goes to Heaven – that Hell is not a literal place, but simply the idea of being away from the God or Goddess. There are religions that believe Hell is Earth and not a lake of fire and brimstone – and that this Hell is a journey we must all take in order to gain access to Heaven and God.

TERRY: “I THINK AND CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, YOU WOULD PROBALLY (sic) SAY ONE OF TWO THINGS AND THATS (sic) “THAT THERE EITHER IS A GOD OR THERE IS NOT” AND THATS (sic) THE TWO GENERAL BELIEFS IN THIS WORLD, ONE CARRIES REWARDS AND THE OTHER PUNISHMENT LEADING ONE TO THE CONCLUSION IF THERE IS A GOD I MUST BELIEVE OR I DONT (sic) BELIEVE AND TAKE A CHANCE OF BEING WRONG AND FRIEND ETERNITY IS A LONG TIME TO BE WRONG.”

I’m correcting you, because you are wrong. You are correct that there are two types of people in the world: theists and Atheists, but to assert that all theists believe in an afterlife and a system of punishment/reward is incorrect and underlines they biggest problem with Pascal’s Wager. What God do we believe in? What system do we accept in order to gain access to that God? What steps must be taken to ensure access to the God is achieved? When Pascal asks, “What if you’re wrong,” then you should be asking yourself that question, too.

What if you are wrong? Have you studied all the world’s religions to ensure that you are following the correct one? Do you understand that you are a victim of geography and not theological truth?

TERRY: “…FIGURING OUT IF THERE IS A GOD IS THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE FOR A HUMAN, DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT IS THE ONLY BELIEF THAT CARRIES CONSEQUENCES, IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE THEN WHO CARES WHAT HAPPENS AFTER DEATH BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONSEQUENCES THERE, SO THERE IS NO NEED TO SAY IF YOU ARE RIGHT (ATHEISM) THEN THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO ME IS ILL DECAY IN THE GRAVE.SO WHAT?”

Again, you are missing a major portion of belief system out there that believes in an afterlife, but without the consequences. You also have to define afterlife, as many believe that resurrection is an afterlife, others believe that the legacy we leave behind and the memories people have of our time on Earth is the afterlife. The multitude of afterlife-related beliefs is so various that it can make your head swim just trying to sort them into some semblance of categories.

The bigger issue here is why people need the consequences in the first place. There are already man-made consequences to keep people in-line that would otherwise run around recklessly. We have a system of laws and a judicial system to enforce those laws and to help keep a fair balance in the system. We have a moral compass that we use that is not religious based. Almost every society known by anthropologists has developed a moral or legal system based on this moral compass, which is thought to be genetic in nature. In addition to our genetic morality, there is memetic morality, which develops based on our current society. This is where religious morality comes in to play – it doesn’t add anything significant to our genetic morality, but adds laws and rules that don’t make any sense most of them time.

The laws against purchasing liquor on Sunday make no sense whatsoever from a legal standpoint. Laws banning homosexual activity between consenting adults makes no sense whatsoever from a legal standpoint. Laws in Alabama that make the sale of vibrators and “marital aids” illegal make no legal sense whatsoever. The laws that generate from religious morality have nothing to do with morality and everything to do with forcing one religious belief on others – the “morality” in this case is 100% subjective.

Our non-religious laws tend to deal directly with the survival of the species and individual. As a species we react emotionally to the death of one of our own and we go into knee-jerk mode to create laws that will help prevent such a loss in the future. We create laws against driving under the influence, laws requiring children to wear helmets when riding bicycles, laws requiring the use of seatbelts in cars, laws banning the use of cell phones while driving, and many other laws stem from the idea that the survival of the species is important – something that is Darwinian – not religious.

TERRY: “WHAT ONE SHOULD SAY IS THERE ARE THINGS IN THE BIBLE THAT SCARE ME IF IT’S TRUE SUCH AS THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH, WHOSOEVERS (sic) NAME IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE LAMBS BOOK OF LIFE SHALL BE CAST IN THE LAKE OF FIRE, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT CONCERN ME, NOT MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION AND THE BIG BANG BECAUSE THOSE THINGS HAVE NO ETERNAL THREAT TO ME.”

Yes, there are things in the Bible that, if taken literally, are scary. Revelation would make an awesome horror flick if done by a great director with actors that can actually act (no offense to the Left Behind movie (the acting was horrible)). What about all those other religious texts with equally scary things? Why do you believe in the Bible and not the others? Have you read the other sacred texts of the world? To assume the Bible is the only correct answer without reading all the others is a brave decision to make, especially when one is as concerned as you are about “what if you’re wrong.”

Evolution is an external threat to you. Every time that people misuse antibiotics they take the risk of causing the bacteria to evolve. We have so many antibiotics because this has already happened. The misuse of antibiotics in Russian prisons has caused a severe outbreak of tuberculosis that nothing can touch. Inmates receive a six month sentence and it becomes a life sentence because they catch tuberculosis there and die in the prison our just after getting out. Evolution can be a serious threat to humanity.

When the universe starts shrinking you’ll rethink that statement about the Big Bang not being an eternal threat. ;-)

TERRY: “…FOR EXAMPLE BEFORE I WOULD BELIEVE EVOLUTION WHICH HAS NO ETERNAL THREATS I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE IN MY HAND, BECAUSE IT IS NOT GOOD TO TRUST IN MAN, MAN WILL LET YOU DOWN, I WOULD NEED TO HAVE BEEN THERE WHEN THE BIG BANG HAPPENED OR KNOW SOMEONE RELIABLE WHO WAS THERE, BEFORE I BASE MY ETERNITY ON IT. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS NO ONE THERE TO WITNESS IT SO UNTIL SOMEONE SHOWS UP, THERE IS NO WAY I’LL BELIEVE IT.”

Why don’t you hold yourself to the same standards when it comes to God? Man wrote the Bible, so since it is not good to trust man because he’ll let you down, then you should reject the Bible. Since there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus, then, as you hold it to the Big Bang, you should also reject Jesus.

You’re a half-skeptic – you’re skeptical of those things you don’t want to believe in and non-skeptical of those things that you want to believe in. You’re not alone – most theists are that way.

TERRY: “SCIENTIST ONE DAY SAY VITAMIN C WILL REDUCE YOUR RISK FOR CANCER THEN A WEEK LATER IT CAUSES CANCER. THEY ARE SO WISHY WASHY IT’S HARDLY A RESPECTFUL OCCUPATION FOR ME AND I KNOW THEY DO SOME USEFUL STUDIES BUT THEY ARE NOT RELIABLE ENOUGH TO BANK YOUR ETERNITY ON.”

Yes, science makes mistakes. That is the beauty of science – it is self-correcting. A bad hypothesis and bad data cannot stand for long without being bashed by another scientific team. Of course the exact incident you are referring to boiled down to a lab technician that released the study early to the press before the final results were made. This caused the flip-flop that you are talking about with Vitamin C. Of course the media generalized so much that most of the general public still doesn’t really know what happened with the Vitamin C study.

Vitamin C is known to reduce the odds of developing cancer, however, a constant overdoes of Vitamin C (more than you could ever get if you ate a truckload of oranges every day) can have the reverse effect. People don’t listen to the details (assuming the media reports it) and they freak out for nothing.

I don’t bank my eternity on science, though. Even if there were no scientific data for evolutionary biology, I would still find no reason to believe in a god. There is simply no evidence to support the belief in a deity. As you said above, I have to have “evidence in my hand.”

TERRY: “NOW YOU ASKED IF I HAD PROOF AND THE ANSWER IS NO. I AM NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE PROOF BECAUSE GOD SAID IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH. THERE IS NO SIGN THERE HE TRIED TO PROVE HIMSELF SO NEITHER WILL I BECAUSE I CANNOT. THIS RELIGIOUS CONCEPT IS ALL BASED ON FAITH. IF I COULD SEE GOD AND PROVE HIM IT WOULD NOT BE FAITH.”

Do you not see your own contradiction here? You demand “evidence in hand” for the Big Bang and evolution (it does exist, by the way) and yet you disregard that philosophy when it comes to your Bible-God. Why do you not hold your religious beliefs to the same strict standards?

TERRY: “THIS MEANS I CANNOT PROVE GOD, IT WOULD GO AGAINST ONE OF THE MAJOR DOCTRINES OF MY RELIGION WHICH IS FAITH.”

I’m impressed that you are willing to admit this. Most theists contort themselves in every direction in order to “prove” their version of god to me. They twist and turn and perform some of the greatest mental gymnastics possible in order to offer “evidence.” It is this lack of proof or evidence for god that leads me to the conclusion that there is no reason to believe in any god or gods. Faith is irrelevant in my view. It offers nothing tangible, which of course is the nature of faith. I’m not a block of stone – I am malleable. All it takes is for evidence to present itself and I will change my views on the existence of god. I’ve been looking for that evidence all my life and I haven’t found it, seen it, heard of it, tasted it, or felt it. I have done none of these things because, as you state – the evidence is non-existent.

TERRY: “OK IT’S YOUR TURN, PLEASE IF YOU CAN, WOULD YOU PRESENT ME WITH SOME EVIDENCE THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE BECAUSE IN MY RESEARCH I’VE NOT SEEN ANYTHING THAT IS WRIITTEN (sic) IN STONE TO PROVE TO ME ANY OF IT IS TRUE. I’M NOT TALKING MILLIONS OF THINGS, JUST A COUPLE THAT ARE CONCRETE.”

If your “research” has shown you nothing, then you haven’t done much research. The evidence for biological evolution is overwhelming. Creationists have not been able to disprove evolution. All they do is try to poke holes in it and highlight the changes in the theory that have taken place. They highlight these changes as bad things, but they couldn’t be farther from the truth. The very nature of science is to constantly question, evaluate, and look for new facts, which will be supporting evidence or contradictory evidence. When evidence does not fit the theory, then the theory has to be scrapped. Evolution is still holding after all these years of gathering data. There is no contradictory evidence that has toppled the theory.

Here are some resources that I suggest that lay down the evidence in layman terms for the non-scientific.

• Becoming Human
• Evolution by PBS
• Evolution Education by BBC (article no longer available online)
• Evolution Lessons (Indiana State University)
• Evolution Revolution (web page no longer available)
• Human Evolution by BBC
• How Evolution Works
• Human Origins Program (Smithsonian Institute)
• Institute of Human Origins
• Journey into Phylogenic Systematics
• Origin of Life Lessons (Indiana State University)
• Origins Program (NASA)
• Teaching About Evolution & the Nature of Science
• Triumph of Life (Nature)

TERRY: “THE ONLY THING I BELIEVE IS THAT MICROEVOLUTION IS TRUE BECAUSE I CAN SEE IT, LIKE GRAVITY I BELIEVE IN IT BECAUSE IT IS FAIL PROOF IT IS SOUND, AND MAN WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD WILL BE LIKE NOT BELIEVING IN GRAVITY, IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN GRAVITY AND JUMP FROM A BUILDING YOU WILL STILL BE SUBJECT TO IT AND SO WILL HE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD WILL STILL BE SUBJECT TO HIM.”

If you accept that microevolution occurs, then you accept the Theory of Evolution. Creationists have this disturbed image of macroevolution being this massive jump from a dog to a bull. Macroevolution is not a massive jump, but an accumulation of microevolution changes over an extended period.

If you accept that microevolution happens because you can see it, then you already have the evidence that biological evolution is correct. It is the accumulation of microevolution changes that ultimately lead to a macroevolution change in a species or to another species. You’re an evolutionist, after all.

TERRY: “FOR INSTANCE YOU MAY RESPOND BACK TO ME AND SAY MAN WROTE THE BIBLE WHICH I DO NOT BELIEVE, BUT MY POINT IS THAT MY BELIEF HAS REWARDS NOT CONSEQUENCES SO IT DOES NOT MATTER IF I AM WRONG IT ONLY MATTERS IF YOU’RE WRONG.”

But it does matter if you are wrong. Let’s play along for a minute and say there is a god out there that actually cares about humanity and has a place for humans to go when they die – a good place and a bad place. How do you know what god to worship? What if you are worshiping the wrong god and making it upset that you are worshiping a false idol or false messiah? Then you will go to the bad place and face the consequences of your actions in worshiping false gods and messiahs. What if the Hindu is right? What if the Buddhists are right? What if the Pagans are right and the Goddess is very upset at Christians making her a man and not worshiping her?

You have placed all your eggs in one religious basket. You have gambled your eternal soul’s vitality on the ramblings of a single religious text instead of reading all of them and making sure that you’re not wrong. For someone that claims to take such a huge stake on the “what if you are wrong” scenario, you haven’t done much to protect yourself against it. What if you’re wrong?

TERRY: “I AM SURE THERE IS A MODEL OF NOAHS (sic) ARK SOMEWHERE BUT ARE YOU GONNA BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE BECAUSE YOU SEEN A MODEL OF THE ARK? NO I WOULD WANT TO SEE THE REAL THING BEFORE I RISK ETERNITY.”

You are right – I want to see the real thing before I accept the Noachian flood as non-fiction. The fact remains that the evidence is against a Noachian flood. Scores of expeditions and studies have been made of Mt. Ararat and still no Ark has been found. They will never find the Ark because it does not exist and never existed. It’s a fairy tale – a piece of fiction.

You know the story of the Noachian flood is not real. If this is not real – then how can we decipher in the Bible what is fiction and what is non-fiction? What if we are basing our religion on the fiction, while the non-fiction is something we ignore? What if we are practicing the wrong rites and rituals? What if everything we believe is based entirely on fiction? If even a single part of the Bible is shown to be false, then the entire Bible is not trustworthy.

TERRY: “WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE ME A GOOD DEFINITION OF SCIENCE. MY DEFINITION IS THAT SCIENCE MUST BE OBSERVED, MEASURED AND TESTED, I WILL DISCUSS THIS MORE AFTER I SEE YOUR DEFINITION AND REBUTTAL.”

Science is the means of observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Science is restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Science is the means by which we gain knowledge through the experiences we have through observation, identification, etc.

Of course science cannot be left defined by a simple dictionary definition. The definition of science must include the methods and attitudes, if you will, to which the body of knowledge if formed. This would entail the Scientific Method, the many branches of specialization, even the evolution of scientific thought, and the great role that measurement and experiment have on the overall purpose and direction of science and specifically its flexibility, durability, and its ability to self-correct.

TERRY: “1. WHO WAS THE FIRST PERSON THAT DISCOVERED THE EARTH WAS ROUND AND NOT FLAT. 1475 COPRENICUS (sic) DISCOVERED THAT, BUT 2000 YEARS EARLIER THE BIBLE DECLARED IT. IS 40:22,JOB 26:7”

Surely you are joking? Let’s look at Isaiah 40:22 a little more closely, shall we?

Isaiah 40:22 states, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the Earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.” [KJV]

A circle is not a sphere. A circle is flat – a sphere is round, like a ball. A curtain is a flat item that covers a specific area. A tent is pitched on a flat area – not around a sphere. The heavens can only be a tent if the Earth is flat. Otherwise, it’s not like a tent if it is stretched over a sphere. The Isaiah passage confirms that the men that wrote the books of the OT thought the Earth was flat. So what about Job 26:7?

Job 26:7 states, “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the Earth upon nothing.” [KJV]

Again, we see no references to a spherical Earth. Bible study guides say that “stretcheth over the north” means stretching the heavens over the Earth. Why would he stretch the Heavens “over the Earth” if the Earth was an orb or sphere trapped by inertia and the Law of Universal Gravitation? The Earth doesn’t hang, either. Hanging is something you do to a flat item or something that is not in an orbit or planetary plane. The Earth doesn’t just hang there – it rotates on an axis and revolves around the Sun on a steady orbit. How can you even begin to call things like this science?

These are the ramblings of ancient men who did not understand things – who had no science. Now we find modern men, with the ability to use science, resorting to wishful thinking and pulling straws in order to justify their non-scientific belief in creationism. They peruse the Bible looking for any silly thing that will help them justify their beliefs. They justify their beliefs unto themselves, for their feeble efforts do nothing to convince the rest of the world.

It’s interesting to see the different translations of this passage. I check as many translations as I can to see where the variations are. This allows for a better understanding of the passage and a better way to analyze it.

For example:The NIV states, “He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing.”

• The MSG says, “He spreads the skies over unformed space, hands the earth out in empty space.”
• The NLV says, “He spreads out the north over empty waste, and hangs the earth on nothing.”
• The ESV says, “He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth of nothing.”
• The CEV says, “Who hung the northern sky and suspended the earth on empty space?”
• The YLT says, “Stretching out the north over desolation, hanging the earth upon nothing.”

That’s a lot of variety and they mean different things. How do you know which translation is correct? One thing is for sure, based on the Scholar’s Version, the KJV is not to be trusted. James’ translators did not translate from the “original,” they took shortcuts and used existing translations.

Perhaps you would be better to explain the non-scientific aspect of the flat-Earth belief in the Bible? Or perhaps that the Earth is immovable – that it sits still without orbit or axis rotation (such as the suspends in the Job 26:7 verse that you provided). The Earth is immovable as clearly stated in verses like 1 Chronicles 16:30, Isaiah 45:18, Psalm 96:10, etc.

The very statement of “stretching out the heavens” is indicative of an immovable Earth – as the Heavens are stretched over it (instead of the Earth sitting in the vast universe). For example, Job 9:8 and Isaiah 45:12.

The very flatness of the Earth is dictated by the Bible in Daniel 4:10-11, “(10) Thus were the vision of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. (11) The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth.” [KJV]

You cannot see the ends of the earth from a tall tree unless the earth is flat. A spherical earth will not allow this to happen. We see another example of this in the NT when Satan tempts Jesus in Matthew 4:8, “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.” [KJV] Again, you can only see all the kingdoms of the world from the highest mountain if the Earth is flat – not spherical.

Job 38:12-13 talks about shaking the earth from its edges. A spherical earth has no edges. Job 38:14 states that the earth took shape like clay under a seal. When you stamp clay, it creates a flat mold – not a sphere. Clearly the writers of the OT and NT thought the earth was flat – not spherical.

And what of the four corners? Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1 are good examples of the “four corners of the earth.” A sphere does not have corners. And what of the ends of the earth? Job 38:13, Jeremiah 16:19, and Daniel 4:11 are good examples of the “ends of all the earth.” A sphere does not have ends and certainly not an “ends of all the earth,” which is indicative of a flat circle or disc, which is emphasized in Enoch.

TERRY: “2. IN 1615, WILLIAM HARVEY MADE A BRILLANT (sic) DISCOVERY THAT THE LIFE OF THE FLESH IS IN THE BLOOD AND I CAN CONFIRM THAT BECAUSE I AM ALSO A PARAMEDIC AND IF YOUR BLOOD IS NOT PUMPING ,YOUR BODY IS NOT LIVING. THE BIBLE HAD DECLARED THAT ALSO 3000 YEARS EARLIER IN LEV 17:11.”

Leviticus 17:11 states, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” [KJV]

We’ll ignore the fact that the Bible is demanding blood sacrifices upon the altar for a second and look at the “science” of this verse. First off, it was not hard for ancient societies to know that if you lose your blood – you die. Many ancient societies understood this, especially those, like the OT clans, that participated in blood sacrifices.

What is missing is any science. Why is the blood the life of the flesh? What is it in the blood that does that? It was William Harvey that published how the heart pumped blood through the body and returned in his 1628 book An Anatomical Study of the Motion of the Heart and of the Blood in Animals. Harvey didn’t say something non-scientific and simple as, “blood is the life of the flesh.” Harvey used actual science to discover the path that blood took in the veins and arteries. Harvey discovered the process by which blood is oxygenated in the lungs and brought back to the heart for circulation. Harvey dispelled the idea at the time that food was digested in the liver. Harvey was a true scientist that made actual scientific discoveries. If you can find anything scientific like that in the Bible, then we can talk.

TERRY: “3. IN THE 1840’s, LORD ROSSE WITH HIS NEWEST INVENTED SUPER TELESCOPE DISCOVERED THE GREAT EMPTY SPACE OVER THE NORTH BUT JOB DECLARED THAT WAY BEFORE LORD ROSSE DID. JOB 26:7”

As discussed earlier, Job made no scientific discovery at all, especially in light of the different translations. There is no such thing as a “great empty space over the north.” The only way such a statement makes sense is if you believe in a flat earth. We also know that it is not a “great empty space.” There are asteroids, comets, planets, satellites, galaxies, and others. The heavens are far from empty and they certainly are not just above the north.

Rosse actually discovered that it was not a great empty space. His telescope, which was located in Birr, Ireland (then it was known as Parsonstown) was also limited to viewing close to the meridian, so he didn’t discover much “to the north,” anyway. Rosse drew pictures of the Crab Nebula (M1), a spiral nebula (M33, M99, and M101), the Question Mark (M51), and the Owl Nebula (M97).

TERRY: “YOU SEE NONE OF THOSE MEN WERE THE ORIGINALS AND THE BIBLE WAS TRUTHFUL IN THOSE THREE THINGS BEFORE MAN WITH HIS EGOTISTICAL SELF STEPPED IN. YOU SEE, I THINK WE WOULD PROBALLY (sic) DISCOVER MORE SCIENCE IF WE WOULD GO TO THE BIBLE FIRST TO FIND THE IDEAS.”

That’s a pretty bold statement considering that you have offered no science, yet. All you have offered is mythology and fiction.

TERRY: “IT IS NOT WHETHER WE CAN PROVE THE BIBLE TRUE, IT’S CAN YOU PROVE IT WRONG. IF THE ABOVE OR BELOW EXAMPLES ARE TRUE THEN THE PART ABOUT JESUS AND HELL MAY ALSO BE TRUE.”

You’re certainly not off to a good start. So far the only thing you’ve proven is that the Bible is unscientific and full of fiction and mythology and the babbling of men trying to make sense of a world they didn’t understand. Men insisted the Earth was firm and did not have an orbit or an axis. Men who insisted the Earth is a flat and circular plane contained in a dome. The top of the dome was a firmament – the heavens were firm and were setup like a tent over the flat circular plane that the earth was located on. The stars were small objects, as several biblical references talk about the stars falling on the earth (they weren’t talking about shooting stars – but actual stars). The stars were thought to be pinpricks in the firmament of heaven.

TERRY: “RESEARCH IF YOU LIKE, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE JESUS AND THE PARTS ABOUT HELL ARE TRUE AND IT WILL SAVE YOU ALOT (sic) OF TIME. I AM JUST AS CONVICTED THAT I AM RIGHT AS YOU ARE THAT YOU ARE RIGHT SO DO NOT HOLD THIS AGAINST ME OR MISUNDERSTAND THAT I AM BEING SARCASTIC BECAUSE I AM NOT, IT’S JUST THAT JESUS IS MY STORY AND I AM STICKING TO IT.”

You can tell me they are true all you want to, but that doesn’t change the fact that you have no evidence to support your claim. When you are ready to present evidence of their validity, then we can talk. Until then, you are just talking about your faith-based beliefs and are presenting no facts whatsoever.

TERRY: “4. WHAT ABOUT THE UNDER SEA CURRENTS THE BIBLE TALKED ABOUT WAY BEFORE MATTHEW MAURY DISCOVERED IT AS A MATTER OF FACT HE READ IT IN THE BIBLE AND THEN WENT TO DISCOVER IT, THIS IS WHAT I CALL A SMART SCIENTIST. PSALM 8:8”

Psalm 8:8 states, “The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.” [KJV] I take it then that you are suggesting the “paths of the seas” is a reference to currents? Of course we know that ancient civilizations understood that there were currents in the sea. They didn’t know what they were or how they worked, only that a boat will follow a “path” if left on its own accord. They knew that things left the shore and arrived from other places on their shores. However, the fact that it talks about the “paths of the seas” is indicative of the non-scientific nature of the Bible. It is clear that men wrote this that had no scientific knowledge of the oceans.

Let me ask you this. Is your Bible-God so uneducated and moronic that he cannot describe these features? Is he so dimwitted that he must refer to scientific things so elementary and childish, as if he is an uneducated man guessing at the nature of the world and its many environments? Surely an all-knowing god that created the thing he is describing could do better than that?

If the Bible were truly scientific as you claim, you wouldn’t have to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for small morsels to prove your point. You would be able to quote verses that are full to the brim with scientific data. Surely the creator of the world knows how the world works? Why is there nothing specific and scientific? Why are there only things that creationists have to stretch in order to try and prove their point (and fail miserably in the process)?

TERRY: “5. THE ATMOSPHERE HAS WEIGHT JOB 28:25, THEN THIS WAS DISCOVERED IN THE 1600’s BY GALILEO?”

Okay, this one is pretty funny. Job 28:25 states, “To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure.” [KJV]

First off, there is no reference to the atmosphere in this and any statement to the effect that it does is stretching the imagination a lot. What you have to ask is why did the men that wrote Job think the wind had weight? They thought it had weight because it fell from the sky (blew). Something had to make the wind “fall,” so they thought it had weight. Of course real science (meaning not from the Bible) tells us that wind is caused by changes in barometric pressure as the wind if moved from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure.

The wind doesn’t blow because it has weight; it blows because it is conforming to the physical laws, which an area of greater pressure will attempt to stabilize itself by moving into an area of lower pressure. This causes the air to move at variable speeds into the low-pressure area, causing what we feel as wind.

What I just said is science. What the Bible says is mythology and scientific illiteracy. As I said before, one would think that an all-knowing god and the creator of this world would at least know how it works and that weight does not cause wind nor does wind move because of weight.

TERRY: “6. I KNOW YOU WILL RUBUKE (sic) THIS BUT THE UNIVERSE IS RUNNING DOWN BY THE 2nd LAW OF THERMO DYNAMICS PS 102:25-26. NOW I KNOW ATHEIST DO NOT AGREE WITH CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST ON THIS, BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN ONE PROVE IT WRONG YET.”

I can’t figure out how on earth you stretched Psalms 102:25-26 to mean that the universe is running down because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Psalms 102:25-26 states, “(25) Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. (26) They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed.” [KJV]

First off, this is another example of the firmness of earth that we were talking about earlier; how the writers of the OT books thought the earth was motionless (no orbit or rotation on the axis). The “foundation of earth” is a phrase used often in the Bible; it means the earth is solid and steady; it is immovable. God is said to have laid the foundation of the earth and pitch up the tent of the heavens above it. A sphere has no foundation, but a flat and disc-like earth does have a foundation, or as they are often referred to in the Bible, pillars.

The verse is also referring to individuals, not a planet. The use of the word “they” in the verses indicates that the writer is not talking about the planet, but about people. The followers will endure, while the non-believers shall perish.

TERRY: “7. TRILLIONS OF STARS IN OUTER SPACE, SEE GEN 22:17 AND JER 32:22.”

Genesis 22:17 states, “That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.” [KJV]

Jeremiah 32:22 states, “And hast given them this land, which thou didst swear to their fathers to give them, a land flowing with milk and honey.” [KJV]

I’m not sure why you threw Jeremiah in there, as I see nothing to the effect of trillions of stars in the universe. Genesis 22:17 says nothing about trillions of stars in outer space. Genesis, if anything, would lead one to believe that the men who wrote the Bible thought that there were only thousands of stars, which would make sense since they didn’t know that there were trillions of stars in each galaxy and billions of galaxies. The writer is saying that the individual being spoken to will multiply their seed (sperm resulting in children) that will number as the stars in the heavens and the sands of the sea shore. Of course we know this is impossible, a man cannot have that many children even if he got a woman pregnant every second of his life.

This verse, if you use it as “proof” of biblical science, should show you how ridiculous your stretching of this argument is. Of course I know you are not coming up with these arguments. You’re taking them from a creationist web site. Which creationist web page are you getting these far-fetched scriptures from to support biblical “science?”

TERRY: “8. THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING PS 104:2 ISA 42:5 IS THIS TRUE THAT OUR WHOLE SOLAR SYSTEM IS BEING HURLED INTO OUTER SPACE AT 600,000 MILES PER HOUR, THE BIBLE DECLARED IT.”

Psalms 104:2 states, “Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.” [KJV]

Isaiah 42:5 states, “Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; the that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit them that walk therein.” [KJV]

Notice that stretched is used in the past tense? That means that this verse does not support an expanding universe at all. If it did support an expanding universe it would say stretching – not stretched.

Regardless, again we see the reference to a curtain. The curtain is a single piece of cloth that is stretched over something, such as tent or dome-shaped firmament. Funny that you should use Isaiah 42:5, which supports the flat-earth claim of the Bible. An earth that is spread out is flat – an earth that is molded in a ball, now that’s a different story. If you spread butter do you get a sphere? No, you get a flat surface. Thank you for giving us another example of how the Bible claims the earth is flat.

TERRY: “9. WHERE DID THE DAY NIGHT CALENDER (sic) COME FROM? I’LL GO ON THE LIMB HERE AND SUGGEST THAT MAN TOOK THIS IDEA FROM GEN 1 IT HAD BEEN DECLARED.”

The Egyptians had a calendar made up of twelve months and each month had thirty days. The Egyptians added five days in the twelfth month, which causes a ¼ day, per year, shift – meaning that the first month moved until 1,460 year later when it again arrived where it started. The calendar was simple, but it wasn’t very accurate.

The Jews had a calendar that was all screwed up (these are the people that relied on the Tanakh and Torah – precursor to the Christian Bible). The months alternated between 29 and 30 days and they had to add a month about every third year to account for miscalculations. Of course in the long run, they sometimes had to add two months to account for the miscalculations. Obviously, the people that studied what you call the OT didn’t see any foundation for a calendar.

The most sophisticated calendars come from two opposite ends of the globe. The Aztecs developed a calendar that was able to predict the full and new moon, eclipses, and the solstices and equinoxes accurately. On the other side, the Mesopotamians achieved the same thing. The Mesopotamians were using their sophisticated calendar and mathematics to come up with it around 500 BCE.

The idea of separating the months into days was only logical, since the division was obvious celestially by the sun and moon, and the movement of the planets. The Egyptians, Greeks, Mesopotamians, and others all divided their months into sub-divisions (some ten and some seven), which we now call weeks, and their sub-divisions into hours or sub-periods.

The current calendar uses Pagan names. The names of the days originate from the day that a particular celestial object rules the first hours. The names originate from Sun’s day, Moon’s day, Mars’ day, Mercury’s day, Jupiter’s day, Venus’ day, and Saturn’s day. Later Saxon influence changed these names to more recognizable days: Sun’s day, Moon’s day, Tiw’s day, Wotan’s day, Thor’s day, Frigg’s day, and Saturn’s day.

The calendar we use today is the Gregorian calendar, which was designed for ecclesiastical purposes to regulate the ceremonial cycle of the Roman Catholic Church. Of course Gregory was wrong, because we have to add leap years to account for his error. If the Bible were clear on how to fabricate an accurate calendar, you’d think it would have been done long before science came around and resolved the issue.

TERRY: “10. IT SHOWS US THERE ARE WATER FOUNTAINS UNDER THE OCEANS , SEE JOB 38:16,PRO 8:28.”

Job 38:16 states, “Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? Or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?” Proverbs 8:28 states, “When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep.” [KJV]

According to the CCE the phrase is more likely “fountains beneath the sea,” not springs. It also elaborates, “Rather, “the inmost recesses;” literally, “that which is only found by searching,” the deep caverns of the ocean. The John Wesley Explanatory Notes (WES) goes further and says, “Springs – Hebrew for “the tears;” the several springs out of which the waters of the sea flow as tears do from the eyes.”

We’ve heard of these underwater springs from which all water flows before in Genesis 7:11, “…on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.” The “fountains of the deep” or “springs” are references to the Noachian flood. Of course we know from the water cycle that the oceans are not generated from fountains in the deep. The thermal springs discovered with deep submersibles are not water sources, but heated ocean water that has seeped below the sedimentary layer, heated by magma-warmed rocks and then rises as it is heated through thermal vents. These aren’t springs, but regurgitating vents. They are not sources of water, but a place where water is spat back out into the ocean.

The reference to springs is not a reference to thermal vents nor is it to underwater springs where fresh groundwater seeps into the ocean. The reference is to the so-called springs that burst forth with water to cause the Noachian flood along with the opening of heaven to cascade water upon the earth and flood it – killing all inhabitants save a single family led by a drunkard.

The reference made in Proverbs is a reference back to the Noachian flood as well. The strengthening of the “fountains of the deep” was necessary to prevent another Noachian flood, as the Bible-God promised and created the rainbow to sanctify his promise never to destroy all of humanity again.

Speaking of the rainbow, I have a question for your creationist “scientists.” What were the properties of light before the Noachian Flood? How come light did not react to a prism the same way before the Noachian flood as it did afterwards? Was light not composed of different wavelengths of light before the Noachian flood? Were raindrops different so that they did not cause light to breakdown it’s wavelengths and create a rainbow (prism) in the sky? I’ve never met a creationist that can explain that one.

TERRY: “11. IT SHOWS US THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE OF WATER ECCL 1:7, GALILEO DISCOVERED EVAPORATION AND CONDENSATION OF WATER IN 1630.”

Ecclesiastes 1:7 states, “All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.” [KJV]

Okay, this is a good guess, but it’s not science. Again, if your all-knowing creator made the world, you’d think that he could explain the water cycle a little better. Yet the sea is not full is clearly indicative of the writer’s ignorance. The seas are full. Evaporation doesn’t keep the seas from being full – it keeps them from being overfull. The writer is also suggesting that the waters return to the river and makes no mention of evaporation, condensation or precipitation.

All the biblical study guides say that this is a reference to “veins of water” that flow from the sea back to the river beginnings. The writer of Ecclesiastes thought that the water somehow went from the ocean via veins back to the river’s beginning, where it was cycled again. They had no concept of evaporation, condensation, or the water cycle via precipitation and run-off. As one study guide puts it, the rivers and ocean are maintained through subterraneous cavities.

I’ll grant you that the statement is scientific in nature – in that it attempts to explain the environment based on the knowledge of the time. However, what you are trying to assert is that the Bible is 100% scientifically accurate and will guide us in finding scientific progress. You have not shown that to be the case at all. You have given us last straws, stretches of the imagination, and pure fiction and mythology.

Where is the science and knowledge of the creation that one would expect from a creator? Where are the descriptive verses explaining volcanology, plate tectonics, meteorology, oceanography, biology, and other scientific endeavors?

TERRY: “12. IT SHOWS US LIGHT CAN BE PARTED JOB 38:24. WHITE LIGHT WHILE PASSING THRU THE PRISM CAN BE SEPERATED (sic) INTO SEVEN COLORS. THIS WAS NOT DISCOVERED UNTO 1600’s.”

Job 38:24 states, “By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?” [KJV]

How is this any semblance of science or the properties of a prism? The verse is asking how it happens – not explaining how it happens. Societies have long known how light parts (scatters or separates), but what they did not know was how. This is where religion failed and science figured it out – that light is composed of different wavelengths and that a prism can separate them.

However, biblical scholars agree that this verse is not a reference to a prism, but a reference to the diffusion of light – that the light diffuses over the whole earth, seeming to come from one point (which we know is the Sun). This is why there is a reference to the wind there. It’s not a light parting into a prism, but a light parting over the earth as the wind does. Another biblical study guide uses the word “distributed upon the face of the earth.” Another guide says that the reference is to the phenomenon of the wind rising, as does the sun, so that the sun rises and scatters the light upon the earth, causing the wind to come from the east.

Amazing, I was just asking about the properties of the prism and light and how they were different before and after the Noachian flood.

TERRY: “13. IT SHOWS US HOW THE SUN IS THE SOURCE OF THE EARTH’S WIND SYSTEM JOB 38:24. MIND YOU ALSO THAT JOB IS ONE OF THE OLDEST BOOKS IN THE BIBLE.”

You can’t have this one both ways. You just said that the same verse proves a prism. Now, are you going to go with the scattering of light as a prism, or as a source of wind? As I already mentioned above, some study guides suggest a reference to the rising of the sun coinciding with the rise of wind. Religion failed to answer how or why this occurs (notice, as usual, that there is no elaboration and nothing scientific to the verse) and science succeeds in answering the question. The increase in temperature causes heated air to rise, creating a high-pressure area above, and a low-pressure area below, this causes surrounding air to move into the area of low pressure, causing wind. The Bible did not explain this – only reported the coincidence that the rising sun gives rise to rising winds. It is scientific in nature only in the sense that it is reporting an observation, but there is no explanation, which one would expect from a scientific source.

TERRY: “14. IT SHOWS US THE WINDS DO BLOW IN CIRCUIT ECC 1:6”

Ecclesiastes 1:6 states, “The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.” [KJV]

The north and south winds are two prevailing winds in the area of Palestine. It is scientifically inaccurate to say that the south wind turns around and blows north. It is also inaccurate to say that the wind whirls about continually and returns to its circuit (meaning it returns afresh to its point of origin). Where is the science in this statement?

Where is the mention of upper-level winds, jet streams, meteorological patterns that differ in the northern hemisphere from the southern hemisphere? Where is the mention of pressure gradients that cause the wind?

TERRY: “15. IT SHOWS US THE PRACTICE OF CIRCUMCISION ON THE EIGHT DAY. GOD KNEW THAT BLEEDING WOULD BE MINIMIZED IF CIRCUMCISION WAS DONE ON THE EIGHT DAY. PROTHROMBIN IS MADE IN LIVER AND BECOMES WELL DEPLETED AND DOES NOT REPLENISH UNTIL THE EIGHT DAY.”

The eighth day has nothing to do with chemical makeup or hormonal release and everything to do with Hebrew numerology. Many things are done on the eighth day and to say that circumcision is directly related to some scientific reason, is complete nonsense. The eighth day is used for the sacrifice of unblemished lamb and an offering of fine flour and an oil log. The eighth day is used to cleanse offerings by the priests, which may include two turtledoves or two young pigeons.

The seven days prior are referred to as being “under the dam,” and the eighth day is when it is acceptable to make an offering. The foreskin is an offering and it falls under the same guidelines. You must wait seven days “under the dam” before you can make an offering on the eighth day.

Just do a search for “eighth day” using an online or CD-based Bible and you’ll be amazed how many references you find. I was able to find 23 references to the eighth day.

It’s not hard to notice that bleeding occurs less on the eighth day after birth. Anyone with a brain can figure out that if you do circumcision on every day and that less deaths occur on the eighth day, then that should be the day you do circumcision.

The use of the eighth day is ceremonial in nature, as indicated by its use in 23 biblical references. To disregard those other uses (unless you’re suggesting that clotting ability is important in animals as well) and pick out only the one that happens to coincide with a scientific discovery, is ludicrous, at best. Nowhere in the Bible is any mention of the phenomenon of less clotting on that day. Nowhere is any reason given for the use of the eighth day except for its ceremonial reasons, which are religious, based in numerology.

TERRY: “NOW THE BIBLE SAYS THAT ALL THINGS WILL YIELD BY SEED AFTER IT’S OWN KIND. DO YOU HAVE PROOF THAT ANYTHING EVER TURNED INTO SOMETHING ELSE, FOR INSTANCE HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A MAN TURN INTO AND APE OR VICE VERSA, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A PLANT TURN INTO A CAT? I DO NOT THINK ANYBODY HAS EVER SEEN THIS PHENOMENON.”

This is why it is so hard for scientists (real ones) to take creationists seriously. If I had ever seen a man turn into an ape then that would be proof of creation – not evolution. This is a basic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory – that one thing turns into another overnight. It is a series of microevolution changes that culminate into a new species. If we find a plant-cat, then that would be a piece of evidence for the creationists – not the scientists.

Actually, there have been many instances of observed speciation. We see it occur all the time in the microbiology field, especially with bacteria and viruses. Evolutionary science predicted that lower life forms would evolve at a faster rate than higher life forms. This prediction panned out when the microbiology field developed and we started battling bacteria and viruses. It is the mutation and evolution of bacteria and viruses that force the pharmacology field to constantly produce new antibiotics to battle the new mutations of bacteria and new species from constant variations. If evolution weren’t a fact, then we would still be using penicillin instead of all these new powerful antibiotics.

There are two lists of observed speciation online. The lists are not comprehensive (by no means), but it gives you an idea of how often speciation has been observed just in our lifetime alone. You can find these lists at Speciation Observed and Speciation Observed 2.

TERRY: “WILLIE BEE, WAS A WELL KNOWN APE IN THE ATLANTA AREA HERE WHERE I LIVE, BUT HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN APE. THEY SAY THAT ALL THESE MACROEVOLUTIONARY THINGS HAPPENED BUT HOW COME THEY ARE NOT FINDING MORE OF THESE CREATURES THAT ARE HALF AND HALF.”

As I said before, a half-and-half would not be expected under the Theory of Evolution. Macroevolution is not an overnight jump from one species to a new one – it an accumulation of microevolution changes. If you find a cat-dog walking around, then you’ll have proof of creation – not evolution.

There are, however, many transitional species on the earth right now – species that have accumulated many microevolution changes. This will highlight another of the creationist’s misunderstandings of evolution. Many creationists think that when a new species evolves that the old species dies out. This is why we often hear, “If apes evolved into man, then how come apes still exist?” If the old species died out when microevolution accumulated into a macroevolution event, then there would only be one species alive on the planet at any given time. Obviously, that is not the case – but it certainly highlights the ignorance that creationists often have when it comes to the science of evolutionary biology.

To get back to my example, as a species begins to evolve, you can see the intermediaries taking up their niche in the different environments. There is a red fish (the name escapes me right now) that is held in an aquarium at the Environmental Studies Center in Mobile, Alabama. The fish does not swim, even though it has a dorsal fin. The fish walks on its front fins along the rocks. The skeletal structure of the fish’s front fins more closely resembles the bone structure of an amphibian than a true fish, but the rest of the fish resembles the fish structure. This is an intermediary species that found a niche and there was no longer a need to adapt to its environment anymore.

However, continued variations in the genetic code would have caused offshoots of that species. While we can never be sure of its exact evolutionary path (as you pointed out, we weren’t there), we can get a general idea based on genetic variations when we compare that fish to others. The closer a species is to humans, the less genetic variation is expected. The closer a species is to the original species, the more genetic variation is expected.

The Theory of Evolution predicted this, and it panned out when the genetic testing was done. Species that we thought were older turned out to have more genetic variation, and species we thought were newer had less genetic variation. We also found that every species on the planet shares a specific strand of genetic code, which was also predicted – because if we evolved from the same species, we would all have remnants of the original genetic code. In other words, the farther away you get from the original species, the more genetic variation there is.

This is not what one would expect with special creation, unless you’re a “mechanical theist,” whom believes that a creator made the original species and then let evolution go from there. This “mechanic theist” belief is a hands-off approach to the deity – he/she/it created the original life form and then let evolution guide the rest of the process.

TERRY: “RIGHT NOW AND MAYBE YOU CAN AT LEAST GIVE ME A BETTER ILLUSTRATION, BUT RIGHT NOW THIS IS HOW I SEE EVOLUTION: I SEE A EXPLOSION HAPPENING AT THE FORD PLANT WITHOUT THE NECCESSARY (sic) FIRE TETRAHEDRON AND PIECES OF METAL FLYING ACROSS THE SKY AND LANDING IN MY DRIVEWAY ASSEMBLING THEMSELVES INTO A BRAND NEW 3001 (I MEAN 3000 FOR METAPHORIC ADVANCEMENT, WHICH THE HUMAN BODY REFLECTS AN ADVANCED MACHINE) MUSTANG CONVERTIBLE. HARDLY!”

This is a typical strawman argument of creationists. If a Ford plant exploded and a Ford Mustang GTO formed in your driveway from the falling debris, I would claim it a miracle performed by a deity, as it would be proof of creation – not evolution. The attempt to compare obviously intelligently designed items (cars, watches, mouse traps, etc) with biological evolution is totally ludicrous.

Evolution is not the miraculous appearance of a new species overnight, as I have asserted over and over again. Evolution is the gradual change of a species (microevolution) until such changes accumulate that speciation has occurred (macroevolution). This really isn’t a hard concept – I don’t understand why creationists have such a hard time grasping it. I know why they reject it, but I don’t understand why they don’t understand it.

TERRY: “NOW AT THIS POINT YOU ARE PROBALLY (sic) THINKING NOW I KNOW THIS GUY IS IGNORANT OF EVOLUTION, BUT I WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT I HAVE READ COUNTLESS HOURS ON EVOLUTION AND THEY DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING OUT MORE THAN DR BOTTLESTOPPER SAYS IN THE SCIENCE FIELD TODAY THAT “HE THINKS THAT WHAT MAY HAVE HAPPEN BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO IS THAT THERE WAS A BIG BANG.”

No offense, but I thought you were ignorant on the Theory of Evolution long before you gave that example. You have spouted off every ludicrous creationist argument there is. All creationists can do is try to poke holes in evolution because they have no proof that their “version” is a reality. All they can do is mock science, and in a way worship it, by trying to justify their beliefs through bogus science.

Theories are not about “we think,” that is reserved for a hypothesis. When science is in the “we think” mode, it is speculating on a hypothesis. Once the hypothesis is formulated, it is tested and approached from every angle in attempt to disprove the hypothesis. Predictions are made, tests are completed, and data is compiled. If the hypothesis is shattered, then it is tossed and a new one is formulated. If the hypothesis pans out, then additional testing is done and data is accumulated and other teams take a crack at it. When the hypothesis is proven and cannot be disproved, then it becomes a theory.

Even then, scientists constantly attack the theory, because any scientists that can disprove a theory are guaranteed recipients of a Pulitzer Prize in one of the science fields. Scientists have been trying to disprove the Theory of Evolution for over a hundred years and they have not succeeded. Every attempt to disprove the Theory of Evolution only solidifies it more and brings more concrete evidence to light.

Scientists are not bickering over the Theory of Evolution itself – they all know that evolution is a fact. What is still being worked out is “how” evolution occurs – the mechanism of evolution. Creationists see this as a problem with science, but it is the beauty of science. If we stopped researching as soon as someone said, “This is the cause,” then we’d never get anywhere and we’d still be living in the Stone Age. It is the constant endeavor to question and research that is the key to scientific success, not its downfall, as creationists would have the non-scientific believe.

TERRY: “THERE IS TWO PEOPLE AND I DON’T MEAN ALL BUT MOST SCIENTIST AND THEOLOGIANS ARE TO SMART FOR THEIR ON GOOD. THEY WOULD RATHER USE THEORY,S THAN COMMON SENSE.”

That may be your preference, but I would rather that scientists use theories to guide them in their scientific endeavors. I would rather that the scientific process be utilized in order to achieve a better life for mankind. If scientists only used common sense (they do use it by the way, when it comes to testing a hypothesis and theory) then we wouldn’t have all the marvels of technology, the advancement of medical science, the betterment of society, etc. As I said before, the use of the scientific method and science is the reason we are not stuck in the Stone Age.

To be perfectly honest, it is common sense that first directed me away from religion. It was logic and theory that later solidified my common sense approach to religion. Had it not been for common sense, I would still be groveling on my knees and begging forgiveness from an invisible man in the sky. Common sense was my salvation – not a fairy tale about a resurrected savior born from himself to die for himself to satisfy his own desire to burn his creation in a lake of fire if they don’t worship him.

TERRY: “WHEN ARE WE GONNA QUIT LETTING STATISTICS AND THEORY’S RULE THIS PLACE.”

You’re right. Let’s get rid of all the theories and get back to the basics. First, get rid of all your electricity and electronics since they operate on a theory. Then you can forget about that gravity thing – it’s another stupid theory. We don’t need the Theory of Gravity based on the Universal Law of Gravitation to explain why we stay put – it’s common sense – we don’t float away because we are heavy. Of course we can’t say we’re heavy anymore, because that is based on a theory of density.

Oh yeah, no more television or radio, since radio wave propagation is a theory. We can scrap all those silly theories and just run on regular old-fashioned common sense. The common sense that made us use leaches to cure every disease that came across us. The common sense that made women subservient and slaves to men with no rights. The common sense that placed our children to work on farms and plantations as slave labor.

Common sense has gotten mankind into trouble too many times. When common sense is confirmed with reason and logic, then are getting somewhere. That is not to say that people will use twisted logic to justify their common sense (just look at George W. Bush and his twisted logic in order to justify his “common sense”). If everyone is trained in actual logic and taught how to properly reason, we might find ourselves in a better environment.

Common sense has its purpose, but far too often it is subjective. One person’s common sense is another person’s stupidity.

Keep your common sense as your only source of knowledge if you must, but I’ll rely on logic, reason, and the rules of science to verify reality and I’ll base my common sense on that. Too many people use common sense as a base, instead of letting something concrete be the basis for their common sense.

TERRY: “ALSO I HOPE TO CONTINUE THIS DIALOGUE WITH YOU BECAUSE MY GOAL IS NOT TO CONVERT YOU ALTHOUGH IT WOULD ANSWER ONE OF MY PRAYERS, BUT ONE OF THE PURPOSES IS TO DEBATE OPPONENTS OF MY BELIEF SO THAT I WILL BE FORCED TOO DIG DEEPER AND MATURE MY KNOWLEDGE AND FAITH.”

Even if your goal was to convert me, I could assure you right now that you would fail. Perhaps during this dialogue and your endeavor to “dig deeper and mature your knowledge and faith,” it will be you that has a de-conversion? It’s not a prayer of mine, nor is it a hope, but common sense (as you would put it) dictates that it is certainly a possibility.

TERRY: “IF YOU CARE TO, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LOOK UP PROVERBS 1524 IT IS MY FAVORITE VERSE. BUT BE SURE TO LOOK IT UP IN THE KJV.”

Proverbs 15:24 states, “The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.” [KJV]

Why do you insist on using the KJV? Most biblical scholars admit that the KJV isn’t a very good translation of the Septuagint. There are so many translations that your “favorite verse” has several different meanings. Just to give you an idea of how different they are based on how different people translate and what variant they use of the “original text,” let’s take a look at a few.

• NASB (New American Standard Bible): The path of life {leads} upward for the wise that he may keep away from Sheol below.
• HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible): For the discerning the path of life leads upward, so that he may avoid going down to Sheol.
• NLT (New Living Translation): The path of the wise leads to life above; they leave the grave behind. (It should be noted that Sheol is Hebrew for grave – not Hell.)
• GNT (Good News Translation): Wise people walk the road that leads upward to life, not the road that leads downward to death.
• DRB (Douay-Rheims Bible): The path of life is above for the wise, that he may decline from the lowest hell.
• MSG (The Message Bible): Life ascends to the heights for the thoughtful – it’s a clean about-face from descent into hell.
• CJB (Complete Jewish Bible): For the prudent, the path of life goes upward; thus he avoids Sheol below.
• NCV (New Century Version): Wise people’s lives get better and better. They avoid whatever would cause their death.
• GWT (God’s Word Translation): The path of life for a wise person leads upward in order to turn him away from hell below.
• BBE (Bible in Basic English): Acting wisely is the way of life, guiding a man away from the underworld.
• YLT (Young’s Literal Translation): A path of life {is} on high for the wise, to turn aside from Sheol beneath.
• LV (Latin Vulgate): semita vitae super eruditum ut declinet de inferno novissimo.

As you can see, there is a huge variety of the ways they were translated. The use of the word grave instead of hell is more accurate.

 

Terry Rebuttal #003:

THIS IS TERRY, I HAVE BEEN DEBATING YOU AND I NOTICED YOU HAVE POSTED OUR DEBATE, I LOST YOUR REBUTTAL WHEN MY COMPUTER WAS REBOOTED, THANKS TO YOUR WEB SITE I NOW HAVE IT AGAIN THANKS. WILL RESPOND ASAP (REBUTTAL).

I am stil waiting for his “ASAP” rebuttal…