Bonky

That's very much how I feel, pretty indifferent to whether there is a God or not. Whatever is true, is true no matter what I believe. So for me the idea that any God is worried about what I believe seems odd. I don't bat an eye at deism, but theism is just something I can't wrap my mind around.

It would depend on the Atheist. Many Atheists turn to Jesus every day. There are two types of Atheist - those who simply don't believe and those that don't want to believe (they have already rejected God). Your comment would apply to the latter. The former group are merely seekers who haven't found yet. It's nice to see a sensible comment like this one. On the other thread they were essentially stating that all atheists are liars.

I have to admit I agree with you here...which is why I am no longer a believer. I refuse to hold a world view that states that my assessments of religion or philosophy can't be wrong. After much studying, reading and thought...I was persuaded that the Bible is not the word of God and changed my views. I could have just maintained my course and refused to allow anything to change my mind, but that's not how my mind works.

most people on earth die anyway - they have no hope in Christ Jesus, even though they have 'religion'. Religion deceives them, lets them think they are somehow okay or all that they can be as far as life is concerned. It doesn't save them, but tells them they are saved (see the 1.7 billion souls lost in the rcc this way - best worse example in the world; nuns and monks think their saved by their religion and that their religion somehow can help others; TOTAL LIE) .. but their RELIGION tells them it's OKAY. unless they find the one true God, by His grace in Yeshua, they die in their sin - nothing , nothing, not anything in the roman abomination produces life or forgives sin. it exponentially increases sin on earth, death to many souls, destruction of many lives and families. and this is today, right now, and it is increasing its power, deceiving/ committing fornication with all the leaders of all the governments on earth, forming an alliance by and with satan's power and deception...... total evil. "They have no hope in Jesus Christ..." Hope for what? Eternal life right?

The big difference is that while we fallible and mortal human beings can be wrong about things, God who is immortal, invisible, the only wise God, who is also infallible, CANNOT be wrong about anything. It is God who has given us the account of the Flood, and even if there was absolutely no physical evidence, His account would hold true because of who He is. So as a fallible mortal human being you can be wrong about your assessment that the Bible is the word of God to begin with. Just as a side, are you saying there is more than one God?

Depending on the claim, I very well may need evidence. It's what keeps me from buying beachfront property in places like Arizona. And what would you accept as evidence? Regarding Noah's flood? Evidence for a single catastrophic flood event that occurred roughly 4400 years ago. Considering that so few creatures survived I would expect to see evidence of fairly recent genetic bottlenecks in pretty much every species on the planet. If we also include young earth timelines then I would not expect to find much sorting in the fossil record but a jumbled mess of every creature you can think of. I would think that most sediments would be in the ocean floor rather than on the continents, wouldn't drainage push the sediments into the oceans? So it's not so much about what evidence we have in support, I think the bigger problem is the sheer number of facts that seem to call the claim into question.

Depending on the claim, I very well may need evidence. It's what keeps me from buying beachfront property in places like Arizona.

Shiloh you said: That's my point... Even in the things about the Bible that we understand more fully, we are still operating from a deficit of knowledge and understanding. We can read the Bible and generally make sense of it, but there are parts that we either see and don't understand or perhaps we don't see at all just now. It is a gradual unfolding process. I don't think he is saying that we know the Bible perfectly, but can't understand science as perfectly. But yes, the Bible is never wrong. We may not understand it, but the Bible is inerrant and infallible meaning it's claims are never wrong. Our understanding of those claims are imperfect and thus we are imperfect in how we communicate them and understand them, but the Bible is never wrong and will continue to be vindicated. I don't know how you can go from admitting that we have a deficit of knowledge and understanding of scriptures but then follow up with "the Bible is never wrong". The fallacy that Rehwinkle is engaging in is special pleading. He doesn't provide justification for why he [and others] is exempt from error when it comes to assessing biblical claims. I understand we have different assumptions that we work with, different world views. I just don't agree with proclaiming one world view is fraught with errors meanwhile assuring all that your starting point is error free. It doesn't work like that.

What I would want to ask Rehwinkle is why the "see as through a glass darkly" applies to the natural sciences but not his conclusion that Holy Scripture is divine and infallible. He essentially spends several paragraphs encouraging people to always choose scripture over science if they ever butt heads. So we're faulty and imperfect when it comes to drawing conclusions from scientific findings....but just not to the scriptures. That doesn't hold water if you ask someone like me. There are explicit claims in the Bible that support our views that the Bible is both of divine origin (and internal evidence to support that claim) and that the Bible is infallible with regard to its teachings. Even in those more explicit claims we do see through glass darkly, albeit not as much as in other parts of the Bible, which are still a mystery to us, such as the area of eschatology. There are things about God revealed in the Bible that we still don't completely understand. So it is not the case that don't see through a glass darkly with regard to Scripture. But there are things about which we are more enlightened about than others. Right, and your ability to process these claims and conclude that the Bible is divine or infallible is what I'm calling into question. Why is that any different than processing scientific claims in terms of possibly being wrong? The claim being made by Rehwinkle, the Bible [apparently] and many other Christians is that we're incomplete, fallen, imperfect, prone to err humans....why doesn't this apply to all things that we evaluate then? That is the crux of my challenge. He actually states in the book that it's impossible for the scriptures to be wrong. That's is one heck of a pronouncement from someone that cautions us about how easily we can be wrong about things.

So if Muslims try to install Sharia law in your area are you saying you won't say a thing because you don't believe their God exists? Kim Davis is a perfect example of what non religious Americans face, there's a reason why we pay attention to evangelicals. The Catholic church has been telling Africans to not use condoms and the results have been horrible. We may not believe in their God but we certainly believe that their followers exist. I don't spend any time fighting any gods, but yes I am interested in what the followers are doing because it impacts the society I live in.

From the book.... What I would want to ask Rehwinkle is why the "see as through a glass darkly" applies to the natural sciences but not his conclusion that Holy Scripture is divine and infallible. He essentially spends several paragraphs encouraging people to always choose scripture over science if they ever butt heads. So we're faulty and imperfect when it comes to drawing conclusions from scientific findings....but just not to the scriptures. That doesn't hold water if you ask someone like me.

I saw this on facebook and thought it was bizarre. I've NEVER seen an atheist bother someone for praying at a restaurant or whatever. Above and beyond that, I've gone to Church on numerous occasions because my religious friend(s) were having some kind of ceremony or special event [bowing my head no less when they prayed]. As you can see in the comment section people are responding to this as if it's a common occurrence. We could use less division in our society not more, I'd expect more from those who claim to be of high moral standards.

many people think that but Noah came before the author of the gigamesh epic thus it was th latter who copied from the former I'm just going off of what I read based on various resources that state the epic was one of the earliest known examples of writing [2000bc or so]. I found Christian resources that put the writings in Genesis to be around 1450bc.

Kan you said I don't think I follow with your first statement, you lost me. I wouldn't say that we're brighter today, but our understanding of the natural world has certainly increased. When we observe primitive tribes in places like Papua New Guinea, we do see a tendency for people to resort to supernatural explanations more readily. It's not that they're stupid, it's that they're not educated. They live and survive in a jungle with little to no access to education, other than what they hand down from one generation to the next. So I don't think the Israelites were dumb, but I don't see why some of their writings couldn't have been influenced by neighboring cultures. As a matter of fact the Bible makes it very clear that they had that exact problem, incorporating pagan beliefs into their household. It got to the point where YHWH had to tell them to stop marrying pagan women!

Most likely, Atlantis refers to the pre-flood world, not some mythical kingdom. Whomever told Plato the story most likely embellished the information but sadly too many modern people take the ancient's writings as gospel truth instead of placing them in the correct categories covering the literary world. Scientists can explain many things but that doesn't mean they are correct I assume you mean unless the ancient writing is in the Bible? Many folks think the Genesis flood account is a variation of an earlier story the epic of gilgamesh.

Nothing you stated above is true. Muslims do NOT believe in the same God as Christians and Jews; they believe in a nonexistent god and are, therefore, atheists (which literally means without God.) Finland, Sweden and Germany have very low Christian and Jewish populations but they're are not atheist countries. What constitutes an atheist country? In 2010 only 18% of Swedes declared that they believe in a God according to a poll by Eurobarometer. You're never going to get a country that has no citizens that believe in God.

Shiloh, historically when people are polled on how they view atheists, they are one of the least trusted members of our society. There was a poll that I saw that had us almost dead last, the Muslims beat us. Imagine a Presidential candidate that said he was an atheist, do you really think he or she would have a shot? I think we're going in the right direction to fix this however. I don't know of any atheists trying to ban all public expressions of faith. Using government property and funds to do so yes, but not just regular people having a bible study in the park or something. I'm not trying to suggest that atheists are beat up or attacked, but people seem to think that if someone doesn't believe that there's a God watching everything they do then they must be suspect and untrustworthy. I don't care if someone wants to worship the moon or a tree, just don't use tax payer money to put up an idol on a courthouse lawn.

I appreciate what you're saying Morning, I was just responding to a post that [to me] sounded like atheists don't believe in God so that they can not be held accountable for their actions. My point was that it doesn't appear that by believing in God that people are holding themselves to some incredible moral standard. I know Christians are human, I'm actually good friends with my boss, he's a good man. It's just odd to see that Bible on his desk and yet see him ignore it when it's convenient. In America anyway, I really don't see the Christian life as much different than mine. The views are different, but not the lifestyle.

So if someone doubts that bigfoots are tromping around in our forests, they are actually confirming that they really....deep down, believe that they are? Obviously not, but in keeping with Kan's "atheist church analogy," it would be like the creation of an anti-big foot society along with a mandatory statement of "unbeliefs". When you consider how atheists are treated or viewed you might understand why they would form a church or support group. I used to go to a UU church to have that Sunday morning connection with folks who had similar values that I hold. I imagine these churches are similar. I would highly doubt they spend much time helping each other affirming their disbelief in gods. Support groups for Atheists, I can understand. But a church? Why would they even call it a church if they didn't hold a deep-seated need to worship something or have a common belief in something? The truth is, Atheists believe that when you are dead you are dead. Living such an empty existence is like being on an extended version of death row. I've heard the expression 'dead man walking' to describe an Atheist. It certainly seems very apt. My guess is that they're borrowing the word because of what they're trying to give their members, a place to gather and connect with their community -- minus the worshiping of a diety. If an atheist church sprung up in my area I doubt that I would go. Like I mentioned earlier, I went to a UU church years ago and we weren't worshiping anything and yet it was a "church". Why go antique shopping with your mother, why go golfing with your friends, why go camping with your sister? None of these earthly weekend activities have eternal significance and yet we do them anyway. You give your own life meaning while you have it.

So if someone doubts that bigfoots are tromping around in our forests, they are actually confirming that they really....deep down, believe that they are? Obviously not, but in keeping with Kan's "atheist church analogy," it would be like the creation of an anti-big foot society along with a mandatory statement of "unbeliefs". When you consider how atheists are treated or viewed you might understand why they would form a church or support group. I used to go to a UU church to have that Sunday morning connection with folks who had similar values that I hold. I imagine these churches are similar. I would highly doubt they spend much time helping each other affirming their disbelief in gods.

My boss is a devout Christian and yet I am occasionally disappointed with how he handles himself. He's willing to lie in order to cover up what would be issues if people were aware of them. He has more than once gone back on what he promised and didn't even bother to apologize or even discuss it. I don't see a correlation with a belief in God and good behavior. Aside from this, one could admit that there is likely a creator of our Universe and not necessarily feel that this creator cares how we act.

So if someone doubts that bigfoots are tromping around in our forests, they are actually confirming that they really....deep down, believe that they are?

This is a waste of time for non believers, I don't know why they bother. Even if you come across very clear contradictions, that doesn't necessarily raise any issues. I've seen people define "infallibility" to mean that the Bible accurately records what was done or said. So if someone mispoke in some way one could still view the Bible as infallible because it accurately recorded their statement. So I don't see the point of atheists etc coming up with these contradictions...it's too easy to resolve them.

What you should ask yourself is, prior to having these instruments would it have been reasonable for someone to doubt that elephants can talk to each other a mile away?

I think part of this thread got deleted somehow?