Christian answers to the Atheist Bible: Presupposing your beliefs (page 2)

Rex

Thanks for the dose of reality, Forsher!

Rex

>> My experience is that evolutionists do much the same thing. They start out with the position that there is no creator other than pure chance and work to prop up that position. That is not science either.

I guess your experience is pretty limited because there are people who accept Evolution and believe in God. Whoah - there goes your whole presupposition argument! :)

rem

Kaput

Rex;

If you keep searching for truth, what you will find may surprise you. However, if you're content to accept the status quo, then you'll never see the jack-in-the-box.

stillajwexelder

Galileo's persecution has absolutely no comparison to my post. You are talking about apples and oranges. His theory was proven and the Catholic Church leadership was wrong, not scripture..... The Catholic Church interpretation of scripture was wrong - and hence it can be the same today - a christian (any denomination not just JW) CAN BE WRONG. So I submit to you that Galileo's persecution has absolutely everything to do with your post

Rex

Hi Tdoggy,

>Funny that the Bible itself is just a BIG stack of presuppositions. I don't know what the "Atheist Bible" is but "The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories" is a good place to start.

It is good in an amateur way. It is probably very good for this discussion forum. I hate(well, not really) to tell you this.....every facet of every chapter has been 'debunked' in apologetics literature. The Church has been defending itself ever since the beginning when the Jews tried to claim that the body of Christ has been stolen, despite the stone sealed and guarded by soldiers who were under the penalty of death.

Now as far as scientific discoveries, this is constantly changing and in the midst of change there is about as much uncoerced agreement (gotta have 'tenure' and only the higher up prof's can give it!) as you'll find at a psychiatrist convention!!! LOL
If an alleged 'fact' of science contradicts the Bible then all of the evidence isn't in or the presupposition is wrong to start with.

Rex

rem

>> If an alleged 'fact' of science contradicts the Bible then all of the evidence isn't in or the presupposition is wrong to start with.

LOL What was it that Jesus said? Eye, rafter, needle, shut the hell up.

rem

ezekiel3

The Church has been defending itself ever since the beginning when the Jews tried to claim that the body of Christ has been stolen, despite the stone sealed and guarded by soldiers who were under the penalty of death.

Oh, I forgot about that one...you've convinced me.

the_classicist

Galileo showed facts" - but was nearly burned at the stake beacuse it was alleged it contradicted the bible

The real debate was between Aristotlean and Copernican astrology and the real problem lay with Galileo proclaiming Copernican astrology to be truth without sufficient evidence.

He even published a book in the vernacular stating that it was truth. Now books in the vernacular weren't for the learned, but the common masses. It's like coming up with a new scientific hypothesis without even submitting it for peer review (all of which was done in Latin).

You have to remember, there were people, scientists even, who didn't like Copernican astrology. It just happened that these were in the Inquisition.

But Galileo did have some friends, like the Pope (Urban, not the one before) and St. Robert Bellarmine (a powerful cardinal) who said:

"I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated."

Terry

1.Evolution tells us that that which works best survives. Hence, success at existence conforms with how things in nature co-operate to exist. KNOWING has nothing to do with it. Mozart was a helluva composer at an extremely early age. He was not born KNOWING music. His manner of listening and doing worked, however, to create music which was itself "informed" by great orderliness and form.

2.Logic is the art of noncontradictory measurement. When you measure something in nature (reality) you use a standard that serves to represent that reality in a transformed state (numbers, words, etc.) The standard is invented to serve the very purpose of measurement. Ad hoc. When religious descriptions are employed to represent super-reality (i.e. imagined reality) THERE ARE NO REFERENTS! You cannot point to the imperceptible. Consequently, all religious discussion is metaphor pretending to be data!

3. Misunderstanding the nature of CONCEPTUAL representatioan of imagination leads to BELIEF. Positing the operations of an invisible deity and then losing track of the fact it is only a POSIT is the basis of all religions.

4.Insisting the potential objectivity of God is the same as the ACTUAL objectivity of God is the first clue the believer has fallen into the hole he dug for himself.

Atheism is belief just as religion is belief. THERE MUST BE DATA to confirm one's logic for a person to KNOW something. If one must rely on metaphor, analogy and authority to bolster one's claims the foundational belief is supposition.

Presupposition is when you lose track of your suppositions before you begin linking your chain (of facts or metaphors.)

T.

ezekiel3

If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

Welcome to elementary philosophy.

There is nothing wrong with shedding our presuppositions. In fact there is no better way to really discover our existance.

Ham seems obessesed with this concept of presupposition, to the extent that it becomes a rationale for his own preconceptions and prejudice for anyone who isn't a fundamental Christian. He betrays all in this statement:

A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30)

A glaring generalization backed up by the...Bible?

Now I happen to be an agnostic. My primary directive is not to assume, not to presuppose. I also am a "non-Christian".

This makes me 'non-neutral' to a Christain, only because the Christain is polarized, not me.

Sure there are biased scientists on both sides of this issue. But the principle below stands on bedrock and keeps Christains and other fundies warm in their cloaks of presupposition:

Religion assumes something and tries to prove it.

Science assumes nothing and tries to disprove it.

Christian answers to the Atheist Bible: Presupposing your beliefs

Share this