Christianity isn't a series of teachings or propositions it is a personal relationship with the teacher. As a relationship it is properly grounded in the love & trust engendered by the revelation of the character, authority, & personality of the teacher.

There is all the difference in the world between a propositional belief and a personal one. "I believe the world is round' is a lot different than "I believe in my wife". You got that difference part right for the wrong reasons so you actually compare apples & oranges.

How does one quote evidence? Evidence does not speak for itself. Evidence has to be interpreted. Ones worldview influences how the evidence is interrupted.

How does one quote logic?

Are we suppose to accept Mr. Dawkins authority, or his revelation? says who? I could quote Mao, Stalin, Lenin Pol Pot Hitler, Marque de Sade or any other person and it would be as equally valid as Mr. Dawkins beliefs.

Mr. Dawkins fails to tell us what that difference is or why it should matter in his meaningless, random universe. if we are just meaningless pond scum then who cares whether someone rapes, murders, steals, is intolerant, deals drugs to kids, etc etc.

I mean the intolerance of the fundamentalist humanists is appalling.

Keep your fundamentals to your self.

Humanists need to learn to differentiate between opinion and conviction. An opinion is merely a preference in a continuum of options. A conviction is rooted in the conscience and cannot be changed without changing that which essentially defines the person. In a pluralistic culture, an opinion should not be given the same passion as the weight of a conviction. ~Ravi Zacharias

Never the twain shall meet.

If you didn't believe there was a God before and you placed your faith in (hu)mankind, this is the best "God Help Us, Switch Now!" marketing effort ever produced!!

How can seemingly intelligent people create something so laughably bad? These ads border on being completely incoherent, not to mention, unbelievably ineffective. I mean, c'mon the dots hardly connect?

In short, this kind of logic defies, well, logic.

And these ads are horribly produced -- especially the print ads. Really, I have to ask, these are the best Humanists can offer? Isn't there a Humanist out there with a "more money than God" trust fund?

Okay, I'll just be nice now and stay completely away from why they're quoting Einstein and Hepburn in the same campaign? (Whose next, Madonna and Mao?)

Ultimately, I just want to ask the people who made these ads this simple question: I understand why it is hard to believe in God because it requires faith. But, after studying the history of (hu)mankind, how can you place so much faith in us?

Especially the bozos that created and produced this stuff?

chris king said:

> I would like to hear you give an account
> ethics/morals.
> An amoral material universe cannot give rise
> to morality
> in any real sense. Morals are just personal
> conveniences.


People who believe in gods just bow their heads and accept the commandments imposed from above, however absurd and incomprehensible.
It's the godless that need moral laws if they want their society to survive, starting with "Don't do unto others ...". And, yes, this is a personal convenience. A sensible one.

Granted, religions tend to incorporate the morals of the societies that created them and, as such, may be better than no moral at all. Problem is, societies evolve, religions not. After all, there's no questioning a divine commandment. As a result, we still have, in the 21st century, groups defending the fossilized morals of Bronze Age tribes.

chris king said:

> My "ultimate authority" has existed
> since the beginning. God is my ultimate
> authority, so i can make sense and give
> an account of ethics/morals because they
> are part of his unchanging nature.

A bunch of faith based statements. BTW, which god? There are thousands of them, you know, all of them the only true one.

Bill,
> Major universities (even Ivy League) are
> reintroducing biblical studies on their campuses.
> Why? Because they estimate that as much as
> half our cultural language, literature, music,
> concepts of morality and legal system have their
> roots in the Christian Bible.


Studying the Bible is a good idea. Indeed, a lot of our culture came from it or through it. Yet, let's not forget that you speak an Anglo-Saxon language and the days of the week are named after Norse gods. Almost half of the English vocabulary comes from Latin and Greek, as well as much of the Occidental culture. So, let's study Norse, Greek and Roman culture in the universities. Not to mention Celts, Egyptians, Babylonians and Sumerians, who originated so much of our culture.

Bill,
> But you only elude to the language influences?
> The point was cultural (as to know the cultural
> influences of the U.S.).

Indeed. Halloween has Celtic origins (the day of Samhain). Easter originally celebrated the goddess Eoster. And so on.

> And you can't deny, therefore, a person who wants
> to understand this country would be intellectually
> inept or handicapped if they ignored the Bible.

I agree. The same apply to other countries and their religions and sacred books. That doesn't make the Bible or those other books any truer.

Bill,

> with names like Fernando and Guillermo ... by any
> chance were you both raised Catholic?

I've been a "cat lick" for decades. Interestingly enough, I deconverted when they started imitating the neopentecostals. The irritation shook me from my torpor and - the horror! - I started thinking.
Thinking was fatal to my faith.

Bill,

> I still very much doubt your claims of reading and
> analyzing the Bible.

I could point you to tens of texts I've written, thousands of discussions in forums, but they are all in Portuguese.

And you'd say you doubt them. Or change the subject.

> You keep resorting to other studies and opinions
> that fall outside of a biblical context.

I read that as " You do not agree with the Bible".
Anyway, how about leaving the Bible aside and refuting my first post? It didn't mention the "Bad Book".

> We can argue all day about their similarities,
> but it's just not reasonable to argue their
> proportional impact and relevance.

The point here is: the similarity indicates the Bible copied from them. Just as the Old Testament copied from previous Sumerian and Babylonian myths, like the Flood and the Garden of Paradise.

Besides, as I said, the discussion is not about the relevance of studying this or that so called sacred book , but about the truth of its words.

Bill,

> But, with no doubt, your lack of intellectual honesty
> also fails you in your perception of these ads.

"Ad hominem" fallacy. Unproved. I read it as "I don't like what you say".

> By any professional standards, the poor quality of
> thinking, messaging, lack of emotional pull and
> branding with these ads is self-evident. Obviously
> very amateur.

I note with interest that you didn't even try to refute their arguments.

Bill,
> Have you read these two books?

I've read thousands of books. They've got nothing new. Ultimately, they appeal to faith. After some 14 years debating with believers, I don't expect anybody to come up with something convincing. If there were a killer argument, they'd have thrown it on my face already.

Please show me something from these books that you believe will impress me.

Bill,
> If you judge an entire faith and its people based
> on a bad experience (or a few bad experiences),
> that doesn't sound very scientific or rational to me.

The bad experience just made me think instead of accepting on faith. And thinking made me realize that there's no good reason for me to believe a god. Whichever it is. If evidence shows up, then I'll change my mind.

> Not trying to judge you, but I'm just saying that
> the experiences you've had don't sound as if they're
> reflective of the true message of Christianity.

There are good and bad things in Xianity, just as in any other religion, but they don't make their gods any truer.

> If Darwin drew his conclusions on limited observation,
> everyone would discount his findings.

That's right. But he hasn't been proved wrong yet. All findings confirm his theory.

> Sounds like you need to do more research?

What exactly do you think I'm going to find that will make me believe your god?

> You can still choose not to believe, but you may
> find some new experiences and facts about the
> goodness of Christian people and their practices?

What does the goodness of Christians prove about their god? Besides, these last 2 thousand years have seen rivers of blood flow in the name of your precious "Good Book". A dirty book full of attrocities commited by God or by his direct order.

Bill,
> You do realize that every ad begins with biblical
> scripture?

Indeed, we're supposed to discuss the videos here, but my first post didn't mention the Bible. I was replying to Chris' statements that moral depends on religion or something like that. You changed the subject to a particular religion.

> Also, when a Christian talks about God and
> authoritative concepts connected to Christianity,
> we can't, according to your rules, refer to the Bible?

We can, if we're discussing the Bible and its contents. We can't, if the idea is to prove the Bible is the truth.

Wow, observe the lifelessness in Richard Dawkins' face. Sad. But, that's to be expected when what he believes or doesn't believe affords him no purpose, no meaning to his life here or beyond.

Bill,

> Now we're getting somewhere!!

No, we're not.

> the "hypothesis" of Darwin's (you're right,
> it's not proven, so it's not a theory ...

It's been proved satisfactorily, so it's a theory and the current truth. Can you present a fact that will show it wrong? You'd get a Nobel prize.
On second thought, forget it. I'm tired with debating with creationists. It's a lost cause. I suggest this:
geosociety.org/criticalissues/ev_shermer.htm

Not as an argument, but just to show you why I'd rather drop the subject.

Let me repeat:
Whatever mistakes are found in Evolutionary Biology, myths of creation will remain the superstition of primitive tribes.

If the current theory is proved wrong, it will be replaced with a better or more complete theory, not with religious belief. There's no such inference as "If Darwin is wrong then the Bible is right".

> Besides this "hypothesis" being misapplied to
> originate eugenics (led by Darwin's cousin,
> Francis Galton) -- which has led to many barbaric
> acts by Hitler

I still fail to see what the misuse of a theory has to do with its truth.

> 1. You know for a fact that Darwin's theory
> of evolution has been misapplied, yet, you do
> not blame him for developing this theory, informing
> the world of it and, therefore, bringing to this
> world resultant atrocities.

Of course not. I blame those who distorted his scientific findings as an excuse to do evil things. Darwin's theory has nothing to do with eugeny.

> 2. You know for a fact that Einstein's theory
> of relativity has been misapplied, yet, you do
> not blame him for developing this theory, informing
> the world of it and, therefore, bringing to this
> world resultant atrocities.

Of course not, for the same reasons above. Without Einstein, we wouldn't have nuclear plants, modern medicine etc.
Should we blame the inventor of the bisturi for the medical errors?

> 3. You admit that the out-of-the-pond, monkey-to-man
> and species-to-species are hypothetical deductions --
> a proposed (key word, "proposed") explanation for an
> observed phenomenon or set of phenomena.

No. They were a hypothesis when Darwin formulated them. Not anymore. They've become the current truth, demonstrated over and over.

> a. You won't blame scientists for creating a
> framework for understanding the world around us
> (definition of a scientific theory) that has led
> to barbaric acts by and because of scientists, yet
> you will easily ascribe fault to any religion's
> framework that is misapplied?

Science itself is amoral. Just a collection of facts. It's up to us to use its finding for good ends.

> Do you see the contradiction?

No. If a "sacred" book commands us to do things our moral laws reject, then we should reject this "sacred" book. Science facts don't command us to do anything.

> b. You will believe in a hypothesis, no matter
> how fantastic (i.e., monkey-to-men, big bang,
> pond scum becoming incredibly sophisticated
> human species), as long as it is labeled science
> and not religion?

Science is based on facts and logic and keeps being corrected when new findings prove theories incomplete or wrong.
Religion is based on faith and won't admit it's wrong even when faced with evidence to the contrary.

> My guess is that you'll say that science is
> pursuing truth and fact, but your faith in it,
> even the most fantastic of hypotheses, does
> border on a religious faith.

My morals don't depend on scientific theories. If they demonstrate that Earth, after all, is the center of the universe, my life won't change a bit. But wouldn't your life change if you had to admit Jesus was just a man and never ressurrected?

Science works. The computer before you is proof of that, as is modern medicine, planes, satellites and all the technology that surrounds us.

Religion is just faith in things you can't demonstrate. And, to make it worse, there are thousands of religions to choose from.

> I continue to have faith because science
> can tell me what it is and what it does,
> but it does not tell me (nor has it provided
> any proven theories or indisputable facts)
> how it got here and why it exists.

Indeed. Not yet. Don't forget the "yet". Anyway, even if science never finds this kind of answer, gods remain unproved.

> Yet, you're the "prove it" guy and so
> I simply have to ask you ...
> Prove to me God does not exists.

Once again, I expected more of you. You committed a fallacy. I'm not stating gods don't exist. YOU are saying they exist. I'm just asking for evidence. I don't have to prove anything. You do.

Besides, I can't prove gods don't exist. They may, for all I know. It's you that is so sure that the other gods don't exist. I'm not so sure. I just want evidence from you and from the believers in the other gods.

> Prove to me Jesus did not walk the earth.
> Prove to me Jesus did not make the claims
> he did while on this earth. Prove to me he
> was not who he said he was. Prove to me, if
> he wasn't who he said he was and he didn't
> do what the Bible says he did, that he was
> just insane.

I can't. It's up to you to produce the evidences. You are making extraordinary claims, so you need to back them up with extraordinary evidences.

I insist on this:

History's Troubling Silence About Jesus
dissidentvoice.org/Oct04/Salisbury1012.htm

> Again, I don't think you're an awful person for
> holding people of faith and a religion accountable
> for woefully misapplied doctrine.

I've been a 'cat lick' for more than 40 years. I don't see myself as a bad person. Most religious people I know are good people. Yet, as they say:
"Bad people do bad things. Good people do good things. Yet, religion makes some good people do bad things".
Luckly, most people are sensible enough to ignore the bad things in their religions.

> But I can tell you that if your standard for
> belief or not is the evidence of misapplication,
> you should've stopped believing in science a long
> time ago as well.

Science works, even if misapplied. Are you suggesting we go back to Stone Age because so many scientific findings have been misused? Should we then keep away from sticks and stones? Or fire?

On the other side, do you obey a commandment just because it's in a 'sacred' book, without discussing it, even if it goes against the human sense of moral and ethics?

> Again, I make the offer to send you the
> two books I mentioned in previous comments
> for free.

Thanks, but no. If you can't pick arguments from them to show me, it's probably because you expect me to magically change my mind after reading all of them, even if you can't point out the relevant ideas.

> But if you're not open to challenging yourself
> to learn more, I understand (not really, but I
> just have to leave the rest to faith that someday
> you will come to a different level of understanding
> in your own time ... I can't force that, I can only
> try)."

I've changed my mind already, after decades of internal debate. Now, how about you examine the claims of all other religions? Maybe you'll find you've been worshipping the wrong god all along.

Fernado:

I've read the links you've sent me, my conclusion is that your quest for evidence has put you on a path that places too much faith in your fellow man.

I'm not arguing that (hu)mankind has not done good for itself, it has. And science, especially human science, has done much good for (hu)mankind.

Yet in all I've read from you and the links you've connected me with, I see no new evidence or information for why we're here and why we were made.

The Bible, for me, is a body of factual information about God and His will for man and constitutes adequate evidence for what science (and all the conspiracy theorists online) has not solved.

In my journey, I've also concluded that Christianity differs significantly from other religions because it balances faith and knowledge and says both are valid avenues to truth. Other religions, from my observation and study, do not balance faith and knowledge nearly as well and are much more susceptible to misapplication.

While I agree with you that some biblical stories are hard to believe, I see things with my own eyes nearly every day that are hard to believe. As such, I've learned I really can't know everything there is to know (though my human pride sometimes makes me believe I can, my faith in God helps to keep myself in check).

But that does not mean I see my beliefs simply as a "leap of faith."

Which is to say, I've seen enough evidence in my life and in many of my studies that those who do not follow God's commandments (as expressed in the Bible not as law, but to reveal sinful nature that keeps us from enjoying our short lives on earth) are people who generally do not live very fruitful and happy lives. I've seen enough evidence that when we do not heed the newest commandments espoused by Jesus, to love God and to love each other, that our selfishness can and does make people miserable and life on earth less inhabitable. I've also seen enough evidence that when people lead their lives as Christ suggested, the fruits of the spirit, which are promised, do take root and improve their lives and their relationships.

Additionally, I've seen and read enough evidence (from scientists, sociologists and psychologists) that people who have faith lead happier lives and produce more offspring. Which is kind of funny because, from a Darwinist point-of-view, it would seem having faith makes a person more "fit to survive" than people without faith. (Again, there are exceptions, but the sociology behind this is quite convincing.)

All that said, I have some faith in (hu)mankind. I tend to have more faith in individuals who balance faith and knowledge well. But I do not put my faith in (hu)mankind to get answers about our creation or our purpose. Nothing I've seen or read outside of the Bible and biblical studies provides the same depth of wisdom on those subjects areas. Nothing is even close.

Fernando, all I can say to you at this point is, from my observation, you seem to have been hurt (emotionally) by your Catholic experience. And, again, I'm not a Catholic-bashing Christian; but, you need to know, that is a common experience. Yet, I've seen great joy and fulfillment happen for those who have sought more knowledge about the Christian faith outside the Catholic realm.

So, I still encourage you to read one of the books I suggested earlier -- "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis.

To that end, I'll end today with a relevant quote from this book:

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ." – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Instead of the truth, people choose to believe whatever they want to believe much of the time.

I don't understand why, except for narcissism, most are bent on a mission to reject Jesus rather than on one to accept Him?

It comes across as an alien language when anti-Christs express themselves.

Bill,

> I've read the links you've sent me,
> my conclusion is that your quest for
> evidence has put you on a path that
> places too much faith in your fellow man.

So you suggest I put my faith in invisible, undetectable, unproven entities?
Can you refute my links or you just reject them because you don't like the things they imply?

> Yet in all I've read from you and the
> links you've connected me with, I see
> no new evidence or information for why
> we're here and why we were made.

So, because you can't live with this lack of information, you invent a god. A god you can't explain either, so you declare it unexplainable and stop thinking.
Of course, God could be unexplainable, but we still have to find evidence for him or her or it or them.

> The Bible, for me, is a body of factual
> information about God and His will for
> man and constitutes adequate evidence
> for what science (and all the conspiracy
> theorists online) has not solved.

A faith based argument. Can you disprove the other 'sacred' books?

> Other religions, from my observation and
> study, do not balance faith and knowledge
> nearly as well and are much more susceptible
> to misapplication.

I still can't see why this makes Xianity any truer.

> While I agree with you that some biblical
> stories are hard to believe, I see things
> with my own eyes nearly every day that are
> hard to believe.

If you see things with your own eyes, it's not a matter of believing. At most, you might doubt your eyes or your sanity.
But do you see with your own eyes the things described in the 'sacred' books? All of them?
Donkeys and serpents speaking? Ghosts impregnating virgins? Men dying and resurrecting and flying to heaven? Plants being created before the Sun?

> I've seen enough evidence that when we do not
> heed the newest commandments espoused by Jesus,
> to love God and to love each other, that our
> selfishness can and does make people miserable
> and life on earth less inhabitable.

Take the "to love God" bit away and I'll agree with you.
As they say, "If loving God was good, it wouldn't have to be a commandment".
Love can't be imposed. It must be earned.
"Love me or else"?

> Additionally, I've seen and read enough
> evidence (from scientists, sociologists
> and psychologists) that people who have
> faith lead happier lives and produce more
> offspring.

What does that prove about the truth of their beliefs?
Believing in Santa Claus made me happy. I miss him. I don't miss God.
"Produce more offspring" ?!!

> Fernando, all I can say to you at this
> point is, from my observation, you seem
> to have been hurt (emotionally) by your
> Catholic experience.

Religious cliche #375. Others I've heard imply that I have a problem with my father, so I reject father figures in general and so on.

> And, again, I'm not a Catholic-bashing
> Christian; but, you need to know, that is
> a common experience. Yet, I've seen great
> joy and fulfillment happen for those who
> have sought more knowledge about the
> Christian faith outside the Catholic realm.

What I saw outside just went to show the ridicule of my own faith. Just made me open my eyes.

> To that end, I'll end today with a relevant
> quote from this book:
>
> "Atheism turns out to be too simple.
> If the whole universe has no meaning,
> we should never have found out that it
> has no meaning. . ." – C.S. Lewis,
> Mere Christianity

Why "too simple"? Complication implies truth? What about Ockham's Razor?
Why "should never have found" ?
Why should I waste my time with a book full of things like this?

Fernando,

God gives us a choice to love Him or not. He doesn't make us puppets. That would not be love! Free will must be involved. I have chosen to love Him and you have rejected Him.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Ginny Allen

> God gives us a choice to love Him or not.
> He doesn't make us puppets. That would
> not be love! Free will must be involved.

"Love me or else!" is not a choice, it's a imposition.
Not unlike a man who tells his girlfriend "If you leave me, I'll shoot you in the head". She's got a choice, doesn't she?

Real free will is making a choice and not being punished for it. It's being free to choose an option that was not offered us.

> I have chosen to love Him and you have
> rejected Him.

As you have rejected all the other equally invisible and unproved gods of humankind.