God Delusion Debate Pits 'New Atheist' Against Christian Apologist (Lennox/Dawkins, Birmingham Ala)

Christian Post ^ | 18 Sep 07 | Nathan Black

[darkangel82]

In the same way, even though atheists can't be 100% sure, they believe that the existence of god, especially as defined by the world's great religions, is so improbable that its not worth worrying about in their daily lives. That's how I see it.

[HarleyD]

Most atheists accept that there is a greater than zero chance that some sort of supernatural deity exists, since there is no way to rule it out completely.

It would seem to me that if there were a greater than zero chance of a supernatural deity existing, and that deity could not be ruled out; rather than venomously arguing against such a deity one should be exploring the possibility. Isn't that the scientific principle?

[tyke]

It would seem to me that if there were a greater than zero chance of a supernatural deity existing, and that deity could not be ruled out; rather than venomously arguing against such a deity one should be exploring the possibility. Isn't that the scientific principle?

Again, not really. First not all atheists "venomously" argue against a deity. Richard Dawkins may do so (and boy, does he ever), but there are millions more atheists out there who simply get on with their lives without attacking religion in any way.

I would wager that Christians have spouted more venom about atheists in recent years than all of the "New Atheists" have about religion. I've certainly seen enough on this board and others. It can get pretty ugly, I assure you.

Second, you can't use science to investigate something that is, by definition, outside the natural world. Science has been used to reject certain claims made by some religions, like the Earth being only 6,000 years old (not that it does any good), but it would be an impossible task to investigate all claims made in the hope that one of them proves that some sort of deity exists.

Perhaps if one day we were able to invent a time machine to go back and verify the claims of the Bible and the Koran first hand, that would be a worthy scientific endeavor (wouldn't that be fun!), but short of that there doesn't seem to be much point in trying.

[HarleyD]

First not all atheists "venomously" argue against a deity. Richard Dawkins may do so (and boy, does he ever), but there are millions ...who simply get on with their lives without attacking religion in any way.

Well, I understand your point. While I would agree they may not overtly attack religion, there are more subtle ways. If I got on TV and raised an objection to stem cell research based upon the sanctity of life, said that a woman should not have an abortion regardless of the situation, or stated that the Ten Commandments are a moral code establishing the first rule of law and should be allowed in the court house; you and I both know I would have all sorts of people upset. These won't be Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or Christians. They will be atheists.

I would wager that Christians have spouted more venom about atheists in recent years than all of the "New Atheists" have about religion.

I think that is a rather broad generalization. I have read a number of atheist sites. While some Christians can be rather over zealous I don't know of any that makes atheists the butt of jokes. From a Christian's perspective they are interested in seeing an atheist come to know Christ-sometimes no matter what it takes. :O) From an atheist's position, they think all Christians are foolish to believe in Jesus Christ as God. Given these two scenarios who do you think is more likely to ridicule who?

Second, you can't use science to investigate something that is, by definition, outside the natural world.

That's a fair statement. When all is said and done, everything within the Christian world boils down to faith. I don't believe this to be a Jim Jones-type of faith; but rather build upon a rational foundation of certain truths. But you and I view those truths in two different fashions.

Whether the Earth is 6,000 years old or not I don't know. Christians have made claims that are not directly supported by scripture and found themselves out on a limb. People need to be careful what they assert. That being said, it should be remember that the greatest opposition to Galileo's theory that the earth revolved around the sun came not from the church but from the scientific community.

[Catholic Canadian]

In the same way, even though atheists can't be 100% sure, they believe that the existence of god, especially as defined by the world's great religions, is so improbable that its not worth worrying about in their daily lives.

It seems to me that it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to believe in God.

[6ppc]

Alys Stephens Center is at UAB. A good friend of mine is the technical director.

[GraniteStateConservative]

The idea is that even if you concede some deity/ies, it doesn’t really get you where you want to go. It’s like Homer Simpson who asked, “What if we chose the wrong religion? Each week we just make God madder and madder.” Judaism isn’t the first religion, though you’d expect it to be if it were the right one. God/Jesus allegedly appeared to humans, presumably to provide evidence for belief of what God/Jesus was saying at that time was true, but there’s been no appearances at any time in modern history when such an appearance could be scientifically verified. Jesus never wrote anything in the New Testament and never said anything about even creating a Holy Bible. If the Judeo-Christian path is the right path and choosing that path is of the highest importance, atheists are discouraged that there isn’t much evidence that the guy in charge placed much importance on any of it. If you and I were God and creating a religion, we’d have made everything more obvious and clear.

[HarleyD]

It’s like Homer Simpson who asked, “What if we chose the wrong religion? Each week we just make God madder and madder.” Judaism isn’t the first religion, though you’d expect it to be if it were the right one.

Well, in Hinduism I suppose if you made God mad you could come back as a cow in Omaha. Seriously, no Judaism isn't the first religion. That isn't saying that it, at one time, wasn't the right one. If one believes in a divine perfect being, that means we are not perfect beings. Everything, including how God reveals Himself, is going to become corrupted, including religious beliefs. We can't help it.

Jesus never wrote anything in the New Testament and never said anything about even creating a Holy Bible.

And yet He said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." Don't you find that a rather interesting and bold statement coming from someone who never wrote anything? When many others were feverishly writing down their religious beliefs, Christ didn't write down anything. Yet, here we are 2,100 years later talking about Him and reading about His life and statements.

If the Judeo-Christian path is the right path and choosing that path is of the highest importance, atheists are discouraged that there isn’t much evidence that the guy in charge placed much importance on any of it.

Maybe He did place a great deal of importance on it. He simply had His secretaries write the memos. If you were an all powerful God, why would you do the work when others can do it for you?

If you and I were God and creating a religion, we’d have made everything more obvious and clear.

From our perspective this is true, but it is difficult to say why things are as they are since God is, by definition, all knowing and we are not.

[joebuck]

Alister McGrath, a professor of historical theology at Oxford, has just published “The Dawkins Delusion” which blows Dawkins book out of the water in less than 100 pages. Also Lee Strobel has written a sequel to his “The case for Christ” titled “The Case for the Real Jesus”. Both are excellent and I think Strobel’s sequel is even better than his first book. Both highly recommended.

[StAnDeliver]

"The idea is that even if you concede some deity/ies, it doesn’t really get you where you want to go. It’s like Homer Simpson who asked, "What if we chose the wrong religion? Each week we just make God madder and madder."

Never has anyone -- that wanted to be taken seriously -- attempted to elevate Homer to Hume, but one must pre-suppose that very thing in order to take anything you say in any of these religion threads seriously.

[MHGinTN]

I will get McGrath's book, a.s.a.p.! I'm currently writing a series of 'Letters To Tacitus' posed as fictional exchanges between a young Roman named Tacitus and his uncle who was in Jerusalem during the crucifixion. I intend, through the medium of fictional letters, to lay out the case for the crucifixion, the resurrection, the ascension, and the Apostolic mission. I devour all material I can find when I do a project like this, especially historic texts since i want accuracy to historic facts if at all possible even though my project is a work of fiction.

BTW, have you read William Paley's A View of the Evidences of Christianity? ... Published in London in 1794. The writing is turgid but very tightly constructed arguments.

[joebuck]

"BTW, have you read William Paley's A View of the Evidences of Christianity?"

No, but I have read many excerpts from it in other apologetic books. My personal favorite is Norman Geisler. He has a multi-volume work on apologetics and, my favorite, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". It's the best single volume work of Biblical apologetics I've ever read.

[GraniteStateConservative]

The idea is a sound one: How come you are so sure you, a mere mortal, know the mind of God?

[MHGinTN]

“If you and I were God and creating a religion, we’d have made everything more obvious and clear.” Hmmm, so faith wouldn’t be as important in your religion you created, is that the gist? Here’s a thought: since God created you to have freedom to choose, as in right and wrong, how do you think ‘faithe’ (the verb form) helps or hinders the growth and expression of your freedom as your existence relates to your Creator?... If you believe in ‘your Creator’?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Every single atheist in existence who subscribes to any moral/ethical system whatsoever is a hypocrite and a parasite.

What is it about atheists that compels them to crusade for what we "should" and "should not" do? What ever happened to good old fashioned Epicureanism?

[xzins]

Every single atheist in existence who subscribes to any moral/ethical system whatsoever is a hypocrite and a parasite.

Bullseye, ZC. You nailed it.