Comments for Consider Christianity http://www.consider.org/blog a Faith based on Facts Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:54:42 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 Comment on A Review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion – Summary by Ghoulslime http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=45&cpage=1#comment-4541 Ghoulslime Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:54:42 +0000 http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=45#comment-4541 Elgin, feel free to debate me in depth at www.ravingatheists.com Let's see how smart your argument sounds when subjected to scrutiny. Silly little Jesus eater! Elgin, feel free to debate me in depth at http://www.ravingatheists.com Let’s see how smart your argument sounds when subjected to scrutiny. Silly little Jesus eater!

]]> Comment on A Review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion – Summary by Ghoulslime http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=45&cpage=1#comment-4540 Ghoulslime Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:45:55 +0000 http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=45#comment-4540 My intention was not to convince anyone of anything, blood drinker. My intention was to level derision at a stupid, irrational, and delusional person. You think you have an imaginary friend in the sky who hears you mumble magic words into the side of your bed at night. And you have no evidence to support this position. ***Pausing to giggle*** Saying that I am irrational does not change the fact that YOU are the ideologue who is making the dogmatic defense of an unproven postulation. Which one of us worships a two-thousand-year-old zombie, and eats his flesh and drinks his blood on a regular basis? What a laughable clown you are! Why would I need 17 points to point that out? My intention was not to convince anyone of anything, blood drinker. My intention was to level derision at a stupid, irrational, and delusional person. You think you have an imaginary friend in the sky who hears you mumble magic words into the side of your bed at night. And you have no evidence to support this position.

***Pausing to giggle***

Saying that I am irrational does not change the fact that YOU are the ideologue who is making the dogmatic defense of an unproven postulation. Which one of us worships a two-thousand-year-old zombie, and eats his flesh and drinks his blood on a regular basis? What a laughable clown you are! Why would I need 17 points to point that out?

]]> Comment on Testimony V by Elgin Hushbeck http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=55&cpage=1#comment-4506 Elgin Hushbeck Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:48:57 +0000 http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=55#comment-4506 Paul, Thanks for the clarification, I did not mean to imply that this was the only reason a missionary would every be transfered. I made a minor change to the text that I hope clarifies this. Elgin Paul,

Thanks for the clarification, I did not mean to imply that this was the only reason a missionary would every be transfered. I made a minor change to the text that I hope clarifies this.

Elgin

]]> Comment on A Review of Zeitgeist, The Movie Part I by James http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=14&cpage=1#comment-4505 James Sun, 15 Nov 2009 03:38:47 +0000 http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=14#comment-4505 I just wanted to leave a comment and let you know how much i enjoyed reading your blog entries. You are an insightful person. Please keep me informed of anything major your writing in the future. Thanks Jim I just wanted to leave a comment and let you know how much i enjoyed reading your blog entries. You are an insightful person. Please keep me informed of anything major your writing in the future. Thanks Jim

]]> Comment on Testimony V by Paul http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=55&cpage=1#comment-4504 Paul Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:55:42 +0000 http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=55#comment-4504 Enjoyed reading your story. Just to make a clarification on one point (that you should revise) is that missionaries are not transferred when they get "into spiritual or moral trouble." ALL full-time LDS missionaries are transferred on a regular basis. Why? It's just part of the policy and procedure (perhaps like "a change is good as a rest," etc). They CAN be transferred because some "bad" or some other negative reasons, but that is not exclusively why they are transferred. In fact if there was some serious "moral" problem (violating a law of chastity, etc) they are sent home as a "dishonorable release" and sometimes even excommunicated from the church. Great site! Peace. Paul Enjoyed reading your story. Just to make a clarification on one point (that you should revise) is that missionaries are not transferred when they get “into spiritual or moral trouble.” ALL full-time LDS missionaries are transferred on a regular basis. Why? It’s just part of the policy and procedure (perhaps like “a change is good as a rest,” etc). They CAN be transferred because some “bad” or some other negative reasons, but that is not exclusively why they are transferred. In fact if there was some serious “moral” problem (violating a law of chastity, etc) they are sent home as a “dishonorable release” and sometimes even excommunicated from the church.

Great site!
Peace.
Paul

]]> Comment on A Review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion Part XI by Elgin Hushbeck http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=35&cpage=1#comment-4502 Elgin Hushbeck Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:42:29 +0000 http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=35#comment-4502 Mr Easton, Yes I believe what I wrote, but your comment is too vague to make sense of. Perhaps if you are more specific, I can back up my claims. I would say that given the closed mindedness of many schools I often run into people who are completely unaware of the evidence contrary to beliefs pushed in schools. It is one of the reasons the educated elites can hold view that are so absurd, it was what they were taught by supposed authorities. Mr Easton,
Yes I believe what I wrote, but your comment is too vague to make sense of. Perhaps if you are more specific, I can back up my claims. I would say that given the closed mindedness of many schools I often run into people who are completely unaware of the evidence contrary to beliefs pushed in schools. It is one of the reasons the educated elites can hold view that are so absurd, it was what they were taught by supposed authorities.

]]> Comment on A Review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion Part X by Elgin Hushbeck http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=34&cpage=1#comment-4501 Elgin Hushbeck Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:33:16 +0000 http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=34#comment-4501 Mr Easton, I have address some of these problems in earlier replies. How do you know what is “outside” is irrelevant? How do you know it is not complex? One problem here is that you seem to think that the existence of a possibility, e.g. that the universe is self-consistent, somehow precludes other possibilities, e.g. that is isn’t. I have looked at the development of these theories since I was a child. (science and space have always interested me). The last time I checked the universe still had a beginning, was not going to collapse on itself (to the contrary was accelerating its expansion) and still need something to get it started. Sure there are always lots of “theories” but they remain that, and regress remains a problem. Mr Easton,
I have address some of these problems in earlier replies. How do you know what is “outside” is irrelevant? How do you know it is not complex? One problem here is that you seem to think that the existence of a possibility, e.g. that the universe is self-consistent, somehow precludes other possibilities, e.g. that is isn’t. I have looked at the development of these theories since I was a child. (science and space have always interested me). The last time I checked the universe still had a beginning, was not going to collapse on itself (to the contrary was accelerating its expansion) and still need something to get it started. Sure there are always lots of “theories” but they remain that, and regress remains a problem.

]]> Comment on A Review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion Part IX by Elgin Hushbeck http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=30&cpage=1#comment-4500 Elgin Hushbeck Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:18:26 +0000 http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=30#comment-4500 Mr Easton, Infinite regression refers to time, not moving on a sphere. While there are those who have suggested the universe expands and collapses in infinite cycles, the evidence is now strongly against such views. “Now at this point, by the way, we’ve established that the Bible is not even close to being literally true. The universe is billions of years old, not thousands.” And since a very few Christians, even conservative evangelical Christians who believe in an inerrant Bible, believe that the Bible is always to be read literally, you have not demonstrated much. Granted this is a open discussion among Christians. Some are old earth, some young earth. This is more a issue of interpretation than reliability. As for God, again in the Christian view God is infinite and outside of time, and therefore requires no cause. The same cannot be said for the universe. “If, however, the universe is, indeed, a closed, self-consistent entity, it doesn’t need a God.” This is a pretty big if and one that is contrary to the evidence. Mr Easton,
Infinite regression refers to time, not moving on a sphere. While there are those who have suggested the universe expands and collapses in infinite cycles, the evidence is now strongly against such views.
“Now at this point, by the way, we’ve established that the Bible is not even close to being literally true. The universe is billions of years old, not thousands.” And since a very few Christians, even conservative evangelical Christians who believe in an inerrant Bible, believe that the Bible is always to be read literally, you have not demonstrated much. Granted this is a open discussion among Christians. Some are old earth, some young earth. This is more a issue of interpretation than reliability.
As for God, again in the Christian view God is infinite and outside of time, and therefore requires no cause. The same cannot be said for the universe.
“If, however, the universe is, indeed, a closed, self-consistent entity, it doesn’t need a God.” This is a pretty big if and one that is contrary to the evidence.

]]> Comment on A Review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion Part VIII by Elgin Hushbeck http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=29&cpage=1#comment-4499 Elgin Hushbeck Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:03:44 +0000 http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=29#comment-4499 Mr Easton, I am not sure what your point is with (1). I have some ideas, but I would rather not guess which way you are going with this. As for (2) again see my discussions in Evidence for the Bible. “So long as our universe can exist as a self-consistent entity (several models exist, none is without problems), there is no “need for an outside”.” Sure if you ignore all the problems, anything can seem reasonable. Having faith that science will eventually figure it out, or having faith that there is a natural explanation is still having faith. And just so there is no misunderstanding, I do not see this in and of itself as an rigorous proof for the existence of God though it is a piece of evidence to be considered in the much larger question. I am much more like Occam in this sense as I reject these as rigorous deductive proofs, even if there some inductive merit to them. “I’d rather keep trying to understand what’s really going on than abdicate that task to blind faith.” So would I. That you seem to think that this is somehow an argument against my view shows is a clear problem with your position. Looks, like you would have lost the bet. I publish any criticism as long as it is serious and does involve profanity or vicious personal attacks, name calling, etc. Mr Easton,
I am not sure what your point is with (1). I have some ideas, but I would rather not guess which way you are going with this. As for (2) again see my discussions in Evidence for the Bible.
“So long as our universe can exist as a self-consistent entity (several models exist, none is without problems), there is no “need for an outside”.” Sure if you ignore all the problems, anything can seem reasonable. Having faith that science will eventually figure it out, or having faith that there is a natural explanation is still having faith. And just so there is no misunderstanding, I do not see this in and of itself as an rigorous proof for the existence of God though it is a piece of evidence to be considered in the much larger question. I am much more like Occam in this sense as I reject these as rigorous deductive proofs, even if there some inductive merit to them.
“I’d rather keep trying to understand what’s really going on than abdicate that task to blind faith.” So would I. That you seem to think that this is somehow an argument against my view shows is a clear problem with your position.
Looks, like you would have lost the bet. I publish any criticism as long as it is serious and does involve profanity or vicious personal attacks, name calling, etc.

]]> Comment on A Review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion Part VII by Elgin Hushbeck http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=28&cpage=1#comment-4498 Elgin Hushbeck Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:46:15 +0000 http://www.consider.org/blog/?p=28#comment-4498 Mr Easton, Actually god, at least the Christian view of God, does address the infinite regess problem, as God, unlike the natural world is by definition uncaused and exists outside of time. That apples evolved over millions of years is irrelevant to the argument, as that evolution would simply be part of the regress. As for the odds being quite high, I go into detail on this in my book Evidence for the Bible. If you actually run the number it is not even close, even if the universe was trillions of years old it remains for all intent an purposes impossible. “but if he DOES exist outside the universe, he doesn’t interfere with his creation.” Never? How do you know this? As for no need for God, only if you ignore all the problems with the current models. Again see my book Evidence for the Bible. “What’s more likely?” While your specific question is a false choice, if expanded to include all options, that is the key question. Given the evidence as discuss in my books “Evidence for the Bible” and “Christianity and Secularism” I believe Christianity is far more likely true than the Atheism. Mr Easton,
Actually god, at least the Christian view of God, does address the infinite regess problem, as God, unlike the natural world is by definition uncaused and exists outside of time. That apples evolved over millions of years is irrelevant to the argument, as that evolution would simply be part of the regress. As for the odds being quite high, I go into detail on this in my book Evidence for the Bible. If you actually run the number it is not even close, even if the universe was trillions of years old it remains for all intent an purposes impossible.
“but if he DOES exist outside the universe, he doesn’t interfere with his creation.” Never? How do you know this?
As for no need for God, only if you ignore all the problems with the current models. Again see my book Evidence for the Bible.
“What’s more likely?” While your specific question is a false choice, if expanded to include all options, that is the key question. Given the evidence as discuss in my books “Evidence for the Bible” and “Christianity and Secularism” I believe Christianity is far more likely true than the Atheism.

]]>