What drives people to ignore the evidence of Christ?

Don't be so quick to dismiss those sources. These people have dedicated their lives to refuting the Bible. Instead of waving them off, I recommend you study it rather than ignore it.

 

Go into this in more detail. You say the Bible is "inspired"...by God? Okay, are you saying God would inspire somebody to write something that was not literally true? You say the Bible is "inerrant"....that means without errors or falsehoods, which again would mean that it's literally true.

 

I thought I just explained all of that. It goes back to one of my earliest posts. I start with the cross and work my way back.

 

So, they start off with an assumption rather than the evidence leading them to the assumption? That's exactly my point. I've read some of their books.

 

Try this on for size:

http://www.equip.org/articles/ten-urgent-questions-and-answers-about-origins/

 

Thanks for taking time for a thoughtful reply.

I looked at the CRI website, and the first thing I saw was they advertise a book called
"The Farce of Evolution".

Is that what you think ToE is, is a farce?

I will go back when I have time, to see what else they have to say, but from that first impression
Id say your trust in them as an honest and objective source is badly misplaced.

I wonder why you'd specifically go to a Christian site? If I wanted to look up something about physics
or chemistry, that has nothing to do with religion any more than it does with the boy scouts or basketball.

If the Christian part is not to influence what people read, and how they understand it, why would
these guys even by bothering to talk science?

 

what a stupid thing you just said.

wtf does this have to do with abortion, gay rights, and marijuana?
[MENTION=59474]YouLie[/MENTION]

 

It depends on what you're reading I suppose.

 

I haven't read the book, FARCE. From the overview that I've read, it does not assert that evolution is a false science. There is audio of Hank Hanegraaff explaining it. I'll find a link.

 

The point was that Jesus could appear in the flesh right now and perform miracles, and people will still not accept his divinity because they don't want to stop doing what they're doing. Jesus is cool as a community organizer; not so cool as a apocalyptic preacher.

 

Why would I bother reading a scientists who is a Christian? You're talking as if these people are purely theists, and that they don't believe in science. If you read through the material, you'll find this is not the case. John Lennox is a professor of mathematics at Oxford. He's debated Dawkins at least a few times. No, friend, these aren't dummies that don't know science. They're scientists who know the science as well as any secular scientists. And who else would you expect to tackle questions of contradictions in science and literal interpretation of the Bible? I would much rather trust the theists than the atheists for that.

 

So some parts of the Bible are more equal than others...."Animal Farm"-style?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, that's not true. Anymore than one could say God could appear right now and tell you that Muhammed was right....HE is the Prophet of God, and you wouldn't believe Him.

Or would you?!?!?

 

you like to think that, don't you.

If I saw Jesus walk across the Hudson, I would call him "Lord".

 

When you say people who are you talking about?

There is a major misconception among many Christians who assume atheists reject the claim of Gods existence because we want to. The reality is we reject it because it’s not only void of evidence it’s patently absurd in its suggestion.

If God came down and performed miracles that would be the science of religion and it would be at that moment that atheists would become deeply involved in it because that is what we do, we look for evidence and things we can study and understand. It’s the same thing for Bigfoot as an example, we have all kinds of claims of his existence but no real evidence and a whole lot of hoaxes. But if someone finds remains of one or actually captures one, or truly captures one on film and perhaps gets a hair sample or blood or something then that’s it, if Bigfoot is real then he’s real.

Atheists lack the desire to twist things to their favor for the sake of maintaining some perspective. In fact that desire is one of our biggest concerns when it comes to our theist counterparts. I think you are projecting when you say that “people will still not accept his divinity because they don't want to stop doing what they're doing” because this is precisely what theists do when it comes to science challenging the existence of God whether it’s denying evolution, rejecting the idea that homosexuality is natural, preventing the use of stem cells for research, accepting that how the universe began has no need for supernatural intervention, etc.

We do not hold on to absurd assumptions we reject them, until they are proven or at least given supporting evidence.

 

Here's audio of Hank Hannegraaff explaining the The Farce of Evolution.

http://www.equip.org/audio/the-farce-of-evolution-and-qa/

 

So why are the eyewitness accounts of Muslims a lie, but the one's you claim exist for Christians the truth?

Paul never witnesses Jesus's resurrection. He saw a bright light and heard voices. The entire Paul story reads like an epileptic who had a severe seizure and then went on to co-opt a religion and found a cult based around himself as the sole authority. Even if I was a Christian, I would reject everything Paul did.

No, I'm right. Even the letters supposedly written by Paul were third-hand copies that were supposedly recorded by his followers.

 

I reject the notion that all of the atheists' motives are pure. I reject the notion that all Christians' motives are pure.

What does philosophy mean to you? Has it any bearing on your world view? Do you rely solely on your sense of taste and ignore the other senses? That is what you do when you seek to explain everything with science.

 

does he also discuss the farce of Jesus' miracles and resurrection, and appearance before Paul?

 

Interestingly....few seek to explain everything with science, but science seeks to explain everything. That is kinda the point.

Science does not "Ignore" Religion/God, yet due to the lack of anything to actually examine and study...It cannot and does not try to explore it.

Just as it is impossible to refute or prove the existence of aliens until we encounter one and are allowed to explore this reality with evidences.

 

This guy only addresses the idea that humans evolved. That's not the entirety of evolution. It's just anthropocentric nonsense that makes him treat evolution of man as somehow distinct or more significant than the evolution of other species.

 

Let's see, a flat out comparison of the theory of evolution to Marxism in the first two minutes. Not a good sign for a nuanced discussion. But, I'll try to continue.

-Claims that scientists are misidentifying Hominid fossils.
-Claims that physical attributes being similar in different species is not tantamount to evidence that they are related (Just because helicopters and hummingbirds can both fly doesn't mean they are related). Says that common descent is an assumption.
- Claims that our level of intelligence is "proof" that God created us.

These are old Creationist canards that have been refuted thousands and thousands of times. Nothing new.

 

Lack of anything to examine or study? I don't even know where to begin answering that one. What encompasses a belief in God? Do you have a scientific explanation for spirituality? Let's hear it.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you read the Communists Manifesto? I'd bet you a dollar to a donut Hank has read it. Clearly, you haven't, or you'd know that atheism is central to Marxism.

 

Ahh fear and paranoia, good motivators, it’s one thing to say everyone is capable of doing wrong but another thing entirely to suspect ill-intentions just because someone disagrees with your point-of-view. Would you say the majority of atheist’s motives are pure? If so then it’s a moot point if not then your perspective has become clouded by your fear.

Every atheist I know and have heard speak values philosophy, art, music, literature, (including religious texts from a metaphorical perspective) culture, and even certain traditions so to suggest its science or bust for us is just ignorance. However science can do a lot more than theists realize including help us create a moral framework.

If this line of questioning is to suggest metaphysical claims should or could be regarded as evidence then you have your work cut out for you. I would start by proving to me why one metaphysical claim of one God is more evidential than another.

Atheists have no problem thinking that some God could exist we just realize that without evidence it’s just like that God doesn’t exist and when people try to define the indefinable and attach dogma to it nothing good can come from it. And before you say good has come from it I would suggest you think of a good that could not have been achieved without it. Good luck.

 

Are hominid fossils proof to you that humans evolved from apes? Yes or no?

Are physical attributes being similar in different species tantamount to evidence that they are related? Yes or no?

We use God to explain human intelligence. Does evolution explain it? Yes or no?

 

Actually I have. I've also read The German Ideology, and am making my way through Das Kapital. I also have taken several courses related to his works. I fail to see how any of that is related to evolutionary theory. He threw it in there because Marxism has a horrible reputation in this country. It's a tired old tactic of demonizing the opponent or idea before the conversation even begins. It's called poisoning the well.

- - - Updated - - -

No, they're evidence.

Sorry, I should have said "anatomical attributes", and yes, they are.

If I didn't have an answer, does that mean your answer is right?