I mean, I’m not an idiot, I know that it’s just to sell a few more books and whatever, but this is just the kind of waterered down tripe I’ve come to expect of Dawkins.

People should go and read some real philosophy, instead of this pop culture neo-athiest bullshit and they might end up with a more balanced view of the world.

(And I’m an athiest)

Try to keep it really simple and those who are open to reason will understand. But don’t forget that most people don’t want to understand.

Summary
Evidence: Using observation and reasoning to iteratively build and test theories -> GOOD
Tradition: It’s as untrue now as it was when someone first came up with it -> BAD
Authority: The person telling you something could easily be wrong. In fact they may benefit by misleading you -> POOR
Revelation: Like believing you’re going to win the lottery because you feel good about it. Stupid. -> BAD

The scientific method hasn’t given us all the answers. And we make mistakes as we iterate towards the best explanations. But at least rational thinkers and atheists don’t make wishful assumptions. I maintain that there is as much evidence that Papa Smurf created the universe as there is that God did it. Prove me wrong and I’ll prove you wrong about God.

Anyway, great article – thanks for posting it.

I find these proofs of “unfulfilled prophecy” rather unreasonable. It seems that you impose a certain understanding of how you think the prophecy should be fulfilled, and when it does not meet your narrow interpretation, then you condemn it. Is that the kind of “reason” that you hold to?

Let’s look again at those examples and see if there is not a “reasonable” explanation, or at least the possibility that they could mean more than we might see:

1. Cain – first of all, was this an unconditional prophecy? In other words, was God going to force Cain to wander the earth, or was it more of a recommendation from God that this would be the best for him, or perhaps an indication of what he would have to do to avoid others that might be distrustful of him? Secondly, just because he built a city for his son (which might have been nothing much more than a wall around a bunch of tents…some seem to think this is what it indicates), does this mean that he never wandered and that he settled there for the rest of his life? The text does not say anything about it. He seems to have wanted something better for his son, but rather than lead his son to the God whose law Cain had defied, he led him to trust in human fortifications. Whoever wrote or inspired the Bible seems to understand human nature quite well.

2. Jehoiakim/Jehoiachin – Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, reigned for one hundred days. The prophecy had said that “he shall have none to sit upon the throne of David” which means that none of his seed would reign. That his son sat for a short 3 month period is apparently not counted in the scope of the prophecy. The prophecy is speaking about longer terms…at least a year. Some ancient records, such as the Ptolemaic Canon also omitted the mention of kings who reigned for less than a year, so this is not unusual. The other details about the death of Jehoiakim were fulfilled just as the prophecy stated.

3. Immanuel – this name means “God with us”. In the Bible, names are used to indicate character, and that is exactly what Jesus was, and claimed to be: “God with us”. 1Ti 3:16 “…God was manifest in the flesh…” It is a most significant prophecy because many of the Jews of Jesus’ time only wanted to acknowledge him as a prophet, a man. They did not want to see His divine nature, because He was so different from what they thought God should be like. That there is no record of anyone calling Him by the Hebrew word “Immanuel” doesn’t bother me…that was not the intent of the prophecy. The name is merely the vessel that contains a certain meaning. The treasure is in the meaning, and that treasure was revealed in Jesus. And there were many who witnessed that He was “God with us.”

Now a few other words. I had no difficulty with Dawkins’ letter to his daughter. There is a place for reason in religion, and to merely follow tradition without thinking about it is simply superstition. This however is primarily a problem with human nature, and can just as easily plague science as religion. As rational as we like to think we are, our “rationality” and even how we view the “evidence” is influenced by our feelings, our pre-conceived ideas, and our narrow views.

Some of the biggest questions of life have not been answered by science: why are we here? where are we going? why do we die? what is the purpose of life? I couldn’t find answers to these questions in science, and so I turned to religion and DID find answers, even reasonable ones. And more than answers, I found power to overcome human weaknesses. What does science offer me for that?

Here’s another question: what does science offer to solve the basic problems of humanity? why is it that with each new scientific discovery, the first purpose is to use the knowledge to gain military advantage over other nations? How is this different than the cavemen clubbing each other over the head? Why is it that with all our evolution and scientific advance, we are no better off morally than our ape-like ancestors (if you believe in evolution)?

Here’s one more. Science is primarily a study of laws. The Bible says that life does not come from the law “Is the law then against the promises of God?” (Gal. 3:21) Or we could read it “Is science against the promises of God?” And the answer: “God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness [life] would have been by the law.” You see, science has it’s place…it is a study of laws, so we can appreciate them, and use them wisely. It’s not against religion. But it also has it’s limitations…it cannot give life. You can’t get life from a law! If I drive too fast and lose my leg in a car accident, I won’t get it back by obeying the speed limits.

But scientists hope this; they hope that they will discover the antidote for death and be able to make men live forever…they also hope they will discover the secret to creating life. But these are both impossible, because you can’t get life from the law. Certainly you can extend life through the law, you can make that “spark” burn as long as possible through wise use and care, but in the end it will go out.

But now, even though it’s impossible, let’s imagine what would happen if scientists did discover the antidote for death. First of all, big huge patents would be slapped on the formula, and only the richest people could afford it. The poor wouldn’t like this, so they would rise in rebellion and fight the rich. Then other nations would scramble into the war to get their hands on the coveted prize. If one person did emerge from this struggle as master, he would have to surround himself with massive amounts of armed guards. Not being able to trust anyone, he would wipe out those whom he suspected as plotting to overthrow him. This would encourage all sorts of false accusations from those who wanted to knock off the person who was above them so they could climb higher. This supreme ruler would want men to worship him as a god and would take any amount of wives or anyones wives for his harem. And so on…does it sound a bit like some of the history of man? Is it any wonder then why the Bible says that God did not allow man to stay in the garden of Eden, where the tree of life was, after he sinned?

If science could give man wisdom along with knowledge, then it might be a threat to true religion. Until then, I’ll allow both their proper place. Science + Faith = Righteousness!

What are some ‘predictions’ of the bible that have come true? There have certainly been unfulfilled prophecies:

1- Genesis, Chapter No. 4, Verse No. 12, it says:

God told Cain: you will never be able to settle you will be a wanderer.

Few Verses later on Genesis, Chapter No.4, Verse No.17, says:

Cain built up a city

- Unfulfilled prophecy.

2- If you read Jeremiah, Chapter No.36, Verse No.30, it says that Jehoiachin the father of Jehoiachin – no one will be able to sit on his throne – The throne of David, no one will be able to sit after Jehoiachin. If you read later on, II Kings, Chapter No 24, Verse No 6, it says that “Jehoiachin after he died, later on Jehoiachin sat on the throne” – Unfulfilled prophecy.

3- One is sufficient to prove it is not the word of God – I can give plenty. If you read Ezekiel, Chapter No 26, it says that:

Nebuchader, he will destroyed Tyre.

We come to know that Alexander the great, was the person who destroyed Tyre – Unfulfilled prophecy.

4- Isaiah, Chapter No. 7, Verse No 14, says, prophesying of:

The coming of a person who will be born to a virgin – his name shall be Emmanuel.

They say the Christians – it refers to Jesus Christ peace be upon him. Born to a virgin – the Hebrew word there is “amla”, which means not “a virgin”- “a young lady”. The word for “virgin” in Hebrew is, “baitula”, which is not there. Even if you agree – we are using concordance – we agree “Virgin” = “Virgin” – No problem. It says:

He will be called Immanuel.

No where in the Bible is Jesus Christ peace be upon him, is called as Immanuel – Unfulfilled prophecy.

The bible is not a book of scientific facts. you use it the source of evidence that 500 people saw Jesus. This is not a solid argument as the Bible is not proven to be factual. (i mean, come on. noah’s ark?) all of the evidence you provided is from the bible, which is a completely unreliable source. What gives it any authority over what scientists have proven through experiments and rationality?

It makes no sense at all, yet I know that nothing I say will waver your faith in god. Why? Because your faith is BLIND.

I think Fred was making a reference to a common phrase “it’s so hot you need asbestos underwear”.

This would then imply that anyone who does not accept God without evidence is going to hell… where it’s very hot.

Therefor his is a fear-based argument. Hell is hot. Asbestos underwear is itchy. You don’t want either, so believe in God. :-)

John

Asbestos? That’s the best example you can come up with to challenge critical thinking? What a non-sequitur.