atheism doubled since 2001
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#438 Jan 3, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
The printing press wasn’t invented until the 15th century. Before that all bibles were hand copied and therefore very scarce and valuable. Only wealthy people could own one. Bibles were simply not available to commoners and most commoners couldn’t read or write their spoken language let alone Latin.
The Two oldest known complete copies of the New Testament are not identical and neither is identical to any of the bibles available today. Strangely enough both of the oldest bibles date to the 4th century when belief in Christianity as defined by the First Council of Nicaea became the law of the Roman Empire.
“Nowhere does the Bible claim to be inerrant. At no place in its more than 30,000 verses does the Bible claim that it is factually accurate in terms of history, science, geography and all other matters (the technical definition of inerrancy). "Inerrant" itself is not a word found in the Bible or even known to Christian theologians for most of history. Rather, the word was coined in the middle of the 19th century...”- David Lose, Director of the Center for Biblical Preaching at Luther Seminary
As I stated before, God allows us to use our brains. There isn't any history book that makes such a claim either. But at the same time, I haven't read many history books that as a side note states that some information may be inaccurate.

I would include that there's a bit of irony in that a number of people suggest one using logic and reasoning. When it comes to God, who I think promotes logic and reasoning (just read the words of Jesus).

The Bible doesn't start out by stating "This is an inerrant book starting from Genesis to Revelation". However when reading the words of Jesus, and God, the words suggest truth. The Bible speaks of Old Testament historical men of faith in the New Testament. If God/Jesus 'exists'(which I believe He does) is it logical to believe that the very book that gives His testimony is only partially inspired?

If you follow the "flawed man" theme (referring to Biblical writers), then you would have to be open to the potential flaws of Bible critics, whether atheists, or seminary theologians.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#439 Jan 3, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they been shown the evidence in HS and college bio classes or read books or watched PBS science shows EXPLAINING evolution and how it works. Why shouldn't we look to the research of the "big dogs' in biochemistry, biology and paleontology? Is the average person qualified or knowledgeable enough to do this research? Or often to understand the raw form of it?
<quoted text>
Evolution is taught in science classes as "what science knows and HAS KNOWN for 150 years about the development of species on earth." Is that "intimidating people into believing evolution"? Why is it a serious problem that science presents science in science classes?
<quoted text>

Why should science classes teach religious apologetics disguised as science? is there even TIME for that? Leave that to the churches, no?
As as for "creationism is not science," check out the Statement of Faith page of one of the leading creationist organizations:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith
Scroll all the way to the bottom to the last point:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
You CANNOT be doing science if you say, a priori, that the scriptural record (apparently interpreted literally) trumps any and all scientific evidence that contradicts it.
They are doing religious apologetics dishonestly coated with sciencey words.
I think you're assuming that if ID were somehow presented in the classroom, Creation websites would be utilized.

Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the
result of intelligence.-- William A. Dembski ..

Intelligent Design does 'not' require references to Genesis. It 'could' certainly lead into examining creationism in Genesis.

You could say, using a creation website would be equivalent to a science classroom using an "evolution" website that expresses anti-theistic sentiment. Like Richard Dawkins' site. I think classroom scientists are fairly careful not to promote anti-theistic sentiment, but science teachers 'have' recommended books by Dawkins, or a book (The God Delusion) to students under the table. Also, a Carl Sagan book that addressed religion has been used in public science classes. So the question of whether or not religion is 'really' separated from the science class is....questionable.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#440 Jan 3, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're assuming that if ID were somehow presented in the classroom, Creation websites would be utilized.
ID, according to its own proponents at the Discovery Institute (DI)(testifying in Kitzmiller vs. Dover) has no scientific theory, and therefore nothing to teach in a science class. "Things look designed" is not a science fact or theory -- it is a religious and/or philosophical inference.
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the
result of intelligence.-- William A. Dembski ..
See above. They have no coherent theory of ID, no mechanisms, no data and are doing no research. All they do is try and point out supposed flaws in evolution, from what I can see!
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent Design does 'not' require references to Genesis. It 'could' certainly lead into examining creationism in Genesis.
ID is INTENDED to lead students to Genesis and to belief in full-blown Christianity. See the DI's internal document known as the Wedge Document, which sets out their goals specifically and was meant to be strictly under the table and in-house. They were very embarrassed when it went public and went viral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_document
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#441 Jan 3, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
You could say, using a creation website would be equivalent to a science classroom using an "evolution" website that expresses anti-theistic sentiment.
Dawkins' atheist opinions are not taught in public school science classes. Occasionally, they may quote some of Dawkins' biological research, as well they should.
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
So the question of whether or not religion is 'really' separated from the science class is....questionable.
It's the law, handed down in court ruling from the Supreme COurt on down to various district courts since 1974. Creationism and its stealth cousin, ID, cannot be taught in public school science classes, as they are inherently religious in nature.

I don't know about the occasional anecdotal reports about Dawkins or Sagan's writings on atheism being passed out. Sounds like possible Christian propaganda or Internet rumor to me.:)

And if they were, they may well have been in response to persistent fundamentalist Christian attempts to disrupt and infiltrate the particular school and science class.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#442 Jan 3, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're assuming that if ID were somehow presented in the classroom, Creation websites would be utilized.
Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the
result of intelligence.-- William A. Dembski ..
Intelligent Design does 'not' require references to Genesis. It 'could' certainly lead into examining creationism in Genesis.
You could say, using a creation website would be equivalent to a science classroom using an "evolution" website that expresses anti-theistic sentiment. Like Richard Dawkins' site. I think classroom scientists are fairly careful not to promote anti-theistic sentiment, but science teachers 'have' recommended books by Dawkins, or a book (The God Delusion) to students under the table. Also, a Carl Sagan book that addressed religion has been used in public science classes. So the question of whether or not religion is 'really' separated from the science class is....questionable.
cdesign proponentsism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponen...
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#443 Jan 3, 2013
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>Great quote.
And "they" go about this by fixating on the ridiculous and in most cases things that are truly unimportant. Like the reclassification of Pluto! Can you, anyone think of a more absurd thing for ID'ers, and Bible thumpers to fixate on as that!?! And then try and extend this inconsequential "insider" move to make all of the many diverse science disciplines suspect and react like, "Oh my God they might say Earth is not a planet tomorrow and that Humans are really fish!" (yeah we share stuff with fish.)
And nearly all the things they argue about are inconsequential to their Religion and Faith.
If you like Big Al's quote you will like Dawkins quote even more:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." The Blind Watchmaker

This is one of my favorites from Richard.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#444 Jan 3, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
If you like Big Al's quote you will like Dawkins quote even more:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." The Blind Watchmaker
This is one of my favorites from Richard.
Yes, the APPEARANCE. But then he goes on to explain the many different ways that they can come together and are SEEN to come together without purpose or design.

That's what scientists DO in their books and websites -- explain the potential problems and objections, then EXPLAIN why they are not really problems and an be resolved.

Christian anti-evolution people always seem to just quote the scientist's exposition of the problem

The infamous Darwin "eye quote" is a prime example.
Punisher

Yonkers, NY

#445 Jan 3, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
As I stated before, God allows us to use our brains. There isn't any history book that makes such a claim either. But at the same time, I haven't read many history books that as a side note states that some information may be inaccurate.
I would include that there's a bit of irony in that a number of people suggest one using logic and reasoning. When it comes to God, who I think promotes logic and reasoning (just read the words of Jesus).
The Bible doesn't start out by stating "This is an inerrant book starting from Genesis to Revelation". However when reading the words of Jesus, and God, the words suggest truth. The Bible speaks of Old Testament historical men of faith in the New Testament. If God/Jesus 'exists'(which I believe He does) is it logical to believe that the very book that gives His testimony is only partially inspired?
If you follow the "flawed man" theme (referring to Biblical writers), then you would have to be open to the potential flaws of Bible critics, whether atheists, or seminary theologians.
Amazing how These men of science are flawed, men of academia of all stripes that might even cast an eye of scrutiny towards the Bible - but to a man, to the last hair on their head, of those involved with the Bible are not.

These guys enter a "room" and Wham! Your God is there to make sure its all done right and exactly as he would like it.

How is that when Xtians are always claiming they cant force God to do a damn thing! But because an Emperor says, "You guys do this and don't come out without an answer!" Your God obeys!?!?!

Flawed men went in that room, behaved as flawed men, and left the room flawed.

You are bat shyte crazy, a hypocrite and just plain obstinate to reality. Excuses rule your world, and moving any boundary lines of reason and sense are part of the game. "Oh what my team is out of bounds? Oh no they're not see, there's the (new) boundary!"

There was a time when you made some sense, now its gone.
Punisher

Yonkers, NY

#446 Jan 3, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
If you like Big Al's quote you will like Dawkins quote even more:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." The Blind Watchmaker
This is one of my favorites from Richard.
Appearance - critical term. But apparently you don't understand much about the English language.

That black dress gave Mary the appearance of being much thinner than she is.

When the train next to your train moves when yours does not, it appears that you train is also moving.

When you type words that make actual sentences, it appears you grasp their meanings...till it clear you do not.
Punisher

Yonkers, NY

#447 Jan 3, 2013
...your train...

...till its clear...
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#448 Jan 3, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the APPEARANCE. But then he goes on to explain the many different ways that they can come together and are SEEN to come together without purpose or design.
That's what scientists DO in their books and websites -- explain the potential problems and objections, then EXPLAIN why they are not really problems and an be resolved.
Christian anti-evolution people always seem to just quote the scientist's exposition of the problem
The infamous Darwin "eye quote" is a prime example.
Lets apply Richard' quote to the everyday world. I see a house that APPEARS to be designed but its not. I see a car that APPEARS to be designed buts it not. Both of these examples are less complex that a living thing and REQUIRE INTELLIGENCE to create them but when it comes to something far more complex and looks designed we are told its not. How crazy can you get?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#449 Jan 3, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets apply Richard' quote to the everyday world. I see a house that APPEARS to be designed but its not. I see a car that APPEARS to be designed buts it not. Both of these examples are less complex that a living thing and REQUIRE INTELLIGENCE to create them but when it comes to something far more complex and looks designed we are told its not. How crazy can you get?
This is known as the Watchmaker Analogy (of Wm. Paley). it was discredited LONG ago!

If we walk along a beach and find a watch, do we not assume someone MADE IT?

Answer: "Yes, of course, because we all know, as human beings, that watches are MADE BY HUMAN BEINGS."

Likewise, in your example, we know that cars and houses are designed by human beings, so it would be absurd to say they are NOT in this example.

Cars and houses do not reproduce biologically. Living things do. That's the difference. They are "designed" unintentionally by their parents, going all the way back to the first cell. No need to claim a ;designer" when you have two parents.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#450 Jan 3, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets apply Richard' quote to the everyday world. I see a house that APPEARS to be designed but its not. I see a car that APPEARS to be designed buts it not. Both of these examples are less complex that a living thing and REQUIRE INTELLIGENCE to create them but when it comes to something far more complex and looks designed we are told its not. How crazy can you get?
The "watchmaker" analogy, originally formed by William Paley for the existence of God (the Argument from design) and since reused as an argument for intelligent design, is cited as an example of a false analogy. In it, Paley suggested that an analogy could be made between the complexity of a watch and the complexity of the universe.[2]

The analogy is as follows:

The universe is like a watch.
A watch must have a watchmaker.
The universe, being like a watch, must have a designer.
The false analogy can be shown by a reduction to the absurd, highlighting the many differences between the universe and a watch. Similar absurdities can be built from almost every other characteristic of watches:

The universe is like a watch.
A watch can be used to cover a tattoo on one's wrist.
The universe, being like a watch, can be used to cover a tattoo on one's wrist.
Also, there are problems "disguised" in the assumptions of the analogy. A watch bears little resemblance to the universe, therefore the entire analogy is invalidated in step 1. Paley's original argument also focused on the hypothetical scenario of coming across a watch in heath, and its apparent complexity and appearance of design can be compared to stones and grass around it. Because of this, the analogy fails at a more subtle level; we have seen watches designed and made by intelligent entities and we have seen rocks and grass made by non-intelligent, natural mechanisms. The universe, however, is all we have seen—there is nothing on a similar scale and scope to the universe that implies it is non-natural.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#451 Jan 4, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
As I stated before, God allows us to use our brains. There isn't any history book that makes such a claim either. But at the same time, I haven't read many history books that as a side note states that some information may be inaccurate.
All reasonable people understand that anything produced by fallible human beings is subject to error; it is only religious zealots (of all belief systems) that claim infallible “divine revelation”. No book written in an imperfect human language can be completely free of human error.

If your “God” whom you believe to be omnipotent wanted everybody to read and follow the teachings of the New Testament why was “He” unable to provide those in a manner available to all?

"The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration, are of themselves evidences that the human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the Word of God. The Word of God exists in something else." - Thomas Paine
Job wrote:
I would include that there's a bit of irony in that a number of people suggest one using logic and reasoning. When it comes to God, who I think promotes logic and reasoning (just read the words of Jesus).
The Bible doesn't start out by stating "This is an inerrant book starting from Genesis to Revelation". However when reading the words of Jesus, and God, the words suggest truth. The Bible speaks of Old Testament historical men of faith in the New Testament. If God/Jesus 'exists'(which I believe He does) is it logical to believe that the very book that gives His testimony is only partially inspired?
Much of the teaching attributed to Jesus I also find very wise and intelligent but as Thomas Jefferson said…

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being".
Job wrote:
If you follow the "flawed man" theme (referring to Biblical writers), then you would have to be open to the potential flaws of Bible critics, whether atheists, or seminary theologians.
As I said previously all reasonable people understand that anything produced by fallible human beings is subject to error; it is only religious zealots (of all belief systems) that claim infallible “divine revelation”.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#452 Jan 4, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
All reasonable people understand that anything produced by fallible human beings is subject to error; it is only religious zealots (of all belief systems) that claim infallible “divine revelation”. No book written in an imperfect human language can be completely free of human error.
If your “God” whom you believe to be omnipotent wanted everybody to read and follow the teachings of the New Testament why was “He” unable to provide those in a manner available to all?
"The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration, are of themselves evidences that the human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the Word of God. The Word of God exists in something else." - Thomas Paine

<quoted text>
Much of the teaching attributed to Jesus I also find very wise and intelligent but as Thomas Jefferson said…
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being".
<quoted text>

As I said previously all reasonable people understand that anything produced by fallible human beings is subject to error; it is only religious zealots (of all belief systems) that claim infallible “divine revelation”.
1. I think Jefferson's sentiments are quite natural. Even to those accredited to being men of faith in the Bible struggled with what seemed to them paradoxical. Any one of us could take the Bible, the Gospels, or the red letter words of Jesus, and edit them to match our personal preference. And more than likely, there will be differences in the editing among all editing participants.

2. This brings up the question of "logic and reasoning" vs. "divine revelation". From what I can tell, Thomas Paine had a 'solid' belief in God. That a very real creator exists. Is that logic and reasoning, and if so, why? What is often considered a religious zealot is one who believes the tenets of the Christian faith, and is always (or often) talking about Jesus. A "Jesus freak".

However, a "Jesus freak" does 'not' know everything. Most 'converted' to being a "Jesus freak" (as opposed to one who studied the Bible from a child, and never left the faith), probably know little to nothing when they become a believer. They may not even know enough to form an opinion on creation/evolution.

If Jesus Christ is actually the pursuer of these believers, and one way or another makes Himself manifest (whether it be dramatic or relatively tame), is it divine revelation, or that person being introduced to a 'new' logic? It doesn't mean the person has been enlightened to 'all' truth as in understanding all doctrinal issues. But that person has been exposed to the truth of Jesus Christ, just as a new born baby has been exposed to the truth of the world 'outside' of the womb.

If Thomas Paine's apparent 'firm' belief in God involved 'more' than his thought process, like some sort of spiritual interaction that he may not have even known about (which I would consider an involvement of the Holy Spirit), then is it logic and reasoning on his part or a divine revelation of sorts?
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#453 Jan 4, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I think Jefferson's sentiments are quite natural. Even to those accredited to being men of faith in the Bible struggled with what seemed to them paradoxical. Any one of us could take the Bible, the Gospels, or the red letter words of Jesus, and edit them to match our personal preference. And more than likely, there will be differences in the editing among all editing participants.
Exactly! Since no one alive today has ever seen an original copy of any of the books of the Bible (Old or New Testaments) no one knows what may or may not have been mistranslated, misinterpreted or willfully changed. Jefferson makes the completely rational observation that some things in the New Testament seem very wise and some things absurd and irrational.

Why wouldn’t an omnipotent “God” be able to preserve an original copy of his “divine revelation” if it is so important to everyone’s salvation?
Job wrote:
2. This brings up the question of "logic and reasoning" vs. "divine revelation". From what I can tell, Thomas Paine had a 'solid' belief in God. That a very real creator exists. Is that logic and reasoning, and if so, why? What is often considered a religious zealot is one who believes the tenets of the Christian faith, and is always (or often) talking about Jesus. A "Jesus freak".
However, a "Jesus freak" does 'not' know everything. Most 'converted' to being a "Jesus freak" (as opposed to one who studied the Bible from a child, and never left the faith), probably know little to nothing when they become a believer. They may not even know enough to form an opinion on creation/evolution.
If Jesus Christ is actually the pursuer of these believers, and one way or another makes Himself manifest (whether it be dramatic or relatively tame), is it divine revelation, or that person being introduced to a 'new' logic? It doesn't mean the person has been enlightened to 'all' truth as in understanding all doctrinal issues. But that person has been exposed to the truth of Jesus Christ, just as a new born baby has been exposed to the truth of the world 'outside' of the womb.
If Thomas Paine's apparent 'firm' belief in God involved 'more' than his thought process, like some sort of spiritual interaction that he may not have even known about (which I would consider an involvement of the Holy Spirit), then is it logic and reasoning on his part or a divine revelation of sorts?
Thomas Paine’s belief in “God” was simply a reasoned conclusion based on the law of cause and effect and the indisputable existence of the real world which he and everybody else can see, feel, smell, taste and touch. Thomas Paine asks no one to accept his or anyone else’s word for anything. His belief was merely a product of his ability to reason no “involvement of the Holy Spirit” necessary.

"The Creation speaketh a universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God." - Thomas Paine

“Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man. No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication… But…It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.”- Thomas Paine

"… It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing.”- Thomas Paine
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#454 Jan 4, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets apply Richard' quote to the everyday world. I see a house that APPEARS to be designed but its not. I see a car that APPEARS to be designed buts it not. Both of these examples are less complex that a living thing and REQUIRE INTELLIGENCE to create them but when it comes to something far more complex and looks designed we are told its not. How crazy can you get?
Are you reading an old version of a For Dummies book, "How to Argue with a Middle Ages Atheist"..??

Geesus, this Watchmaker analogy has long since been dismantled.
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#455 Jan 4, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I think Jefferson's sentiments are quite natural. Even to those accredited to being men of faith in the Bible struggled with what seemed to them paradoxical. Any one of us could take the Bible, the Gospels, or the red letter words of Jesus, and edit them to match our personal preference. And more than likely, there will be differences in the editing among all editing participants.
2. This brings up the question of "logic and reasoning" vs. "divine revelation". From what I can tell, Thomas Paine had a 'solid' belief in God. That a very real creator exists. Is that logic and reasoning, and if so, why? What is often considered a religious zealot is one who believes the tenets of the Christian faith, and is always (or often) talking about Jesus. A "Jesus freak".
However, a "Jesus freak" does 'not' know everything. Most 'converted' to being a "Jesus freak" (as opposed to one who studied the Bible from a child, and never left the faith), probably know little to nothing when they become a believer. They may not even know enough to form an opinion on creation/evolution.
If Jesus Christ is actually the pursuer of these believers, and one way or another makes Himself manifest (whether it be dramatic or relatively tame), is it divine revelation, or that person being introduced to a 'new' logic? It doesn't mean the person has been enlightened to 'all' truth as in understanding all doctrinal issues. But that person has been exposed to the truth of Jesus Christ, just as a new born baby has been exposed to the truth of the world 'outside' of the womb.
If Thomas Paine's apparent 'firm' belief in God involved 'more' than his thought process, like some sort of spiritual interaction that he may not have even known about (which I would consider an involvement of the Holy Spirit), then is it logic and reasoning on his part or a divine revelation of sorts?
Divine Revelation? LOL! Prove that will you!?!?!
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#456 Jan 4, 2013
Everyone notice how Jeff blew past the "appearance" thang...?

He loves a quote he doesn't understand the terms of.
Like a prude who repeatedly tells a dirty joke he/she doesn't understand...
Punisher

Tuckahoe, NY

#457 Jan 5, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I think Jefferson's sentiments are quite natural. Even to those accredited to being men of faith in the Bible struggled with what seemed to them paradoxical. Any one of us could take the Bible, the Gospels, or the red letter words of Jesus, and edit them to match our personal preference. And more than likely, there will be differences in the editing among all editing participants.
2. This brings up the question of "logic and reasoning" vs. "divine revelation". From what I can tell, Thomas Paine had a 'solid' belief in God. That a very real creator exists. Is that logic and reasoning, and if so, why? What is often considered a religious zealot is one who believes the tenets of the Christian faith, and is always (or often) talking about Jesus. A "Jesus freak".
However, a "Jesus freak" does 'not' know everything. Most 'converted' to being a "Jesus freak" (as opposed to one who studied the Bible from a child, and never left the faith), probably know little to nothing when they become a believer. They may not even know enough to form an opinion on creation/evolution.
If Jesus Christ is actually the pursuer of these believers, and one way or another makes Himself manifest (whether it be dramatic or relatively tame), is it divine revelation, or that person being introduced to a 'new' logic? It doesn't mean the person has been enlightened to 'all' truth as in understanding all doctrinal issues. But that person has been exposed to the truth of Jesus Christ, just as a new born baby has been exposed to the truth of the world 'outside' of the womb.
If Thomas Paine's apparent 'firm' belief in God involved 'more' than his thought process, like some sort of spiritual interaction that he may not have even known about (which I would consider an involvement of the Holy Spirit), then is it logic and reasoning on his part or a divine revelation of sorts?
But again there are all these analogies that only on first glance appear to be making a sound comparison - but when looked at again, and again - fall apart.

The newborn baby analogy is absurd. You cant not reasonably compare/contrast a newborn to an adult, or even a teen. The newborn has no actual concept of the truth of the "outside world", an in fact has no idea what truth even might mean...being a newborn. All it might even be aware of is a disruption (in the force Luke) and then it only knows it on a truly instinctual level and purely biological sense. Its not coming out and saying, "Ah, so this is the truth of the outside world, its so white and bright."

While an adult or teen, having lived and been exposed to the realities (lets drop the truth word for awhile can we?) of the World has, we hope, a better grasp on reality and is in a much better position to discern matters important to them.(we hope)

Plus, as history details very well - this person now newly exposed to Jesus/Xtianity - might not be getting anything resembling the "truth" about him and Xtianity. That exposure could be in a fringe sect, by a Cult leader, by a murderous zealot, or just a bat-shyte crazy parent who is so emotionally damaged he/she totally skews the novitiate's exposure to the teachings of Jesus/Xtianity.

This notion of yours and others that when people are exposed to Xtianity its always correct and pure - is also absurd. As history details a million contradictory examples. Exacerbated by the fact that there is no Universal agreement on what the "truth" truly and honestly is...

As for Paine, et al - I would lay good money that IF they could be exposed to current scientific knowledge, etc - there would be more atheists among them. And I would offer that they would be fully disgusted by the current state/condition that Xtianity is in re; Politics and Social issues in their Country.

That any of them still believed in a Creator is but an artifact of their times.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hospice Care or Murder? (Jan '13) 1 hr fallen angel 111
What religion was Enoch, Noah, and Abraham? (Oct '12) 6 hr fallen angel 1,206
Is there any evidence Apostles Peter and Paul b... 7 hr fallen angel 340
judgment coming to america 9 hr fallen angel 55
Early Christianity (Dec '16) 9 hr fallen angel 2,114
Israel is anti christ, literally 9 hr fallen angel 46
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 9 hr fallen angel 1,098
More from around the web