There is one major issue in doing this, however. That is the fact that very few people will truly listen to what I and the Bible have to say. I can unfortunately say that with confidence because Matthew 7:14 says, “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” I have been hearing atheists use the word “presupposition” a lot lately. They say that Christians refuse to hear the atheists’ side because they have a presupposition that atheism and evolution are wrong. Well, it works the other way around, too.
Atheists—as well as other nonbelievers—refuse to listen to what the Bible has to say because they love their sin; therefore, they automatically say that the Bible is false and there is no God. Although the Bible does say that “the fool hath said in his heart there is no God,” the atheist is by no means dumb. He realizes that, if God does exist, he is in big trouble; therefore, to try and keep himself out of trouble and to hold on to his sin, he goes into denial and denies God’s existence.
I know that very, very few atheists will listen to me because they have already decided not to listen before they even know what I am going to say. So I would like to urge all of those, who have already decided that my proof is no proof at all, to please take off the blindfold of sin and truly see the truth of God’s Word and the condition of your own heart. If I did not care about you, I would not be taking the time to write this. And because I care about you, I want you to know Him and be washed in His blood that has the power to make you whiter than snow.
@Tommy,
ReplyDelete> I have been hearing atheists use the word
> “presupposition” a lot lately. They say that
> Christians refuse to hear the atheists’ side
> because they have a presupposition that
> atheism and evolution are wrong.
No, your are wrong.
When atheists talk about presuppositions, it is NOT about Christians refusing to hear atheists side.
What atheist mean with presupposition is that for believing something, FIRST you need to believe that "something" is actually true. An example is to believe in any sacred book, like the Bible, when the believer FIRST has to accept it as true by face value, because later it uses the quotes of the book itself to prove its truth (that already he thought as true anyway) as a valid demonstration. That is circular reasoning:
1) The Bible is true -> Therefore everything it says is true
2) the Bible says itself is true -> THEREFORE, the Bible is true.
It is funny that the same argumentation from a Muslin saying so for Qu'ran will sound ridiculous to a fundamentalist Christian.
> So over the next few days or so, we will be
> discussing some verses of Scripture that very
> much prove their own accuracy.
It is clearly circular reasoning is something it convinces yourself and makes you happy, but do not expect any rational atheist to give you a hug because you convert it with your "Bible proves itself" argument.
> Atheists—as well as other nonbelievers—refuse
> to listen to what the Bible has to say because
> they love their sin; therefore, they
> automatically say that the Bible is false and
> there is no God.
I am sad to see you fall again and again to the "atheist are sinners" script.
Atheist do not automatically believe the bible is false and there is no God just because so; Instead they are actually the conclusion after (sometimes a long) evaluation of the Bible claims and that is where the evidence leads.
The evidence shows the Bible is riddled with falsehood, plain lies, factual errors and impossible-to-avoid contradictions. I have some of them I could list you, but the time doesn't allow me to do it now and explain them.
But if your are not able to find them in the net by yourself, please post a reply asking for more information and I could show you some of them later.
And for an interesting lecture, I recommend you this two articles:
* "The Bible and Modernity" from "Choice of Dying" blog.
* "Who wrote the Bible and why it matters", by Bart Ehrman, published in the Huffington Post.
I'll send you the real links as an additional comment. If you are fair enough, please also publish them.
> I know that very, very few atheists will
> listen to me because they have already decided
> not to listen before they even know what I am
> going to say.
At least you know you have one atheist fan :).
But not because you said whatever you said I (or any atheist) will ought to believe you. First you have to demonstrate far from any doubts (to anybody, not only for Christians that already believe Christianity is true) that your declarations are true.
And again I insist: proving the Bible by itself does not count as valid evidence, as the same level that proving the Qu'ran by itself also does not.
Why: because to do so you have FIRST to presuppose that particular holy book is actually true, so that means you are asserting what you want to demonstrate is already true as part as your own argumentation to demonstrate its truth. That is a fallacy.
And fallacies are a path to falsehood, not for truth. If you love TRUTH, avoid fallacies or you are demonstrating you are intellectually dishonest.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThis may seem rather unfair to you, but I am not going to publish the direct links you sent me because I do not have the time to read and investigate the entire sites. I am not highly familiar with either one, and I am not comfortable with the thought of posting something that could potentially contain immoral content. However, people can Google them if they wish. Hope you understand!
Tommy,
ReplyDeleteThanks for replying and I hope now I have your attention regarding your rule No. 2.
If anybody send you a link in the comments, it is up to you to read it, or to fully investigate the whole origin site immediately or in any time in future.
But if you are "not confortable with the thought of posting something that....". WAIT! You are not posting ANYTHING! You are only allowing SOMEBODY ELSE to present a link that it is supposed to be related to the current topic.
If the link is irrelevant, immoral or plain stupid, you or any of your readers could FREELY review it on their on time and later also comment and explain why that link is irrelevant, immoral or plain stupid. But that only works if you allow links first!
But your attitude of censoring the links to ANYBODY else who read your posts and comments until you "bless it" with your time is not only unfair. Also it offends the freewill and free speak rights of all your audience because you are actually blocking other people to argue and show whatever evidence or idea they want to share.
And also: if your readers follow a link that is problematic, I assert they are adults and they have their own reasoning (and brain) to evaluate the link content and reach the conclusion they want:
* If somebody post a link filled with falsehood, then your readers will realize about that easily and they will know that and they will be reinforced to agree with your position.
* If the link is actually presenting GOOD arguments, then your readers are "blessed" with new information that otherwise they will NEVER have reached them with your NO-LINKS policy.
And finally, if you expect to have a audience that is SMART and INFORMED, you have to trust they that they have the brain and guts to see arguments and evidences, no matter how beauty or nasty they are, and the right choice is to assume they are SMART ENOUGH to know how to address that.
But if you want to "protect" your audience for the harm of having them thinking by themselves, what you are implicitly saying is all your audience is a full bag of morons.
And I could assert that I am not a moron. Do you think anybody else reading your blog is a moron?
Honestly, if I were trying to keep readers from hearing other opinions, I would not allow ANY comments. The truth is this blog is G-rated! If you want to allude to certain links in your comments, you are more than welcome to do so. However, I will not allow any direct links to be posted.
ReplyDeleteAs I stated in requirement number 2, if someone sends me an interesting link, I may end up writing a post on it. In such cases, I would post the link for readers to check out for themselves.
This blog is meant to help people; not offend them with blasphemy, profanity, and whatever else that may be contained in certain links. This is not an issue of "I'm the author of this blog. What I say goes." This is an issue of integrity and morality. End of story.
Tommy:
ReplyDelete> if someone sends me an interesting link, I may
> end up writing a post on it. In such cases, I
> would post the link for readers to check out
> for themselves.
Interesting for who? In the current state of affairs, the link could be interesting for YOU only; Nobody else could see if the link is interesting or not, or if it is useful or not because you censor them by default.
And in a previous comment you said "I do not have the time to read and investigate the entire sites"... That is an asinine excuse!
The "no time to read and investigate" excuse is as absurd as somebody saying "Sorry! I will not approve nor take seriously your comments or quotes from the Bible until I read the Bible completely, but, What a pity! I do not have the time to read and investigate the entire book, so, good bye! [CENSOR STAMP SOUND]".
Also I will give you a simple real example of why your rule is perverse:
You had stated in previous posts that "[atheists] have to have a lot more faith than we do to believe in evolution" or "If evolution is a fact of life, why is it not still happening?". They are both direct quotes from your posts.
It happens that the first assertion is false, and the second shows you don't understand evolution. In its moment I did answer you in the comments why. But even today that is _my word_ against _your word_, unless I could provide solid and concrete evidence for it.
And I DID! I have repeatedly sent you the links to the scientific reports and serious pages that makes analysis that not only back ups what I say, but also show the facts I am talking about.
But with your rule, those comment with the links to the evidence NEVER SAW THE LIGHT.
Are they profane? No. Are they obscene? NO! Will them offend somebody? Maybe, especially for people who don't want to hear the truth that reality around us does show.
Forbidding links talks pretty bad of a blog that it is supposed to be read with an "open mind". Remember you said that in your former blog "Good News for Atheists"; You said "I ask that you read those posts with an open mind.".
If you really want to be read with an open mind, you ALSO have to be able to read and allow links with any content that is relevant (even if its tone is harsh) with open mind.
Censoring links (and the related information they content) shows that you have NOT an open mind, and that puts you in a position where you have no moral right to ask for that for your own ideas and beliefs.