When I Was A Child...

From *The Skeptical Review*, 2002/July-August:

by Farrell Till

The apostle Paul once said something that makes me think of gullible Bible believers every time I read it: "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways" (1 Cor. 13:11). Children believe many outrageous things. They believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and all sorts of things that they heard from their parents, who had read them fairy tales and other fantasy literature. As children grow older, however, they discard these childish beliefs, except for the fantasies they were taught in church. Somehow many children grow into adulthood and eventually die without ever giving up the religious fantasies they learned as children.

I often wonder why. I remember an early childhood trip that my family made from Southeast Missouri to Memphis. Christmas was approaching, so I suppose my parents were making the trip to buy presents for my brother and me that they would slip under the tree and fool us into thinking that Santa Claus had brought them. They didn't know that my brother, who was in the first grade at the time, had been telling me that he had learned at school that there was no Santa Claus.

The Problems in Bradford's Complaint

An excellent article by Farrell Till comparing the logical, empirical-based presuppositions of naturalists versus the illogical, unsupported suppositions of supernaturalists. From *The Skeptical Review*, Sept-Oct. 2001:

by Farrell Till

Mr. Bradford seems sincerely convinced that I have a prejudice that will not allow me to see that supernatural presuppositions are just as logical as naturalistic ones. Because of his apparent belief that I won't listen to any arguments in the articles he submits to me, I am asking another person to reply to his attempt to prove the existence of God. It will be published in a later issue, although the subject is not really suitable for The Skeptical Review.In the very first  issue of TSR, published in January 1990, I specifically stated that the paper would not debate the issue of God's existence, but if I had declined to publish Mr. Bradford's article, he would have accused me of being too prejudiced to give consideration to attempts to prove the existence of his deity by scientific argumentation. What Mr. Bradford doesn't seem to realize is that he doesn't really argue his positions. He just asserts them and then vents his frustration when we refuse to fall in line and accept his assertions without questions.

Although I am leaving the "God part" of Bradford's article for someone else to answer, he made some personal remarks about himself and me that I will reply to in this issue, because no one else would really be qualified to speak on some of the accusations he made about me.

Do I resort to "subjective ridicule rather than logic and evidence"? I have to answer this charge with both yes and no. Yes, I do ridicule the inability of biblicists to think rationally. Perhaps I should not do this, but it is somewhat difficult not to do it when a biblicist persists in clinging to an irrational belief when he has seen mountains of evidence that the biblical inerrancy doctrine just cannot be true. When biblicists argue that "soon"or "at hand" didn't really mean soon or at hand when they are shown New Testament promises that the return of Jesus was to happen imminently, it is difficult to be patient with their intellectual dishonesty or irrational determination to make faith more important than common sense. On internet forums, I have often said that a time comes in debates with biblicists to call a spade a spade, and when an inerrantist keeps trying to defend a position that has been shown to be untenable, I think it is time to say without apology that the inerrantist is allowing allegiance to an irrational belief to overrule his/her common sense. In a letter on page 15 of this issue, Tom Broom expressed wonderment that I have the patience to discuss biblical minutia with the likes of some inerrantists whose articles appear in this paper. Believe me, it isn't easy, so when I do at times show a lack of patience and resort to ridicule, it should be understandable. Anyway, if I am guilty as Bradford charges, his complaint would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, because look at his own subjective remarks about me. Saying that I resort to subjective ridicule rather than logic and evidence isn't exactly a compliment.

"God's" Characteristics

How About An Unequivocal Miracle?

As someone astutely noticed, "God does not work in mysterious ways – 

he works in  ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence.” 

Anonymous. If there is a God and he has an important message for 

me--he knows how to get my attention. From the Errancy Discussion 

list, 8-31-97:

MICHAEL FACKERELL

Nothing has impressed me too much so far. Its true though that I'm out of >my depth on some issues. I don't speak Hebrew for example, although two >different people (one of whom I know to be a Jewess) claimed they heard me >quoting Scripture in Hebrew when I was praying in tongues in different >situations. (See Mark 16:17). 

BEN

Now, I could see how psychologically someone could convince themselves they saw a miracle, or even had a "personal experience" with God, but to actually believe that oneself has spoken in tongues is beyond my comprehension. Either you have really tricked yourself or you are lying to us. I don't know which. But certainly you have not spoken in tounges. That would mean for God to intervene in the laws of nature for the sole purpose of making his presence known. If he is going to do this, why wouldn't he do something that works? In an earlier post today, I talked about this. He really needs some help when it comes to making his presence known. If he's going to let you talk in tounges, why doesn't he let you talk so loud that everyone on earth hears you? I'll tell you the answer. The only possible theist answer. God is unpredictable. Unpredictability is the earmark of unjustness. So it looks like we are dealing with an unjust God. And what greater injustice is there than to tell someone they will receive eternal paradise, then to send them to hell for the fun of it. If he really gets all this glee out of burning nonbelievers, then what makes you think he will keep his promise to you? Personally, I don't agree with any of this scenario; however, it does make more sense than your just God.

TILL

If Michael doesn't know Hebrew and yet spoke in that language, there could be no explanation for this except that God intervened and caused it to happen. If so, why did God intervene just to cause a miracle that would have been known by only the two Jews who were able to recognize that he was speaking Hebrew? If God is going to perform a miracle, why not making it something that would be unequivocal to the world? Suppose that God spoke from "heaven" with a booming voice that was heard by every person on earth in his/her own language and that he said that he was going to settle once and for all the question of his existence. He could, say, inform us that he was going to suspend tragedy for an entire year and that during this time, there would be no illnesses of any kind and no deaths. Those who were ill at the time would be immediately cured no matter what their infirmities were. Those with cancer, heart problems, diabetes, etc., etc., etc. would experience immediate cures. Those who were afflicted with any kind of physical or mental abnormalities would be healed. Those who had missing or crippled limbs, for example, would have them restored. Those who were deaf would hear; those who were blind would see. This would happen all over the world, and for an entire year nobody would die, and there would be no traffic accidents, earthquakes, volcanic explosions, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., etc., etc. Hunger would disappear, and poverty would be suspended. Now if God would do something like this, there would be no unbelievers left. He could even say during his initial announcement that he was going to do this to prove not just his existence but that the Bible was his inspired word and Christianity the only true religion. Instead of something like this, however, we get from God only paltry signs like an occasion tongue-speaker, whose story is completely unverifiable. As a miracle-worker, God could take a few tips from me. He could use a good publicity agent. Preachers have proven that they aren't up to the task.

Farrell Till

Evidence Problems

I don't believe that miracle claims can be proven by testimony, however, I would be a lot closer to belief in the miracle claims of the Bible if the testimony for these extraordinary claims had reliable, disinterested, independent, contemporary corroboration. But, alas, there is none to be had. From the Errancy Discussion list, May, 1998:

TILL
You're still missing the point entirely. Commonplace, ordinary events of the past were often corroborated by records left by various sources, but in the case of extraordinary or miraculous events, with which claims the Bible is filled, not a single disinterested, independent, contemporary source ever corroborated any of them. Biblicists rave about the fact that Luke knew geography, topography, social customs, historical persons, etc., etc., etc., all of which can be considered only commonplace information. Miracles, however, would have been so extraordinary that they would have received wide attention. In Acts 2:22, Luke had Peter saying to an audience that numbered into the thousands that "Jesus of Nazareth [was] a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know," so the claim was that such deeds as these were done in the open and were witnessed by many people. If that is so, then why is there no disinterested, independent corroboration of them? 

A Basic Logical Axiom

From the Errancy Discussion list, 7-26-99:

THEO
Then why does Till always complain that he shouldn't have 

to  prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead?  If it is so easy, 

why does he not then do it?  Is it because he cannot?  

TILL
Theo, any rational person could show that it is so unlikely 

that fairies exist that the possibility that they do exist 

doesn't deserve even a measure of serious consideration, 

but,  of course, no one can prove absolutely and beyond all 

doubt that fairies do NOT exist.  The same can be shown 

about the resurrection of Jesus, but since I am not the one 

asserting that he rose from the dead, I really have no 

responsibility to prove that he did NOT rise from the dead.  

Do you feel any responsibility to prove that the angel Moroni 

did NOT appear to Joseph Smith? I don't think you do. 

You just can't seem to grasp the logical axiom that says he 

who asserts must prove, so when you issue demands that 

those who don't believe in your resurrected savior-god prove 

that  Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, to rational people, you 

come off looking as foolish as someone demanding that the 

nonexistence of fairies be proven.

Farrell Till

The Invisible Man And Wet Paint

Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.
~ George Carlin 

The "Testimony" of Mara Bar-Serapion

From *The Skeptical Review*, July-August 1995:

by Farrell Till
The absence of extrabiblical evidence of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth has long been an embarrassment to Christian apologists. In their defense of Christianity, early church fathers like Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria cited from both Jewish and pagan sources evidences that they thought were supportive of Christianity, but they were unable to produce any secular testimony of the actual existence of Jesus. The frustrating truth was (and is) that secular records contemporary to the time that Jesus allegedly lived were completely silent about this man who presumably was so famous that great multitudes followed him during his personal ministry Mt 4:24-25, 8:1, 18, 13:2, 15:30, 19:2, 21:9; Luke 5:15, Luke 14:25). Inasmuch as word of Jesus's works spread at least as far as Syria (according to the New Testament record) and attracted people from there to be cured of "divers diseases and torments" (Mt 4:24), one would think that historians of the time would have heard about the man and recorded at least some of this part of his life. But it didn't happen. Contemporary secular records don't even mention the man Jesus. It is as if historians would examine all records of the 4th century B. C. and find no references to Alexander the Great.

A Discussion On The Believability Of Alleged Bible Miracles

The following is a discussion between Farrell Till and a Christian on the believability of miracles. I have not used the Christian's actual name rather I've used "CHRISTIAN" as the designation for this person. The Christian's irrational logic is amazing--I doubt this person uses such logic in other areas of their life:

       CHRISTIAN 
     Your reasoning is circular.

theist - there are examples of miracles in both biblical and nonbiblical historical accounts - and here are some specific examples.  The presumption in reading historical accounts must be first in favor of the accounts. 

Till - miracles are unbelievable.

theist - why is that? 

Till -   I don't accept proof for miracles. 

theist - why is that? 

Till - because the credibility of any proof is impeached by the claim itself. 

theist - why is that? 

Till - because miracles are unbelievable

TILL

No, no, you are misrepresenting my position, so I will have to rewrite your little script.

CHRISTIAN  

No, I think I got it right.

TILL
Yes, we know you think you are **** on a stick.  (That's a saying from the 1940s that you may not understand, but it isn't a compliment.)

Till: Miracles are unbelievable. 

Theist: Why is that? 

Till: Because no verifiable miracle has ever been demonstrated.

CHRISTIAN
First, you must define what you mean by "verifiable."

Introducing A Christian To Rational Thought

Farrell Till introduces a Christian to rational thought. From the Errancy Discussion List, 8-9-99:

TILL
Well, okay, Eric, let me revise the answer that I gave to your question, because I can now see that your answer is much better than mine.  In order for me to believe that the Bible is the word of God, God himself would have to tell me that it is. So all he has to do is appear in a POOF here in my office, and then he'll have me on your side. When can I expect this to happen?

(DAVE 8/7)
Does this mean that for you to accept that anything exists it must appear in your office? (POOF). With that kind of criteria you: (a) don't accept that very much exists or (b) you have faith in an awful lot.

TILL
What a stupidly false analogy. I have never seen Tokyo, Japan, but I have seen countless cities and towns, and I have known people who have been to Tokyo and tell me that it is there. Hence, there is nothing irrational about thinking that Tokyo is a real city.

(DAVE 8/8)
You rely on eyewitness accounts for your beliefs and except them as fact (as well as accepting the reliability of the witnesses). Does this mean that you accept everything you are told just because you have seen a similar occurrence or phenomenon?

TILL
Certainly not. There are some people I wouldn't believe if they told me the sun rises in the east. You're simply setting up a straw man with another false analogy in which you are trying to compare the acceptance of testimony to the commonplace and ordinary with the acceptance of testimony to the extraordinary. Try to get this through your thick skull, Dave. There is a difference in accepting the report that John Doe died and in accepting the claim that he later returned from the dead. When a claim is entirely contrary to reality as one knows it to be from his lifetime of experiences, then he is being entirely reasonable to reject the claim. That is entirely different from believing Jane Doe when she tells me that she saw a car wreck on her way to Peoria this morning. I have also seen car wrecks on the way to Peoria, so it is reasonable to accept her claim as truth. If she is lying about it, so what? That wouldn't be the first time that I believed a lie that could easily have been the truth. If, however, I believe my former student, whom I think I have mentioned on this list, who claims that she is routinely visited by alien beings and has an alien living inside her body to guide and direct her in her crusade to enlighten the public about alien visitations to earth, then I will deserve every bit of ridicule that is heaped onto me for being so gullible.

Call The Police--There's A Crazy Man At My Door!

And the Christian "message" continues.

The Conspiracy Theory as a Persuasive Device

The following is a comment by Farrell Till to "OSM", a 

Christian apologist--from the Yahoo errancyn discussion

group, May 3, 1999:

Another posting discussed the way that persuasive devices are 
used by those who want extraordinary claims to be believed. A 
common persuasive device is the "conspiracy theory," which is 

most commonly used to explain the absence of evidence that 

one could reasonably expect would exist if an extraordinary claim 

were really true. Probably the best contemporary example that 

I could cite would be the famous Roswell incident. UFO buffs claim 

that an alien spacecraft crashed at Roswell, NM, some 50 years 

ago. The simplest way to prove that this happened would be to 

produce the wreckage of the spacecraft and the bodies of the 

aliens who were aboard it, but no such evidence has ever been 

produced. UFO believers have an explanation for the absence 

of this evidence: the U. S. government has classified all of the 

evidence and kept it from public viewing. In other words, the 

U. S. government has conspired to hide from the public that this 

incident actually happened.

Christian apologists will sometimes resort to the conspiracy 
theory to explain the absence of any disinterested contemporary 
references to Jesus of Nazareth or extraordinary events that 
should have caused secular records to make some mention of 
them. They argue, with no evidence to support it, that the 
enemies of Christianity destroyed all such records in order to 
contain the spread of Christianity. In other words, the enemies 
of  Christianity conspired to destroy secular records that referred 
to Jesus of Nazareth, and that is why no such records exist. 
 Some apologists have even used this theory to explain why 
there are so many similarities in Christianity and pagan religions,
such as, the virgin birth of a savior-god and his resurrection 
from the dead. They actually argue that Satan arranged for 
such beliefs as these to develop in paganism prior to Christianity 
so that when the real thing came along, people would reject it 
as just another tale of a virgin-born, resurrected savior. In other 
words, Satan conspired to arrange history so that the coming of 
the real savior would be less credible.

In recent weeks, we have been seeing OSM's resort to a variation 
of the conspiracy theory in the matter of the Roman guard that 
was allegedly posted at the tomb of Jesus. The extraordinary 
claim of the gospel writers that Jesus had actually risen from the
dead certainly needed persuasive devices to make it credible, and 
Matthew filled his crucifixion/resurrection part of his gospel with 
such devices: (1) A Roman centurion seeing events that happened 
at the time of Jesus's death allegedly said, "Truly this was the son 
of God." This was the familiar device of corroborating testimony
from hostile sources. (2) An earthquake allegedly opened the 
tombs of many saints, who rose from the dead and went into the 
city where they appeared to many witnesses. This, of course, 
would be the device of eyewitness testimony (which in this case 
turns out to be only uncorroborated hearsay). (3) Witnesses 
allegedly saw the body being wrapped in linen cloth and placed 
in a tomb. (4) A Roman guard was allegedly put at the tomb as 
a precaution to keep the body of Jesus from being stolen from 
the tomb. (5) Witnesses allegedly saw the tomb opened and an 
angel telling them that Jesus had risen from the dead. (6) The 
guards were allegedly bribed to say that the disciples of Jesus
had come and taken the body of Jesus out of the tomb while 
they slept. At this point, Matthew turned to the device of accusing 
the enemies of Jesus of conspiring to hide the truth from the 
general public.

There is no reason at all why #6 cannot be viewed as just a 
variation of the conspiracy theory, which Matthew used for no 
other reason than to give some semblance of credibility to an 
otherwise unbelievable tale. In the resurrection narratives, the 
gospel writers were saying, without actually spelling it out, 
"You see, these things did happen, because people saw them," 
but in Matthew's case, he provided the added device of the
conspiracy theory. He was telling his readers, even the enemies 
of Jesus know that these things happened, and to keep the 
public from knowing that Jesus had risen from the dead, they 
conspired to hide the truth by bribing the Roman guards to say 
that the disciples of Jesus stole the body while the guards were 
sleeping. There is no more reason to believe that the bribery 
of the guards actually happened or even that a guard was
placed at the tomb than there is to believe that a Roman 
centurion actually said, "Truly this man was the son of God," 
or that an earthquake opened the tombs of many saints who 
were resurrected and seen by many people inside the city. OSM 
likes to talk about such and such having "the ring of truth." Well, 
in my opinion, this tale about the Roman guards and their bribery 
has the "ring" of just another persuasive device that a writer 
used to try to give some semblance of credibility to an 
unbelievable story.

OSM has said that if this tale about what the guards had said 
were not true, then those who had lived at the time of the events 
would have said, "Hey, I don't remember ever hearing anyone 
say anything about guards who claimed that the body had been 
stolen," but I will be commenting on this is another posting about 
attempts to prove the incredible on the grounds of what would 
have or would not have happened if the claim were not true.

Just one more comment is in order concerning the tale that 
Matthew spun about the Roman guards. Besides the absurdity 
of thinking that Roman guards would have sealed their fate by 
saying that they had gone to sleep on duty, there is the matter 
of a serious flaw in what the guards were allegedly bribed to say. 
The chief priests and elders said to the guards, "Say that his 
disciples came by night and stole him away WHILE WE SLEPT" 
(Matt.28:13). In concocting this persuasive device, Matthew
showed little respect for the intelligence of the general public, 
because anyone with any ability at all to reason critically would 
wonder, "Well, if the guards were asleep, how could they know 
what happened to the body?" After seeing this flaw in the tale 
the guards were telling, what would have kept people from 
thinking that since guards who were asleep would not be able 
to know what had happened to a body that had vanished, maybe 
Jesus, as his disciples were claiming, had indeed risen from the 
dead while the guards, by their own admission, were asleep.
Hence, Matthew was actually saying that the guards had accepted 
a bribe to say something that would probably have resulted in 
their death but would not in any way have proven that Jesus did 
not rise from the dead as his disciples were claiming. If OSM 
wants to see this as some kind of wonderful evidence that the 
resurrection happened as claimed, then all I can say is that there 
is no law against gullibility, but he shouldn't assume that everyone 
else is as gullible as he is.

When You Lack Evidence...

Just common sense, really. Something biblical inerrantists are woefully lacking in: 

When you lack evidence, the only way to decide whether or not to believe something is to ask: Is it likely? If you tell me a bird flew past my window, I will probably believe you, even though I did not see it myself and I have no evidence. That is because such a thing is likely. I have seen it happen before. It is more likely that a bird flew past my window, than that you are deceiving me. But if you tell me a pig flew past my window, I will not believe you, because my past experience tells me that such things do not happen, and so I presume that what you reported is false. Thus, where there is no evidence we have to rely on our own past experience of the sort of things that really happen ( Carl Lofmark from What Is The Bible, pp. 41-42).

A Critical Principle Widely Applied to Ancient Documents

From the Errancy discussion list:

If [the] documents assert that which is ordinary and within the realm of empirical experiences, then we tend to give the documents the benefit of the doubt and accept the claims at face value; however, if the documents assert that which is extraordinary and completely beyond the realm of empirical experiences, then we feel justified in rejecting the claims. Even biblicists will apply this principle to all ancient documents except for those that have been selected for inclusion in the Bible.

Farrell Till

My Reply To A Church Of Christ Preacher

By Kenneth W. Hawthorne

This is part of a reply (with some editing) to a Church of Christ preacher who claimed in his weekly bulletin that it is impossible to know that miracles are impossible. However, there is absolutely no convincing, verifiable evidence that Yahweh, the god of the Bible has caused any miracles to occur that would attest to his existence. To the contrary, the Bible is full of evidence that Yahweh cannot be God. This blog has many examples of such evidence, especially concerning this alleged god's eternal hell. For example see: An Omni God And His Eternal Hell, A Letter To A Concerned Christian Friend:

Christians make the claim that God came to earth in the flesh of a man, Jesus Christ. That he was born of a virgin, performed various miracles while on earth, died and about three days later came back to life never to die again, then forty days later ascended into heaven, and that all or much of this was miraculously foretold by God-inspired prophets in the Old Testament. These are all positive and distant claims (distant in this context has to do with how close the claims correspond to empirical knowledge such as for the claims "pigs snort" {close} and "pigs fly" {distant}) which go against all personal and community experiences. These Christian claims, therefore, bear an extremely high asymmetrical burden of proof. That means that before a rational person should seriously consider believing these extraordinary claims are true the evidence presented would have to consist of many reliable, disinterested, contemporary witness accounts--of which we have none or involve an immediate, unequivocal, personal experience  so that one would be forced to seriously consider these distant claims instead of believing what he knows happens all the time--and go with something that, as far as his experiences, has never happened.

Unfortunately, what I've seen as evidence for these Christian claims is not even close to being sufficient for the type of claims made. The four Gospels are nothing but hearsay, written by biased, anonymous writers. Certain church "fathers" made a fanciful connection to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John being the authors, based merely on biased speculation and tradition--but no one really knows who wrote these books. These church fathers amount to no more than what you would consider denominational preachers today--yet you believe them on this essential matter--and would, today, be very skeptical of anything they had to say on the subject of religion. None of the disinterested, contemporary scientists or writers of the time Jesus is said to have lived record anything about Jesus, much less his miracles. Josephus does not qualify because he is not a contemporary of Jesus and it is obvious that his work has been tampered with concerning his mention of Jesus and is therefore flawed and unreliable.

Alexander Campbell (Church of Christ icon) had this to say:

“Josephus, the Jewish historian, was contemporary with the Apostles, having been born in the year 37. From his situation and habits, he had every access to know all that took place at the rise of the Christian religion. Respecting the founder of this religion, Josephus has thought fit to be silent in history. The present copies of his work contain one passage which speaks very respectfully of Jesus Christ, and ascribes to him the character of the Messiah. But as Josephus did not embrace Christianity, and as this passage is not quoted or referred to until the beginning of the fourth century, it is, for these and other reasons, generally accounted spurious” (Evidences of Christianity, from Campbell-Owen Debate, p. 312).

The more accurate word Campbell should have used at the end instead of "spurious" is forged.

The Apostle Thomas was allegedly given direct, unequivocal evidence of Jesus's resurrection. Why shouldn't we be given this same type of evidence? The Bible claims that Yahweh shows no partiality, Acts 10:34, so how could he have given this amazing advantage to Thomas and not to every man? Especially since the Bible teaches that Thomas already had several tremendous advantages to cause belief: 1) he had seen Jesus raise the dead, John 11; 2) Thomas, himself, with the rest of the Apostles, was given the power to raise the dead, Mt 10:1-8; 3) Jesus had told Thomas and the rest of the Apostles that he would rise from the dead, Mt 16:21; 4) the culture Thomas lived in was predisposed to believe that resurrections were possible, Mt 14:1-2; Mt 16:13-14.

But this type of direct evidence obviously cannot happen because of all of the other evidence that goes counter to the god of the Bible being the true God, primary of which is that he created man for his glory, knowing man's flawed nature. Knowing that to get this glory that he wanted, but didn't need, untold billions of his beloved (?) humans would have to be tortured forever in the hell that he decided must exist.

Why this fiction, called Christianity, has managed to hold on so long has a lot to do with this admission that you made, "The message of the Bible is such that any rational person will want to believe it. And, wanting to believe it, he will look for rea­sons to be­lieve rather than reasons to dis­believe."  These sentiments are understandable but they are not rational, not scientific and are anything but a blue print for finding the truth. Your admission speaks volumes about why you continue to delude yourself concerning the truthfulness of Christianity. You want to believe that miracle claims associated with Christianity are true and you only look for reasons to believe this. I think this is the problem with most false religions. They too have the same mindset.

That is why the vast majority of people born in Islamic countries are Muslim and remain so throughout their lives--and ditto for countries that are predominantly Christian, Hindu, etc.

Kenneth

Logical Fallacies

Farrell Till takes a biblical inerrantist to school on the subject of logical fallacies. From the Errancy discussion list, June 14, 1997:
MAGILL
Your response my dear was indeed quick but your brain nevertheless is
slow to listen and quick to judge as all fool's brains are!

TILL
Oh, well, why not have a little fun and analyze the logical fallacies in
Magill's posting?

MAGILL
"THE FOOL HAS SAID IN HIS HEART THERE IS NO GOD!" (Psalm 53:1)

TILL
This is an appeal to authority, tradition, and popular belief. It carries no more force of argument than would a Mormon's quotation of the Book of Mormon or a Muslim's quotation of the Qur'an. We have pointed this out many times to Magill, but he persists in thinking that he can settle any issue by just quoting a scripture or two.

MAGILL
By God's very definition of non-believers you are a fool! He said it not me!

TILL
This begs the question of God's involvement in the writing of the Bible.
Until Magill has established beyond reasonable doubt that God inspired the
writing of the Bible, his scripture quotations prove no more than a Mormon's
quotation of the Book of Mormon or a Muslim's quotation of the Qur'an? I
don't suppose Magill is ever going to learn this basic logical fallacy.

MAGILL
He can say it because He is God and you are not!

TILL
This is an appeal to both authority and fear. It also begs the question of
God's existence. Magill needs to establish beyond reasonable doubt that a
god exists, and then he can talk to us about what God has the right to do.

MAGILL
This is the first lesson in true humility.

TILL
This is a fallacy of unproven assertion. Magill should accept the burden of
proof and try to establish that the assertion is true.

MAGILL
If you cannot accept it your heart is hard and your brain is on recess not
to mention the fact that your spirit and soul are dead!

TILL
In this we have an ad hominem attack and the begging of a question that
Magill needs to prove. Is there a spirit or soul? What is the evidence
that such exists?

More important, does Magill expect anyone to take him seriously when he
sends the list sophomoric postings like this one? If he will make serious
attempts to state and support arguments, I will gladly respond to him, but
stuff like this doesn't deserve to be dignified with responses. Thus, he
will hear no more from me until he posts a serious argument or else makes a
serious attempt to rebut an argument.

Farrell Till

Yahweh's "Plan Of Salvation"

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne

Here is an excerpt from the local Church-of-Christ preacher's weekly bulletin--showing an amazing absence of any critical thought:
 

3. He [Yahweh] does not know a better plan of salvation

            than His. 

              a.  He didn't spare His Son (Rom. 8:32).

              b.  He had eternity past to plan it (Eph. 3:8-11; 

                          2 Tim. 1:8-9; Titus 1:1-2).

              c.  If He knew a better plan, He would have used it.

So we have an all-powerful, all-compassionate all-loving, full of mercy, complete and perfect Father, Son and Holy Spirit in eternity past. None of the three need anything. There is nothing that they have to do. Only they exist. The Father has the idea that he might do some creating. He, of course doesn't have to create--he doesn't have to do anything. There is no outside force twisting his arm to create man. There is nothing forcing him to create man or create a particular kind of man--he's the sovereign God!

In his alleged ultimate wisdom, he decides to create a human race who has the ability to displease him (he calls it sin). This, despite the fact that he knows he's a bit testy and gets offended at the drop of a...well, at the drop of anything. Now he is a bit of a braggart. He likes to claim that, as we've already noted: he's all-powerful, all-compassionate, all-loving, full of mercy, sovereign, and complete and perfect. And one that I left out, he's also all-knowing. Now here is where it gets a little tricky. He decides to create what he knows is a very flawed humanity.  (Imperfection coming from perfection? yeah, I know what you're thinking) He knows that all--that's right all will displease him (sin). For some reason known only to this matchless, all-loving, all-compassionate, all-powerful, sovereign, all-knowing God who is full, absolutely full, unimaginably full of mercy--he has (?) to create what he calls an eternal hell for all of these beloved humans who die in a state of being unpleasing to this wonderful God.
 

But, he has a plan to rescue these flawed, sin-prone wretches who are bound for his eternal hell. (You know, you just knew the all-loving, all-compassionate, full of mercy part would kick in!) Not to worry, humanity will not have to suffer forever in the flames of hell! He will send the Son to earth to save man. The Son will have to suffer a few hours of pain on earth and then have his spirit separate from his body and return right back to where he was in all his blissful completeness--really not much to ask of the Son to avert the eternal suffering of multiplied billions of humanity--apples and oranges really. But, alas, this "plan of salvation" that he had all eternity past to come up with is a big flop! (Matt 7:13-14). Oh well, these billions of lost souls can take consolation in the fact that this was the best he could do--because [I]f He knew a better plan, He would have used it."

Omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, perfect and complete, omniwise, sovereign? And preachers keep on preaching this old, old story! How sad.

 

 

What Would It Take?

What would it take for a skeptic to believe in Yahweh, the god of the Bible? I know the following would do it for me. So, is it Yahweh's will that I perish or not, 2 Peter 3:9? I'm ready to believe and repent. (From the Errancy discussion list, January 2, 2007):   SPENCER-DAVIS God could move stars around in the galaxy to create a new constellation that plainly spelled out "JESUS IS LORD", visible throughout the northern hemisphere, say. If God did that, which sceptic would dare to say that there was a naturalistic explanation? I'm sure I could think of a great many miracles that would be accepted by every sceptic on the planet (even Farrell!) as evidence of God's existence. Couldn't you?

 

TILL
I could. I have lived in the same house for 40 years on the edge of town. There is an empty field of about 30 acres behind my house, which is planted each year in corn or soybeans. If I woke up one morning and found all of this acreage filled with skyscrapers 40 to 100 stories high and clouds in the sky shaped to spell,"God did this," I think that would be pretty compelling evidence that a miracle had happened during the night, because common sense would tell me that all of these buildings could not have been put up overnight by natural means. An even better miracle would be if the skyscrapers suddenly appeared out of nothing while I was standing in my back yard looking over the empty field.

Farrell Till



Luke, A Historian "Par Excellent"[sic]? (2)

From the Errancy discussion list, August 18, 1997:

TILL
Otsen has cited the amazing historical accuracy of Luke as an argument
for biblical inerrancy, as if he somehow believes that because one
biblical writer was accurate in some geographical, political, and social
matters, he was therefore right in everything he wrote and that the entire
Bible must, as a consequence, be inerrant. In an earlier posting, I listed
over two dozen references that Luke made in the book of Acts to
extraordinary events. I challenge Otsen to present to us some kind of
extra-biblical evidence to prove that at least some of these events actually
happened. Until he can do this, he is in effect arguing that because Luke
knew the geography of the region he wrote about and the names of some
public officials and such like, we can thereby know that Luke was also
accurate in his reporting of the various miracle claims found in his gospel
and the book of Acts.

Luke, A Historian "Par Excellent" [sic]? (1)

From the Errancy discussion list, August 17, 1997:

TILL

Otsen has posted the trite fundamentalist argument about Sir William

Ramsay, who was presumbably a biblical skeptic until he studied the

writings of Luke, after which he was so impressed by Luke's historical

accuracy that he became a dedicated Christian.  When Ramsay was

discussed earlier on the list Steve Carr noted in a posting to Errancy

date May 10th that Ramsay was actually a "Bible-believing historian." 

Carr made the following statement in his posting:

"In Ramsay's book, he describes how as a young man at Oxford ( a place

which *did* not accept religious sceptics), he studied the 39 Articles

of Faith for his Divinity exam. He corresponded with Bishop Lightfoot.

He spent months studying the NT and the OT (which he described as life-

giving). He describes the Epistle to Galatians as especially moving. He

was reminded often of his mother's love for Paul."