'Letter to a Christian Nation.'

[TheInterestingMan]

Please read 'Letter to a Christian Nation', by Sam Harris. It will test your faith as a Christian, and if you're still just as adamant afterwards about God then I wish you well. If you're interested, I'll post pages of it here for some mild debate. I'm not interested in converting or judging any of you, I just think that as intelligent people the are some issues regarding your religion that should be important to discuss.

[InTheWind]

Just remember your walking a thin line here, a true born again Christian can not be persuaded by any book to change. A true Christian becomes a new person in Christ and is filled with the Holy Spirit, something a atheist or those that were never save in the first place can understand or grasp.
So be careful that by what you say isn`t going to be insulting anyone here.

[TheInterestingMan]

I understand, and thank you for setting out some guidelines for me to work in. I certainly don't want to offend anyone, it rarely helps.

What you say is interesting, however. If you are truly filled with the Holy Spirit, then surely you can stand steadfast against any book, and should read it if only to point out its failings, so that more people can understand the ways of God, not of an athiest. Would you agree to me typing out part of the book for discussion?

[InTheWind]

I`ll leave that up to Coreissue, i`m not familiar with the book.

[CoreIssue]

It is an old, inaccurate and poor attempt at rejecting God used by many liberals, atheists and humanists.

It is built on the liberal concepts of justice and so forth. No to mention a lot of inaccuracies.

Morality is fluid, shades of gray and situational.

It tries to dismiss God based on the premise that reason cannot accept God. A flawed and contradictory foundation for basing an argument.

Basically, you begin with an assumption there is no God and then argue from that stance the Bible and Christianity is thus absurd.

It also lumps all religions into one pot instead of examining each on its own merits, claims and proof tested against evidence and fact.

It assumes evolution is true when it his a Theory. A Theory is, by definition not proven and seeking proof, which evolution has never found yet.

If such people want to disprove Christianity they should actually begin debating evidence and facts, on both sides of the coin and seeing who wins the arguments.

They do not. They just declare.

So, TheInterestingMan, you are fully free and invited to go to actually post your claimed proofs as to why Christianity is wrong. Since you posted about evolution, that is a great place to begin a discussion.

[TheInterestingMan]

It assumes evolution is true when it his a Theory. A Theory is, by definition not proven and seeking proof, which evolution has never found yet.

If such people want to disprove Christianity they should actually begin debating evidence and facts, on both sides of the coin and seeing who wins the arguments.

They do not. They just declare.


These sentences are a good place to start, actually.

Letter To A Christian Nation, page 69:

"Christians who doubt the truth of evolution are apt to say things like "Evolution is just a theory, not fact." Such statements betray a serious misunderstanding of the way the term "theory" is used in scientific discourse. In science, facts must be explained with reference to other facts. These larger explanatory models are "theories". Theories make predictions and can, in principle, be tested. The phrase "the theory of evolution" does not in the least suggest evolution is not a fact. One can speak about "the germ theory of disease" or "the theory of gravitation" without casting doubt on disease or gravity as acts of nature."

Page 70:

"There is no question that the diverse life we see around us is the expression of a genetic code written in the molecule DNA, that DNA undergoes chance mutations, and that some mutations increase an organism's odds of surviving and reproducing in a given environment. The evidence for this is utterly overwhelming."

That last paragraph isn't something that's up for debate. Any sufficiently well educated biologist will be able to prove every one of those facts to you. It doesn't challenge God's existence directly, but it does shed new light on what many Christians believe. And if God truly was the omnipotent architect of the universe and all creation, don't you think his own book would agree with him on how life works?

[TheInterestingMan]

Also, I'd like to point out that you clearly haven't read the book, otherwise you wouldn't have written a reply that is clearly explained in it. A little honesty would be appreciated.

[CoreIssue]

[quote=CoreIssue;33181] It assumes evolution is true when it his a Theory. A Theory is, by definition not proven and seeking proof, which evolution has never found yet.

If such people want to disprove Christianity they should actually begin debating evidence and facts, on both sides of the coin and seeing who wins the arguments.

They do not. They just declare.


These sentences are a good place to start, actually.

Letter To A Christian Nation, page 69:

"Christians who doubt the truth of evolution are apt to say things like "Evolution is just a theory, not fact." Such statements betray a serious misunderstanding of the way the term "theory" is used in scientific discourse. In science, facts must be explained with reference to other facts. These larger explanatory models are "theories". Theories make predictions and can, in principle, be tested. The phrase "the theory of evolution" does not in the least suggest evolution is not a fact. One can speak about "the germ theory of disease" or "the theory of gravitation" without casting doubt on disease or gravity as acts of nature."

Page 70:

"There is no question that the diverse life we see around us is the expression of a genetic code written in the molecule DNA, that DNA undergoes chance mutations, and that some mutations increase an organism's odds of surviving and reproducing in a given environment. The evidence for this is utterly overwhelming."

You just proved my point.

Germ Theory is an all encompassing theory covering issues proven, some rejected and some in dispute.

It cover many issues, unlike evolution which has nothing proven.

Same with gravity as a broad issue. Other things have been found that were once contributed to gravity that are not.

You are trying to equate and argue a broad spectrum of generalities theories to a specific singular theory issue. False equation.
That last paragraph isn't something that's up for debate. Any sufficiently well educated biologist will be able to prove every one of those facts to you. It doesn't challenge God's existence directly, but it does shed new light on what many Christians believe. And if God truly was the omnipotent architect of the universe and all creation, don't you think his own book would agree with him on how life works?
There is nothing supporting evolution. Do try to prove one area by quoting an non related and non equivalent other.

I am very well aware of the claimed proofs of evolution. Ones that, in fact, many scientist reject and many honest ones agree are not proofs in fact, but assumptions.

So, with that said, tell me why anything exists at all? Give me the scientific rational for existence. Here are your options:


Always existed. That denies scientific law and has been disproven because science has demonstrated matter and energy die, thus they had a beginning.
Sprang into existence for no reason. Science rejects such a concept.
Was created from nothingness. Which gets you back to a Causeless Cause, God.

Your arguments are peripherals, not core problems with evolution. Get to the heart and foundation of existence. Not how things supposedly progressed from one form to another.

God's book does agree with many scientist on the issues. Not the faith statements of Humanists and Atheists.

You want to begin with the foundational truth that evolution is fact, which it is not, thus your argument is foundationless.

Where did the space, time, energy and matter of the Universe spring into existence from? Tell me.

[CoreIssue]

Also, I'd like to point out that you clearly haven't read the book, otherwise you wouldn't have written a reply that is clearly explained in it. A little honesty would be appreciated.
No. As your quotes illustrate it attempts semantically juggling and false arguments to prove its case.

Nothing new in that kind of attempts. Old rhetoric and semanticl game playing beginning from a false assumption and jumping to a thus flawed conclusion.