ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

Information

ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

We debate origins of the Universe, life, Earth, humans, religion, atheism, using common sense, evolution, cosmology, geology, archaeology, and other sciences, to repel biblical creationism and other religious beliefs.

Location: Oxford University, England
Members: 4183
Latest Activity: 12 hours ago

The portrait is Charles Darwin, age 31, in 1840

We welcome comments and the opening up of new discussions in this busy group. So join us if you are not already in the group.

N.B. At the end of every discussion page is a box that you can tick if you want to be notified by e-mail about the arrival of fresh comments.

Discussion Forum

explanation for reality Theism or Atheism?

Started by dudaboli yev. Last reply by Jay Stride 14 hours ago. 2 Replies

Fossils illustrate evolution of life

Started by Steph S.. Last reply by Gerald Payne yesterday. 1 Reply

Jerome Bixby's The Man from Earth

Started by Boo. Last reply by TNT666 on Thursday. 8 Replies

On Abolishing Religion

Started by Rounaq Biswas. Last reply by Gerald Payne Jul 16. 69 Replies

Researchers Say There Might be Life After Death

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Jul 15. 56 Replies

On the scientific miracles of Qur'an

Started by Rounaq Biswas. Last reply by Daniel Gotro Jun 26. 25 Replies

Modern Humans Interbred with Neanderthals in Europe

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Gerald Payne Jun 25. 3 Replies

DNA Links Kennewick Man to Native Americans

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Jun 20. 11 Replies

Evolution is a FACT, not a theory.

Started by Idaho Spud. Last reply by Gerald Payne Jun 14. 26 Replies

The new website called 'Grand Ideas'.

Started by Rounaq Biswas. Last reply by Grinning Cat Jun 11. 2 Replies

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN to add comments!

Comment by Joseph P on November 16, 2010 at 1:46pm
Yeah, that's why we need to help get the atheistic preachers out of the life. We need more of them on our side, like Matt ... well, intended preacher in his case, but whatever.
Comment by Tony Davis on November 16, 2010 at 9:49am
Ron,

Hilarious! But the scary part is that the first time I heard this argument was at a apologetics conference that two Christian friends invited me to. The speaker, Mike Lincona, was quite good. He was very persuasive and the language of these professional apologists is really slick. Several times that day I was presented with things that I just knew could not be true, and later research revealed why, but on the spot I was sometimes unable to explain to my friends why these things were untrue.

VR,
Tony
Comment by Tony Davis on November 16, 2010 at 8:50am
All - Thanks for the replies. Maybe later today I will post the draft on my personal website, then after getting feedback I will publish it. The easiest thing to do would be to just publish it, then update it based on feedback but I don't want to risk my credibility by accidentally posting something STOOPID! I guess I'll decide when I see how I feel about the draft.

Ron - no worries on now knowing that much about the minimal facts approach. It is relatively new and frankly rocked me back on my heels when I first heard it. Not because it is any good, but because it makes some claims that made me think to myself "well, if THAT'S true then the apologists might be on to something now". The short version is that Dr. Gary Habermas surveyed most of the relevant literature (in English, French and German) from about 1970 to today (he is still updating his database I think) and pulled out only a minimum number of facts that are agreed upon by nearly all scholars who have written on the subject of Jesus crucifixion and resurrection. There are 12 "facts" that he claims are agreed upon by about 95% (except for one that is about 75%) of scholars, even the atheists. Among these are Jesus died due to crucifixion, he was buried, the tomb was found empty, the disciples truly believed they saw the resurrected Christ, the list goes on but they are all of that nature.

I have many problems with this approach, not least of which not a single one of these things are actually "facts". And ultimately, even if they were "facts" none of these things are best explained by someone who was dead coming back to life and magically appearing to folks (many of whom didn't recognize him) later.

What I am looking for and I might have to read Habermas' entire dissertation to get it, is how does he justify saying "almost all scholars agree, even the atheists", when some of the guys he cite, like Robert Price, doubt Jesus ever even existed in the first place.

VR,
Tony
Comment by david perry on November 16, 2010 at 3:15am
@Ron- Doctor of Atheology? I guess getting an advanced degree in the study of "nothing" is nothing new.
Phd = piled higher and deeper.
Comment by david perry on November 16, 2010 at 3:13am
@Tony- Love to. Post the link.
Comment by Joseph P on November 16, 2010 at 2:00am
I'll cover the grammar. :-D
Comment by Tony Davis on November 16, 2010 at 12:39am
OK, slightly different topic (maybe not so slight...). Anyone here interested in discussing the finer points of the "minimal facts approach"? I am writing a series of articles refuting the major apologia and I decided to take on this one first. I've got a pretty good start of it but would like a second (and third and fourth...) look before I publish it.

Any takers?
Comment by Bryon on November 16, 2010 at 12:16am
Well I don't care what we are called...except "Brights"...I love brother Richard but...can file that under not so good ideas.
Comment by Ken Jackson on November 15, 2010 at 9:04pm
Living not at the end of the world but over it, I feel very fortunate to find this site that allows me to retain my sanity while being surrounded by every and all cults of christianity here in the South Pacific.

I have found that the islanders are a lot more respectful of my non beliefs than the average fundie in the United States. But, it is still gratifying to be able to have a place to be with others that are of the same mind.

I have found that the people here are more tolerant and better educated, even thought we do not have the employment opportunities that many others have. Being islanders there is a certain trait that keeps us working together no matter what our nationalities or beliefs or lack thereof.

I very much enjoy reading the posts by those who are by and far better educated than I. I find myself reading and examining statements by all of you and my lookups have served me well. I find myself becoming much better educated and more inquisitive than I was even as a young man...

Thank you all

Just this old Chief's 2 cents
Comment by Tony Davis on November 15, 2010 at 8:12pm
LOL I had better be more careful when taking credit for making up a new word in the future! What I was trying to do (and I often do when talking to fundies, not that anyone here is like that) is avoid all the unfair baggage that so often comes with the word "atheist", as if it means that in addition to not believing in God we also eat babies.

But maybe I will start using "atheologian" in the future. Thoughts? We are studying the reasons why gods aren't real right? Or at least the reasons we don't believe in them?
 

Members (4184)

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service