Hello all, I got 2 emails from Craig the christian the other day. I am not sure exactly how to handle what he said in the first one. I can’t begin to express what I think about what he wrote.
Craig said: I would say there are certain parts of the Bible that are not to be interpreted literally. A lot of it has to to with the genre of the book. It’s not easy to explain. For me, the story of Jonah does not have to be interpreted literally while the resurrection of Christ does. It’s more of a case by case basis. I know, that doesn’t help much…I’m not really sure how to best explain it.
Um… what? The only term that comes to mind, and I honestly mean no offense, is complete cop-out. I don’t know where to start here. I understand what he is saying… [...]
I have a bunch of stuff I want to wrap up into one post.
- Craig the Christian has started his own blog, based on his conversations with me. You can visit it at Simul Eustis et Pecator. On that note, he had emailed me several days ago and I finally replied. So I’ll post that conversation down below.
- On Friday, I posted my story to de-conversion. It’s basically the same as here, but they invited me and I thought I’d cross post over there to give support to others de-converting.
- I finished The City of Ember
, the book. I know a couple of you commented and said you were going to get it. Well, I have to say the movie was better in several ways and the book was a bit disappointing. I don’t want to ruin it [...]
Remember Craig the christian from last month? He emailed me yesterday about the recent post I wrote: Cherry-Picking and a bible Lesson for Atheists. I’ll quote his email and then post my replies.
Craig said: I do not have a problem with your use of the Skeptic’s Bible per se. The issue I have with the Skeptic’s Bible is the use of the King James Bible, which relies on later documents for its translation (8th and 9th century if I remember correctly) as opposed to the 1st and 2nd century documents other translations use (NRSV & NET to name a few).
Neece’s reply:
If you know of a more accurate interpretation of the bible that I can link to online and read online, can you link me? Otherwise I’ll stick to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. Because it’s the one [...]
About a week ago, I got an email from a man named Craig. He’s a lutheran going to seminary for a masters of divinity. He asked me if I would like to open a dialogue with him about religion. After getting his permission to publish our conversations, I agreed. I’m not good at debating or arguing, but I am always open to learning new things and maybe sharing what I know as well. So here we go. Conversations with Craig the Christian, number 1.
One of our first points of discussion was what exactly is atheism? Craig admitted some probable bias in his definition which he didn’t give. He gave me Dictionary.com’s definition instead, which surprised me:
Atheism:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
If you notice that definition says that atheism [...]
As an atheist, it’s important to understand what the Burden of Proof is, and how it works. Why? Because theists misuse it against us. In return, we need to be better educated and set them straight.
The burden of proof (latin: onus probandi), falls under the maxim ‘necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit’ or, “the necessity of proof lies with he who complains”. The burden of proof usually lies with the party making the new claim, in terms of law.
But where we are much more interested is in science, where the burden of proof lies with someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim. They therefore must supply evidence to support it.
So if someone makes a bold claim, it isn’t another person’s responsibility to disprove it, but rather the responsibility of the person making the claim.
Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, [...]
Um… what? The only term that comes to mind, and I honestly mean no offense, is complete cop-out. I don’t know where to start here. I understand what he is saying… [...]
Belief, Unbelief and The Scientific Method
The first comment I got on the post was from a man named Brian. When I got up this morning and read his comment I was inspired to reply. After a few minutes I realized my response was quite lengthy and decided a follow-up post was in order. After his comment you’ll find my thoughts. So here is his comment in its entirety: