He makes a few good points, then takes a few out-of-context quotes, makes up a few others
This is a pretty serious accusation. Care to provide any basis for it?
For instance: Adam and Eve did die, eventually (my translation does not mention "one day", I just looked up that King James version does mention "the day that"). If they hadn't eaten, they might have lived indefinitely. God did not lie.
This was exactly his point. Sure, it can sortof be restrospectively interpreted that God told the truth (basically any statement can be "the truth" if you wrangle it hard enough) but how did he expect Adam or Eve, two completely naive people, to grasp this complexity?
The serpent uses half-truths, and lies when he sais they won't die. On the other hand, telling people who have no idea of right and wrong that something is wrong and then expecting them to understand it seems indeed a bit weird.
The serpent says that:
"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
The first part of the phrase could easily be interpreted as true (the apple will not lead to your death) while the second part seems 100% correct.
Now, why exactly was Eve meant to reject the snake? I mean, it'd be a bit more fair if God said "And don't trust serpents, because they will try to trick you"... but she clearly has no concept of lying or temptation. Which brings us on to another hard question: what is the value of this as a story? What is the moral lesson? "Blindly believe whatever's told to you first, rejecting anything else that's said"? "Knowledge is bad"?
He is like his parents, adhering to one idea only, and rejecting anything that might threaten it, and I find that a pity.
His video on open mindedness takes this view and obliterates it. Even if you think it has value as a story, you can't claim he rejects it through lack of careful thought about it.
Well, what do you consider evidence? It differs from person to person. For one man, the word of another is enough ("That woman's a witch!" "You're right, let's burn her"), for others they need to personally experience something, others believe in empiricism and logic, others again believe a millennia-old institution, others again are easily swayed by mere charisma, and yet others only believe what they made up themselves.
Anything that genuinely raises the possibility of something being true.
A random allegation, therefore, is not evidence. It doesn't have to be personally experienced provided the source you get it from is credible (again, by your own judgement).
Random made up stuff is definitely not evidence, by any definition of the word. If I give you an example: I define dead as "hungry". Is it therefore legitimate for me to claim I am dead right now? Can I have myself legally declared dead by the same definition everyone else uses? If I define being "old enough for a pension" as being over 10... does that allow me to claim a pension?
That was a rhetorical question, by the by.
Nope. You asked me what I consider evidence, and I have a fairly clearly defined answer to that.
Author
Topic: Atheists (Read 391496 times)