Evidence for God from Science

This is quoted from http://www.infidelguy.com/

07/13/2005 02:20 AM

A Deconversion Story - Robin Savage

Robin Savage is a former Christian fundamentalist who used to be married to a Preacher! She comes on the program to discuss why she now doubts her once cherished belief.

Please click on "A Deconversion Story - Robin Savage" to listen to this 1 hour:19 minutes:38 seconds interview about a women who became a deconverted Christian. She states she was born-again when she was 21 years old, and that she went to Bible college, a big apologetics person with many apologetic books, but then she states in the audio interview that she found many contradictions in the Bible and it wasn't adding up anymore. She was married to a minister and part of a Christian denomination, was a member of 9 churches because she moved around a lot. She found that the outside the Bible references supporting the ressurection of Jesus Christ has no evidence/proof and were not written until churches were established. The outside references of Josephous and Tactius (spelling?) and many more. She said that out of the churches she was a member of, people were speaking in tounges but her and she thinks as well as the Infidel Guy that is was nothing more than just jibberish like blah, blah, blah. There is more to it than I can write so you are better off listening to it to formulate your own thoughts. It sounds like she studied A LOT on the Christian doctrine and apologetics, but fell away because of the problems in the Bible.

After listening to it myself, I found it very discouraging and now it is hurting my faith a little, because I have a very gullible nature to myself. I think she fell away because it was churches of denomanations which Jesus NEVER taught to form.

ALSO, what do you think of the claim she made when she said that in one form or another that God predestines people to heaven or hell no matter what, even if they want to become believers? Does this mean free will really isn't free will if predestination is mentioned in the Bible? They talk about predestination throughout the interview.

There is also talk about the God of the Old Testement and the God of the New Testement being completely different. There is talk about pagan origins reflecting in the Bible and Hebrews worshipping different Gods just like pagans worshipping other gods. She mentions a book called "What The Church Doesn't Want You to Read" and the Skeptics Anodated Bible website. She mentions a lot of pagan stuff and says the God of the Bible is evil as well as Jesus. Also mentions many contradictions, tithing is bad, and so on and so on and so on...

They use scripture and everything from the Bible, research, apologetics, theology, and so on and so on and so on... It seems legitimate (in my own gullible opinion)

What DO YOU think of the audio interview and can the claims made by the women and the interviewer be refutted? If so, please refute their claims here.

The contradictions are the results of people not comprehending...taking something at face level (that skeptic Bible is crap, I could instantly refute the first 7/10 "contradictions" and I couldn't do the rest because I didn't know what they were talking about).

Also, the God of the Old and New are the same. Can't wait for August, he's insane(ly good with this stuff.) And predestination in the Bible is crap. Don't worry, she's got nothing (just from what you thought was her best attacks-didn't listen obviously with dial-up).

HMG, I have no intention of listening to that interview. Why do I need to? I know there are people who "deconvert" from Christianity, and I even know some of their reasons, many of which can be quite complex. I also know many of the answers, the real truth, to counter their lack of faith.

If I keep eating candy and fatty foods instead of vegetables and fruit and other good things, I will get very fat and sickly with all kinds of problems likely to cause an early death. Why would I want to do that to myself?

So why do you, who keep admitting to problems of faith, keep reading or listening to this kind of thing and as well as that, encourage others to do so as well?

Ask yourself if it is sensible and wise and productive to be doing what you are doing... following up this kind of thing. It isn't, is it? So do something else instead.

Judah wrote:HMG, I have no intention of listening to that interview. Why do I need to? I know there are people who "deconvert" from Christianity, and I even know some of their reasons, many of which can be quite complex. I also know many of the answers, the real truth, to counter their lack of faith.

If I keep eating candy and fatty foods instead of vegetables and fruit and other good things, I will get very fat and sickly with all kinds of problems likely to cause an early death. Why would I want to do that to myself?

So why do you, who keep admitting to problems of faith, keep reading or listening to this kind of thing and as well as that, encourage others to do so as well?

Ask yourself if it is sensible and wise and productive to be doing what you are doing... following up this kind of thing. It isn't, is it? So do something else instead.

Judah wrote:HMG, I have no intention of listening to that interview. Why do I need to? I know there are people who "deconvert" from Christianity, and I even know some of their reasons, many of which can be quite complex. I also know many of the answers, the real truth, to counter their lack of faith.

That is interesting and I have wondered myself, what are the reasons, even being complex, that people deconvert? They are Christians for a long time but then BAM!!! they deconvert because something happaned. Maybe you can shed some light on this for me?

Judah wrote:If I keep eating candy and fatty foods instead of vegetables and fruit and other good things, I will get very fat and sickly with all kinds of problems likely to cause an early death. Why would I want to do that to myself?

Good point. But, I think people that accept faith in something must also learn to see both sides of the argument just like it is with schools debating whether teaching Darawinism is better than Creationism or vice versa.

Judah wrote:So why do you, who keep admitting to problems of faith, keep reading or listening to this kind of thing and as well as that, encourage others to do so as well?

Well I have some reasons, mainly being that I just have the craving for both sides of the debate. It is my OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) that drives me to do things I don't want to to do but I obsess about doing it. I listened to the complete interview and I swear this women knew about EVERYTHING inside and out of Christianity and paganism and every historical figure along with that that existed to form Christianity. Even the people outside the Bible like I mentioned in the first post she said that the information from them in invalid because the churches were already formed at that time and those people WERE NOT there at Jesus' resurrection. She touched on EVERYTHING and she said she spent LOTS of time researching. She said that if everyone read the Bible with an OPEN mind, we would be atheists. My intention is to not turn people into skeptics, I just don't understand what goes on in these arguments so I ask questions in hopes of getting replies that can clear things up for me. I just don't do well with breaking things down from interviews like this and see what is real and what is not. I don't have that ability.

Judah wrote:Ask yourself if it is sensible and wise and productive to be doing what you are doing... following up this kind of thing. It isn't, is it? So do something else instead.

Like I said above, OCD, I just have that "instinct" in me that NEEDS to know EVERYTHING from both parties. It's like I am chained to chains and I can't break free. It is a disease I wish I never had.

HMG, there is a tremendous wealth of Christian apologia on this site and many other sites on the internet. There are very well presented arguments to support all aspects of the Christian faith, and to answer more than adequately the concerns of skeptics and aetheists.

You have admitted problems with your faith that fluctuates so easily one way then the other, and that you obsess over your research. You have said in your original post here that listening to that interview hurt your faith a little and was discouraging.

I am concerned that you continue to listen to "the other side" and be so prepared to believe those arguments presented, rather than to strengthen your faith by reading up on the Christian arguments instead.

I am not at all opposed to people learning both sides of the argument. That is important to do. But it has to be done wisely, and I am asking you if, given your own personal circumstances, it really is wise and sensible to pursue the anti-Christian argument when you find it discourages and harms your own faith.

HMG, my post was written in Christian love and concern for you given your difficulties with holding on to more than one side of an argument at the same time, and in keeping the integrity of your faith.

HelpMeGod wrote:She states she was born-again when she was 21 years old, and that she went to Bible college, a big apologetics person with many apologetic books, but then she states in the audio interview that she found many contradictions in the Bible and it wasn't adding up anymore.

As a "big apologist" I find it astounding she rested her whole Christianity upon the Bible. For "inerrancy" in accordance with the Chicago statement, no matter how important it might be to Christians, is only a doctrine of secondary importance.

HMG wrote:She found that the outside the Bible references supporting the ressurection of Jesus Christ has no evidence/proof and were not written until churches were established.

As a "big apologist" I find is hard to believe she found no evidence for Christ's resurrection. Antony Flew, who is not a Christian and as everyone now knows was a former Atheist, has debated Habermas several times on the resurrection. He has been noted as saying he finds Habermas' arguments for the resurrection very impressive (see http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19780). Given this, there appears to be a great contradiction—is there good evidence? or no good evidence? If it comes to opinions, I'd personally shove my money behind someone as well-known, highly acclaimed, and deeply respected as Antony Flew instead of somebody who claims much for themselves although I (and I'm sure many others) have never heard of them before.

Kurieuo.

Did ANYONE listen to the interview in its entirety to see what I was talking about? The mere fact that I stated the topics that were covered by the atheist and the deconvert do not represent the whole picture. The topics were expanded into intelligent discussion which I didn't really provide in my initial post. You have to listen to the audio interview. Who listened to it in its entirety? Opinions, thoughts?

Oh no, she's right, we are all wrong, there is no God, it's all false and we are just going to rot in the ground when we die. Y'all better stop believing in God, because He did not rapture us when the Bible Code said He would in 2000. And the church is just a mess...and the Bible is so full of contradictions that it could not be God-inspired.

What a crock of nonsense.

I could not listen to all of it. She seems to blame the church for a lot of her personal problems. She admits to reading heresies, and trusted all sorts of fallacious writings instead of trusting God's wisdom, because I reckon she never had it.

She was never saved, one can infer by the comments she made about her "Christian" life and therefore could not "deconvert".

Her theological knowledge is laughable, despite her claims of having been to Bible school (no name mentioned) and having studied the Bible, like her "knowledge" of Calvinism. She quotes a few "contradictions", which are not contradictions at all, and a miniscule amount of study and understanding could have solved. She mostly quotes sources from those who have a vested interest to see Christianity fall to disprove Christianity. She does not really answer any questions around salvation and grace in the part that I listened to.

Brian, her faith seemed to me to be very superfluous, and not based on being saved, and understanding and living what that means. Like Kurieuo said before, she based all of her faith on physical things, and not a personal relationship with God.

May God have mercy on her soul.

By the way, Brian, if you want to read more about Reginald Finley, the host of that radio show, read this debate.

http://atheismsucks.250free.com/finleyl ... morals.htm

Several topics arose within that discussion, which only revealed Robin's own lack of knowledge or understanding regarding Christianity and various beliefs within:

1) Her apologetic stance as a Christian seemed to have centered around "Creationism" (that is, Young-Earth) as evidenced by her comments reading Henry Morris' material. This has no primary bearing on Christianity itself, and as many here know I am not favourable to YEC myself.

2) Bible codes: Many Christians don't accept this either, nor have I personally come across one lay Christian who has ever used it as a main argument for Christianity. In other words, it is negligible to Christianity.

3) Christ's return, pre-tribulation & rapture: Again no primary bearing on Christianity. Being Amillenial, I also find Christians preparing for Jesus' return on specific dates quite ludicrous.

4) Predestination: Not being able to reconcile God's fairness with His predestination of the saved seemed a crucial blow to Savage's Christianity. It is an important issue, yet I think she has failed to look into Calvinist responses deeply enough (not that I personally accept Calvinism here myself). Also, if she considers an Arminian paradigm the only other "position," then I don't think she has really examined other positions. I would recommend The Only Wise God by William Lane Craig and also Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views for various other Christian positions.

5) Trinity: Many Christians espouse an entirely logical concept of the Trinity, which is that God consists of three persons and one essence. I'm certain Savage would be aware of this since she mentioned reading Geisler's Encycleopedia of Apologetics, and Geisler went into this at some depth. So while many may not be able to visualise God as a Trinity, such a concept is in no way contradictory or illogical. And if such a magnificant being such as God does exist, then isn't it reasonable to think we might not be able to fully comprehend such a being? Yet, many Christian theologians have gone a long way to offering insights as to how to comprehend God's being, and frankly I think Savage may be unaware to these various insights.

For example, does Savage understand many of the varying positions on the Trinity? No, not the Modalist approach within Christianity as found within Oneness Pentecostals. Has she heard for example of "Social Trinitarianism," or the more specific "Trinity Monotheism"? I took some time a while ago to lay out this position (see http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... .php?t=716), and I not only find it to be logically consistent, but I think it allows one to also rationally conceptualise the Trinity. While some Christians may disagree with this position, my point is that however absurd a concept such as the Trinity might sound at the surface, there are some very consistent Christian views of how The Father, Christ and Holy Spirit can be one God. I've presented one position that I'm to some extent favourable of.

6) Accept what is proved: Savage mentioned that a big change happened when she took upon herself to only believe what she could prove. Something I'd like to ask her is whether she believes in anything? In other words, what belief does she hold that she think has been proven without any doubt? A thorough Post-Modernist would gladly point out that the rationalism and empirical methods inherent within Science can't be trusted, for they make use of subjective senses, and how do we know these senses don't betray us? Heck, extreme post-moderns will deny even their own existence! So if Savage accepted the absurd criteria to believe only what is proven, it is only a matter of time before she would end up dropping her Christian beliefs. For we don't believe in things based on their being proven without doubt, we believe in things first based on reason, experience, and faith.

7) Resurrection: Well I pointed out in my last post that Flew considered the evidence very impressive. I find it hard to believe she searched and searched for evidence outside of the Bible and found none. Perhaps by this time she was well and truely out of her Christian beliefs. Yet, something I find amusing is that although she dismissed the Gospels and other books of the NT as uninspired, she never even treated them fairly as separate historical texts. Instead she dismisses them entirely as no good. Surely shows a prejudice against Christianity? As for sources outside the Bible... I guess all this defeats her strawman of Christianity being circular...

Anyway, I don't know how you were expecting us to react by listening to it. Her falling away to me appears to be for reasons other than intellectual, and I'd personally be more interested to know the goings on in her life as I think this is where the bulk of her change happened.

Kurieuo.

HelpMeGod wrote:

Judah wrote:HMG, I have no intention of listening to that interview. Why do I need to? I know there are people who "deconvert" from Christianity, and I even know some of their reasons, many of which can be quite complex. I also know many of the answers, the real truth, to counter their lack of faith.

That is interesting and I have wondered myself, what are the reasons, even being complex, that people deconvert? They are Christians for a long time but then BAM!!! they deconvert because something happaned. Maybe you can shed some light on this for me?

People are complex beings, seldom (if ever) driven completely by reason and intellect alone.
We experience a huge variety of influences on us, and can have many motivations for the things that we believe and do. Many of them are not even within our conscious awareness necessarily.
We may apply our best logic and reason to the information we have, but that information has already come to us by means of our senses and been filtered by our perceptions which are influenced psychologically, socially, culturally, educationally, etc.
These influences are changeable throughout life and may overwhelm and distort the use of logic and reason.

This person might have been dumping her Christian beliefs on purely sound intellectual grounds, but that would have been very unlikely given what you said in your initial post - the reasons she was using to discredit Christianity - and the existence of sound arguments to counter such claims.
Given the complexity of people, it seemed far more likely that there were other reasons... personal reasons, emotional reasons, subjective influences, problems in circumstances, etc.
If some of those had been mentioned, then it may have been a more honest appraisal of her Christian faith and where it had foundered. However, that would have pointed the finger at herself as wanting rather than at Christianity.

I was hasty in my response in that I did not listen to the interview first, and so I took a risk of being quite wrong about that person.
However, I have known a lot of folk who have had a period of Christianity in their lives and are now no longer calling themselves Christian, and knowing just how complex our lives and motivations can be, together with your mention of the kind of "obstacles" she had encountered, it sounded very like yet another example of the same mixed motives reversion.
Others who did listen have since confirmed that to be so.

I would still recommend that you read to strengthen your faith rather than to create doubts in yourself. You have acknowledged your "gullible nature" and that being the case, it is surely important to protect yourself better by becoming well versed in the counter-arguments before exposing yourself to such discouraging and harmful attacks on your faith.