The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an atheist?

Use this forum to discuss the October 2016 Book of the Month, The Voice of Creation by J. Hudson Mitchell.
Post Reply
User avatar
Beanjay
New Trial Member
Posts: 14
Joined: March 5th, 2016, 11:40 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Beanjay » November 29th, 2016, 5:54 am

Faith in religion? Which religion?

User avatar
Whisper Wizard
New Trial Member
Posts: 8
Joined: March 15th, 2014, 6:53 pm

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Whisper Wizard » November 30th, 2016, 12:48 am

Josefina1110 wrote:You said it right. God doesn't need evidence or proof. He needs our faith and trust to direct our lives in righteous living. If we don't have that faith of our Maker, we will live like animals. Our belief system is a gift. But we will not know about this gift if we have no faith in the author and finisher of this faith. Faith is the vehicle that carries the knowledge of God to all generations until He comes back to judge the righteous and the unrighteous.
Let me place a little thought on your head for a moment. Because maybe we shouldn't be looking at this from just a Christian standpoint.
From what I've seen, the top ten religious beliefs is lead by Christianity with two billion. Islam is a little over one billion.
Below that and a large group of nonreligious people, there follows Paganism, Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Juche, and those are just MAJOR points of the religions without different branches or deviations. You and I both know Christianity isn't just Christianity. Catholics are around as well as protestants and there's a large list of branches coming down.

So when I said early that it requires God for someone to trust the Bible, I didn't mean by accuracy. I just meant to trust its word. I'm not going to get into a detailed religious argument and deviate from the point of this topic. I'm just going to make a point clear. Faith is already required from a book that gives reason to have faith. That is not literature to convince outsiders but either religious propaganda or giving they of the same belief reason to stroke their ego. (Not the religion, but on the grounds only faith is needed to be Christian and is the only thing needed."

The reason an Atheist or someone who has never heard of religion would not accept Christianity as their belief is because Christianity's Bible is not convincing in proving anything. It doesn't prove anything at all. You even admit this when you say that it requires faith. That's fine, but someone who is curious will not fall for just words. A Skeptic doesn't work that way. There are many beliefs and forms of them out there that people have options or having to look around. If you are born into a world without any knowledge, the only thing you can trust is your perspective on the world. They measure and understand what is around them. When someone offers a book and the book doesn't seem accurate compared to their own findings, it can't be trusted. When someone tells them it doesn't require understanding and only faith, it seems like propaganda or even something cult-like.

I need you to understand something and let me be clear before you preach to the whole forum.
This topic is about convincing Atheists of Christianity.
It's rational to say, and the majority back it up, that what is offered to convince Atheists has no back-bone to do so.
That isn't saying Christianity is true or untrue. It is saying that it isn't proof.
God, of course, doesn't need proof, but humans do. If you didn't have the Bible, you wouldn't know of it. If it wasn't so wide-spread, the two-billion of this planet would not know about it. It is promising. Atheists aren't looking for promising. Unless we can find something of Christianity more promising to curious, the end result is that Christianity fails to hold a cup of water to use it as a lens for the world around them by something of the likes of Solipsism.

Josefina1110
Posts: 81
Joined: August 22nd, 2016, 12:08 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Josefina1110 » December 1st, 2016, 11:51 pm

Why don't you just say specifically that chapter 1 of my book does not convince you to become a Christian? Why do you have to force me to disqualify my side just because chapter 1 cannot convince you that there is a God. I already said we are on parallel sides. There are Christians and there are non-Christians. You are not a Christian so we have no common ground to look forward to. You are not convinced that creation is proof of God so I have to tell you that God doesn't need proof but trust and faith in His existence. I gave you proof but you do not believe it. But faith in God does not need proof. It just needs trust and belief in His existence. It is the foolish man that looks for proof of God even if his life is a big proof enough that God exists. "The fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'"(Psalm 14:1). "The way of a fool seems right to him. . ." (Proverbs 12:15) "But every fool is quick to quarrel" (Proverbs 20:3). "Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding him like grain with a pestle, you will not remove his folly from him" Proverbs 27:22).

-- December 1st, 2016, 11:55 pm --

Don't be offended with those verses because people like you existed from the beginning even with Adam and Eve. Those are not my words. It is written in the Bible because unbelievers existed long, long time ago before you.

-- December 2nd, 2016, 12:00 am --

If all big theologians cannot convince you, how much more for me a poor little old Christian woman. Go on with your reasoning. You cannot convince me of your discourses either.

User avatar
Whisper Wizard
New Trial Member
Posts: 8
Joined: March 15th, 2014, 6:53 pm

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Whisper Wizard » December 2nd, 2016, 5:19 am

Josefina1110 wrote:Why don't you just say specifically that chapter 1 of my book does not convince you to become a Christian? Why do you have to force me to disqualify my side just because chapter 1 cannot convince you that there is a God. I already said we are on parallel sides. There are Christians and there are non-Christians. You are not a Christian so we have no common ground to look forward to. You are not convinced that creation is proof of God so I have to tell you that God doesn't need proof but trust and faith in His existence. I gave you proof but you do not believe it. But faith in God does not need proof. It just needs trust and belief in His existence. It is the foolish man that looks for proof of God even if his life is a big proof enough that God exists. "The fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'"(Psalm 14:1). "The way of a fool seems right to him. . ." (Proverbs 12:15) "But every fool is quick to quarrel" (Proverbs 20:3). "Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding him like grain with a pestle, you will not remove his folly from him" Proverbs 27:22).

-- December 1st, 2016, 11:55 pm --

Don't be offended with those verses because people like you existed from the beginning even with Adam and Eve. Those are not my words. It is written in the Bible because unbelievers existed long, long time ago before you.

-- December 2nd, 2016, 12:00 am --

If all big theologians cannot convince you, how much more for me a poor little old Christian woman. Go on with your reasoning. You cannot convince me of your discourses either.
I'm not trying to convince you at all nor would I want you to be confused of what my own personal beliefs are. I'm taking a step out of that and speaking in the embodiment of unbias. My point is we need to not tip-toe one another any longer and pretend like this is a welcoming ceremony. There are legitimate reasons why people are of different beliefs or just do not believe in a god at all; I think that is very fair to say. I would ALSO like to note that there are good reasons why people believe, I guess for this discussion, in Christianity.

So why should be discredit nonbelievers of their reasonings? Isn't that not welcoming at all to the religion? Surely, the statement can't be that they are just ignorant because they haven't read the Bible enough. That's generalizing, and it's impossible for there to not be atleast one who hasn't professionally studied it. Of my own personal experience, I know of an ex-Christian who was working to become a priest before rereading the text several times. A fool is not someone who tries very hard to see their surroundings and what is being given to them. A fool takes a person's word with no validation. or god's word without validation.

That is some of the rational grievances people have. The chapter does not tackle anything exponential or new. It only states things that are honestly false and using verses of a text people already do not agree with. If this is the proof, why is proof merely just a form of someone's word? If this proof does not work on the nonreligious, then why even bother trying if it will only fail in the long wrong? If you know it fails to be convincing, then it only seems more of an insult to belittle someone for being nonreligious. If this is all true, the religious nor God are caring to anyone skeptical. They only want those of unwavering faith entrusted by a book. Anyone beyond that is cattle or "pigs" as you put it. They might say it isn't their word but god's, but that seems more like a cop-out excuse when they use the wording to share in the same sentiment of the statement.

Someone who is nonreligious will see these and find it not only unwelcoming but vile. That faith is rewarded over discovery of what is true. A kingdom under under followers casting out anyone who doesn't meet with the standards of the given code. A king who merely only cares about unearned loyalty should not be surprised of an oncoming rebellion by those who were rejected when giving kind curiosity. If the Bible is the only proof that can be used of convincing, then we both agree that it doesn't work as proof for anyone that isn't a Christian. So, what's the point in trying to convince people with something that just wont work rather than an open discussion to find ways to validate god's word more? Unless Christianity is not a welcome mat and more of a cool kid's table, then that just furthers my point that this book we are talking about, the Bible, and Christianity are even more questionable by the nonreligious to put it leniently.

Pelegrin_1
Posts: 92
Joined: October 11th, 2013, 10:48 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Pelegrin_1 » December 4th, 2016, 1:58 pm

Josefina1110 wrote:Why don't you just say specifically that chapter 1 of my book does not convince you to become a Christian? Why do you have to force me to disqualify my side just because chapter 1 cannot convince you that there is a God. I already said we are on parallel sides. There are Christians and there are non-Christians. You are not a Christian so we have no common ground to look forward to. You are not convinced that creation is proof of God so I have to tell you that God doesn't need proof but trust and faith in His existence. I gave you proof but you do not believe it. But faith in God does not need proof. It just needs trust and belief in His existence. It is the foolish man that looks for proof of God even if his life is a big proof enough that God exists. "The fool says in his heart 'There is no God.'"(Psalm 14:1). "The way of a fool seems right to him. . ." (Proverbs 12:15) "But every fool is quick to quarrel" (Proverbs 20:3). "Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding him like grain with a pestle, you will not remove his folly from him" Proverbs 27:22).
You keep saying that you gave proof, and others keep telling you that in fact neither you nor the Bible gives proof that there is a God. Then you say that "faith in God does not need proof", that "it just needs trust and belief that God exists." But trust in what? Trust in a Bible that we, as non-believers, keep telling you we don't see as proof of anything about the existence of a God. If it doesn't prove anything then why should we necessarily have trust that what is written there is all true or accurate. Accept it,... the only reason that someone needs to have trust is if they first want to have faith in something that they really have no proof for. However, if we have no real reason to believe that there is or necessarily needs to be a God, then it is only personal desire that there is a God that would therefore require us to have trust and faith that there is a God.

Your criticism of non-believers, if you truly analyze it, is that we don't feel that need to trust and have faith in this idea that you trust and have faith in. I can't personally be sure what your reasons are for your trust and faith, whether it be that you were brought up in that world of faith and it just became part of you, or whether it's just something you have a personal need for. But it's very disrespectful and prejudice of you, and many believers, to tell non-believers and believers in other religions that we and they are all going to hell because we don't have the same belief as you do. You can believe and have faith and trust in what you want, but all believers, like you, who put their own beliefs on such a pedestal, deeming others to be fools for not believing or believing in something different, are truly being righteously arrogant or ignorant. You can choose which is correct for you, arrogance or ignorance, but I'll give you credit for intelligence and choose the former.

For you a God exists because you seem to simply not be able to imagine that a God may not exist. Fine! However, some of us can actually imagine that there isn't a necessity in the Universe for there to be a Universal god. And yet others imagine some other kind of God, different from yours. Who's to say who is right or wrong in any of this? There is no "proof" on any side, there is only one's own trust and faith in one's own belief. But for the sake of decency and humility, please at least accept that it's just your own personal choice as to what you decide to believe, and others should at least be equally respected for what they choose to believe, because no one has proof and no mere human will ever be able to prove such a thing. It is simply outside of our capacity to know.
-- December 1st, 2016, 11:55 pm --

Don't be offended with those verses because people like you existed from the beginning even with Adam and Eve. Those are not my words. It is written in the Bible because unbelievers existed long, long time ago before you.

-- December 2nd, 2016, 12:00 am --

If all big theologians cannot convince you, how much more for me a poor little old Christian woman. Go on with your reasoning. You cannot convince me of your discourses either.
Theologians are the most studied among believers, so obviously they know as much as can be known about their beliefs. But they too have no proofs, they too can only present their arguments for why they choose to believe what they do.

User avatar
Toadny
Posts: 869
Joined: November 25th, 2012, 8:06 am
Favorite Philosopher: Toadny

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Toadny » December 23rd, 2016, 10:43 am

Scott wrote:
J. Hudson Mitchell wrote:Chapter 1 in this book endeavors to persuade unbelievers that there is a God who created the world and all living things in six literal twenty-four-hour days.
How well did Chapter 1 achieve this goal?
I think she is doing a great job of persuading people that believers are idiots.

-- December 26th, 2016, 9:44 am --
Josefina1110 wrote: You cannot convince me of your discourses either.
Remember ye that Christ sayeth "a woman that shall not be convinced of discourses shall not enter the Kingdom of God on a Camel's back, nay, not even on the back of an Lemur, or Codfish".

User avatar
Hal 1949
New Trial Member
Posts: 7
Joined: January 6th, 2017, 3:47 pm

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Hal 1949 » January 8th, 2017, 11:30 pm

Ugh. So many words to say nothing at all.

The word atheism means "without belief in a deity." Books such as The Voice of Creation use thousands of words to say "God did it." I can't imagine that any atheist would be convinced by the monotonous repetition, exemplified in this book, that a deity exists.

User avatar
Dchristian
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: July 4th, 2016, 1:07 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Dchristian » January 9th, 2017, 1:15 am

Hey, everybody!

I read chapter 1 some and I'm not sure if it would convert an atheist to believing in god--especially the Christian one. Chapter 1 went really far out to try and prove the literal six day interpretation of Genesis. Personally I believe in God but remain unsure about the Bible in its entirety.

I was surprised that the chapter didn't mention the fused chromosome found in humans--that's a big piece of evidence for evolution. Humans have 46 chromosomes while all other primates have 48. According to biologists, if a member of a species loses a chromosome pair then that is lethal. When scientists discovered humans only having 46 while other primates had 48 that put evolution in a shadow of doubt.

However, scientists hypothesized that either
a) humans have a fused chromosome,
or
b) the other primates have a split chromosome.

When biologists further examined human chromosomes, they found that humans do indeed have a fused chromosome in chromosome #2.

So, the counter argument from young Earth creationists is that, "Well, god could have just created humans with a fused chromosome." But if god did that then it would mean that god could be trying to deceive us into believing in evolution. Remember that if a species member loses a chromosome pair it dies. So, why would god create humans with a fused chromosome to make us look genetically similar to other primates?

Personally, I don't think God did do that. I think God used evolution as a means to create the world and species on Earth.

If you guys would like to learn more, I recommend watching Ken Miller talk about the fused chromosome on YouTube.

User avatar
Felix Lyric
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: February 23rd, 2016, 10:32 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Felix Lyric » January 9th, 2017, 6:26 am

Religion

I'm an atheist and a secularist - but I also call myself a religious atheist.

My mind boggles when I think of the absurd beliefs that are obviously projections of the human mind. All their imaginings are based on life as we know it. To imagine angels all we have to do is think of a people with bird-wings, And yet I can't reject religion entirely.

I believe that the secret intention of great religions is in fact secularisation, a step in the direction of secularisation. Paradise and life after death are intended really for this world and here the problem becomes delicate. Insofar as the realisation of this ideal is unlikely, the Idea of something better remains valid; if heaven remains totally separate, an absurd cuckoo-land above the clouds taken literally, religion betrays its own inner intentions. If we, even as atheists, simply shut the door on religion we lose an essential part of what should become our enhanced secular being from which the dogma has withered away. So long as religion is practised largely as superstition, I agree with its rejection. But there is a danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

As I know the New Testament best, I'd say it has sublime passages and sayings and insights in it that should be absorbed into our secular being. It has a faith in something that goes beyond our impoverished secularity, as is the case with great music, which is secularised religion. One of the symptoms of very obviously impoverished secularity is that it has to a large extent thrown out the substance of poetry and music.

To be stuck in a purely secularised world which has thrown out religion art and philosophy would be hell on earth - which, to some extent it already is. But, of course rabidly unenlightened religion can create the worst hell of all.

A difficult subject, which would require much more thought and time.

If we really cleared the decks of religion, European poetry would be reduced to a meagre torso. All of Dante, Milton and much, much else would go down the drain. Even the 'secularist' John Keats brought back the Greek Gods into Hyperion and elsewhere. These Gods throng, not only in Shelley, but in all of European literature including the Christian poets.

Christina Rossetti was a pious poet, but her piety goes far beyond its conscious intentions. With great acumen and precision she explores the division between prevailing secularity and its transformation. The faith of G.M.Hopkins enriches his secular voluptuousness. He became a Jesuit priest, but the sensuality of his poetry far exceeds that of marketable secularists.

Bach's music is inconceivable without his religion. He told his pupils that every line had to be written to the greater glory of God. Enough that he wrote every line with intense commitment.. The sorrows and joys of Christ become those of humanity and Jesus was his (Bach’s) ally against Absolutism.

It is impossible to subtract religion in its best and most enlightened sense from music and poetry, and from its enrichment of secularity.

Blake entirely rejected rationalism in favour of inspired mythical religiosity. In short he became in popular parlance an irrationalist. But it is quite difficult to persuade flat earth pseudo-rationalists, that he was not irrational at all, but tried to extend the boundaries of restricted reason and was by far a greater rationalist than the ham-strung purveyors of that tendency.

Eduk
Posts: 1785
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Eduk » January 9th, 2017, 7:07 am

Step 2-- Let us know whether you think that reading that chapter would convince an open-minded atheist to start believing a god exists. Post your answer at:
I can't speak for all atheists but for me there is a very simple answer to this question. If you have a testable claim and that claim is proven independently in high quality studies then you will convince an athiest of whatever God you are talking about. If not then you won't.

User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Ormond » January 9th, 2017, 9:02 am

Eduk wrote:I can't speak for all atheists but for me there is a very simple answer to this question. If you have a testable claim and that claim is proven independently in high quality studies then you will convince an athiest of whatever God you are talking about. If not then you won't.
That seems a clear, concise, reasonable description of the atheist position, with the exception that you forgot to mention that the atheist applies this methodology only to other people's positions, but not to their own.

Where are the high quality independent studies which prove that human reason is qualified to credibly analyze questions regarding the most fundamental nature of all reality (the scope of god claims)?

If you can link us to such studies, that would be great. If you can't do so, then it seems reasonable to label you a heretic to your own position. You would not be a heretic however, if you could show evidence of applying your chosen methodology of reason in an even handed manner to all claims and all positions, including your own.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.

User avatar
Allopoietic
New Trial Member
Posts: 7
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 6:51 pm

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Allopoietic » January 9th, 2017, 9:19 am

The short answer is no. The chapter might convince an innocent, but the Bible reports that even a Serpent could do that. This writing would not sway an informed person, if the person was well acquainted with both Scripture and science. One of the first things we learn about belief is that it is not about truth. It is about what we are willing to act on as truth. When I believe something is true I will act as if it is true, but neither my belief nor my actions make it so. My belief about whether a chair will hold my weight does not change the chair in the lease, but it will determine my actions in relation to the chair.

Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Togo1 » January 9th, 2017, 10:36 am

The chapter one doesn't do anything to convince an atheist about God. I'm not sure it's attempting to. What it does is simply discuss general themes about god. There are some mentions of sort of atheistic talking points, but no real argument around them.

Let's take this on few levels.

First off the specific points raised, that Paleontology is inaccurate and that evolution is a conspiracy, are simply stated. There's nothing to suggest that evolution is a conspiracy, and while the author clearly has done some research on Paleontology, there is nothing to link the points rasied, that there may be small errors in dating rocks, to the implied conclusion, that Paleontology doesn't prove the age of various species. Hundreds of thousands of fossils have been dated, as have the rocks around them, and there's nothing to suggest that the error rate the author has proposed would actually render Paleotological evidence as invalid, or incorrect. It's a bit like suggesting that, because sometimes bad things happen to christians, god must hate them. It just doesn't follow.

Similarly, the arguement about Time, statements are made, but there's no real attempt to link them to the desired conclusion. Time has a beginning, before which no actions take place. The intutive feelings offered don't really prove that assertion. And even if true, that's no more an issue for the scientist than for the christian, both of whom agree that the universe came into being at a set time in the past.

Above that, these are fairly lightweight discussions, dipping into the subjects without engaging them in much detail. A Paleontologist is not going to be convinced by a few terms thrown into an airy assumption that his subject is too inaccurate to really tell anything. A philosophy is not going to convinced by the idea that time must have a beginning, and the universe must be ordered, therefore it must have been created by a loving god. Even a fairly basic knowledge of either subject quickly highlights the flaws in these references.

Which rather suggests that the book isn't aimed at people who have even a fairly basic knowledge of these subjects, in turn suggesting that these assertions are intended merely to carry the patina of authority that a proper arguement or understanding of the subject would give, without the bother of actually having either one. Obviously that's a little harsh, but it's worth considering why the need is felt to disntinguish between paleontological geological analysis and paleontological biological analysis, if the distinction isn't then used for anything beyond showing that the author knows the name.

At a higher level again, the problem is not that atheists would rather believe in dinosaurs than gods, but instead that god doesn't help explain dinosaurs. You can examine dinosaur bones, work out the age of the rocks and thus the bones, and show a smooth progression in the changes that occured in dinosaurs over time. You can say that this all happened according to god's will, or you can leave god out of it entirely, and it's the same smooth progression over time. The point is not that god does or doesn't exist, but more that you can sucessfully discuss dinosaurs without mentioning god at all.

In one of my favourite examples of theology assisting early science, Thomas Acquinas wrote about the process of throwing a ball. All things happen according to God's will, so the mechanics of ball throwing works via angels. You release the ball, and Angel1 takes the ball up, going slower and slower as it does so. A second Angel stand at the stopping point, to halt the ball. A third angel, takes the ball and rushed downward, going faster and faster, a fourth stands at ground level to stop the ball as it his the ground, and fifth angel pops out and shouts 'bonk!'.

Before you laugh too hard, consider that a modern high school physics text book has much the same account. It's merely replaced the angels with arrows, and given them different names. And the reason for this is not that it's somehow impossible for the universe to run via invisible intangible angels, but rather that it doesn't make any difference to physics if it does or not. The ball moves the same either way. The point is not that God doesn't exist, but rather that, for the purposes of the movement of objects through space, it doesn't matter if her exists or not.

And that's the real challenge from atheism. Not that you can't have god because dinosaurs, but rather that science describes the way the universe operates in a way that doesn't change depending on your religion.

User avatar
Hansvro
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: December 14th, 2015, 9:25 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Hansvro » January 9th, 2017, 12:04 pm

I agree that this chapter will not convince any atheist
I cannot find any arguments that would do so.
To have a meaningful approach to the aim that the author claims to have,
one needs to be brave enough to read the books of the atheists, and even try to imagine living their shoes/skin.
The author seems not to have done that, if yes, she would realize that her claims are not valid.

User avatar
Mason243
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 11:31 am

Re: The Voice of Creation-- Would Chapter 1 convince an athe

Post by Mason243 » January 9th, 2017, 1:37 pm

What's the difference between an open-minded atheist and and an agnostic? Aren't both open to new information while quietly waiting for it rather than actively seeking or taking active interest in it?

Post Reply