This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Shrommer's Profile

Shrommer's Avatar Joined about 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Shrommer

More Discussions by Shrommer

Latest Comments by Shrommer

Go to: Indiana parents sue school district over religious education

Shrommer's Avatar Jump to comment 64 by Shrommer

Hosea 13:16 does not state that God would be doing the action to the infants. It is in the passive voice. This will be done to the infants, and God is prophesying that it would happen.

It's like if God had prophesied through a prophet that on February 12, 2012, a post would be written saying that God's love is not to be admired. It is Inexplicable Quantum writing that post, not God Himself writing it, but God knew beforehand that it would happen, and He knew why.

I am limiting my comment to Hosea 13:16. If you want to take out that Scripture reference and let the rest in there, I do not intend to look up every single reference, but one loses credibility by citing words that are misquotes and distortions of what is actually there. I decided to not take it on blind faith, but to actually look up one of the citations in the Bible to see what it says, and think for myself.

Sat, 16 Mar 2013 17:17:31 UTC | #951353

Go to: We asked "Do you really believe ___" and they said yes. Now what?

Shrommer's Avatar Jump to comment 621 by Shrommer

The trail is cold, but going back a little to comment 118 and that idea of a whole nation believing, here is the gist of it. I've just been to see the Beatles and Elvis museums in Liverpool. A large part of the world believes what is in the Elvis and Beatles museums, and there are many alive today who still remember the history. If you were to make up a fictional story that a group such as the Beatles exsited that was popular in a huge part of the world, who made the news, who wrote top songs, etc., when would you introduce such a story in history for people to believe it? If you say in 2012 that such a group existed in the 1960's, you couldn't get away with it, because people alive from that decade would say it is fiction. If you waited until 2112 to make up such a tale, it would be difficult, because you would have no historical data to back it up, and people would say that their grandparents and great-grandparents never made mention of any such thing.

When would you make up a story about Moses parting the Red Sea and over a million people crossing over? If it never happened, and someone tried to get the nation of Israel to accept a book about the event as non-fiction, at what point could such a book be written and everyone agree that this was their history, with nobody referring to a different historical account, or saying that their ancestors never mentioned any such thing? Each time the book of Exodus was read, people knowledgeable about the history of Israel listened to it as non-fiction, probably right up until modern times. There may have been scoffers, but nobody produced a different record of what actually happened - oral or otherwise. You'd think that if someone presented the story as brand new and it was fiction, trying to pass it off as non-fiction, there would have been someone saying, "That's not what actually happened. Nobody in our past has ever said that any such thing happened." Instead, everyone heard it and said, "Yes, that is what our grandparents told us also, that they had been told." And so it was accepted as historical.

A film like Exodus Decoded or Michael Rood's website, gives modern archeological evidence to back up such accounts.

It is easier to say that something that actually happened is a mere legend, than to say that some myth is actually the history of your nation that can be traced back through the generations. Think of the Holocaust doubters today. They are actually saying that the Holocaust never happened. But how hard would it be to make up a story like the rise of a group called the Beatles, if it never actually happened? You can make up the story, but people won't accept it as historical, unless their are other witnesses - written or oral - of the past that confirm it. You can deny the historical record and say it never happened, but you can't invent a historical record and say it happened. If you want to make up a legend or myth that is outside of history, like something about the origin of fire's discovery, you can do that, but people will believe it because they want to, gullible or blind followers of the "experts" or authortities, and not because they take it as historical. You'd think there would be someone saying that the authorities are liars, and sticking by their own history.

Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:54:41 UTC | #949991

Go to: We asked "Do you really believe ___" and they said yes. Now what?

Shrommer's Avatar Jump to comment 615 by Shrommer

Gap theory may say that "made" is from the perspective of the viewer on earth. The viewer on the earth thinks that the sun is made at the moment the sun appears. A big problem I see with this theory, is that on the fourth day, no human viewers had been created yet, so that leads to the idea that the person telling the narrative has seen some sort of vision as if he/she were around on the earth at the time.

The "gap" comes between verses 1 and 3. "In the beginning" (billions of years before verse three) "God created the heavens and the earth". In verse 2, billions of years after the beginning, the earth "was made" or "became" waste and void. Then Day one begins after that with light becoming visible on the earth, etc.

Gap theory is not my favorite, but I can see how it works in some ways.

The creation story in Genesis would not be so obviously superior to another creation story of a single divine creator who had/has a different name. I don't think that a particular name given to the "God" is what makes the story superior. So, when someone poses the question, what if there is the same kind of story being told and it says "Allah" did it, or "Couhatlficu", well, I don't say that a story like that would be inferior in its harmony with the scientific reality as we know it.

In using the term "eternity" as a place, it refers to a state of human existence outside of the confines of time and matter. The "experiment", so to speak, is to accept forgiveness from a God we can't see during this present life, and then after death, we will see the results of our faith and have the conclusion of the "experiment". I stake my life on who I believe to be a real God, who made real promises of eternal life, communicated and demonstrated in Jesus Christ, and who is completely reliable to keep those promises - capable and trustworthy. After we all leave this earth and "step into eternity", then we will have the chance to see with our own eyes and experience the truth of it (or not).

The term "reasonable" in the American Heritage Dictionary I have includes the 3rd and 4th definitions as "within the bounds of common sense" and "not excessive or extreme, fair, moderate". The first definition is "capable of reasoning, rational". The second is "governed by or in accordance with reason or sound thinking."

My whole point about the radishes and susanlatimer's response "Who could have seen that coming?", is that if nobody could have seen that coming and the person ate something that killed them, the person was still being reasonable in eating it. This is in contrast to susanlatimer's definition of "reasonable" as only in cases where something is known to be true as the quantifiable conclusion of a test.

I believe that there is such a thing we can call a "reasonable behavior" or "reasonable choice" without knowing all the outcomes ahead of time. Yes, this involves a degree of risk that we will "make fools of ourselves", so to speak, but I would still call some cases of this type of risk-taking "reasonable", including the risk of placing faith in Christ. The Pinnock book is called "Reason Enough", and explains this quite well in my opinion.

Sat, 26 May 2012 13:30:59 UTC | #943649

Go to: Atheism: A New Strategy. Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science, US

Shrommer's Avatar Jump to comment 52 by Shrommer

I've found the section I was looking for. It is in The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, 1786, where Thomas Jefferson (and James Madison?) wrote:

"... that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."

Tue, 22 May 2012 01:52:21 UTC | #942733

Go to: We asked "Do you really believe ___" and they said yes. Now what?

Shrommer's Avatar Jump to comment 601 by Shrommer

Two sources of the type of evidence I am referring to, which is historical, testimonial, anecdotal, rather than measurable in a scientific way or testable using scientific methodology:

More than Dreams (five short films, available on DVD or on omnitube)

Miraculous Movements, a book by Jerry Trousdale

Both of these include dreams and visions which had real effects on people's lives for the positive.

Mon, 21 May 2012 02:38:20 UTC | #942554

More Comments by Shrommer