About

303 thoughts on “About”

1. I think that would be true of any group though. If Billy Graham suddenly became an Atheist, you’d hear Atheists all over the world going crazy for him. The same is true if President Obama became a Republican. When we’re a part of group, someone noteworthy “switching sides” is seen as a victory to us.

   LikeLike

2. Yeah, you’re right. They just exaggerate the level and nature of his change.

   LikeLike

3. Well of course! Wouldn’t you!? The book says “Thou shalt not lie.” It doesn’t say “Thou shalt not exaggerate to Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, Muslims, Rastafarians, Eco-Challengers, weirdo’s, psychotic rednecks ie my family, Nate, evolutionists, bloggers, I’m bored and trying to make something out of a simple reply I should have just said “cool” to since Nate said I was right, which almost never happens. I’ll finish this on a blog post….”

   LikeLike

4. Hilarious! 😀

   LikeLike

5. Pingback: Conversion/deconversion. What gives? | A Tale Untold
6. Pingback: Songs for Nate. A Bonus Kick Out The Jams post. | A Tale Untold

7. Hi Nate,

   Hello! SoundEagle would like to congratulate you on becoming an emancipated truth-seeking born-again atheist!

   SoundEagle must commend most if not all of your readers for being civilised and patient with each other. It is very unfortunate that too often even those who claim to believe in and adopt the scientific method still cherrypick the data and refuse to examine contrary evidences. They fail to understand and address many valid points, perspectives, domains and dimensions, and hence it is impossible for them to evaluate and change their standpoints, approaches and behaviours. You might have heard of this quote:

   For those who do believe, no proof is necessary.
   For those who don’t, no proof is possible.

   All in all, it is important for, and also courageous and admirable of, us to confront these sensitive and polarising issues amidst social prejudice, ignorance and bigotry, to have lived an examined life, and to be inquisitive and open-minded. Perhaps some of us could take comfort in the fact that in recent years, the Catholic Church has had to accept evolution, though on a theistic basis.

   For one of the most recent takes on atheism, visit http://www.thesixwaysofatheism.com.

   As for the pitfalls and fallacies of the design argument, visit the following:
   http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/
   http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

   It has been estimated that if evolution (both macro and micro) were wrong then more than 99% of all scientific disciplines would be wrong too due to the high degree of cross-collaborations and confluences of data. That is not (just) my claim; and it is from some scientists who have made the interconnections and stocktaking of disciplines and knowledges. When creationists try to debunk certain parts and/or the whole of evolutionists or evolutionary scientists, they have cited certain problems with some scientific claims and/or techniques which rely on or are founded on mathematics, measurements, instruments, various disciplines and so on in very interconnected ways, and have been reliably used fro a long time. For example, many instruments rely on the veracity and reliability of quantum mechanics, electronics and electrical engineering, which in turn rely on other disciplines such as physics, mechanical engineering, optics and so on . . . . It is a very highly interconnected web.

   By “cross-collaborations” (whether by design or by accident, whether independently or co-dependently, and whether concurrently or not), I meant the cumulative results, benefits and synergies from the convergence of evidence from diverse disciplines and researchers who may or may not be collaborating and/or aware of each other’s findings and activities in the first place; and I also meant that research(ers) on/in evolution and evolutionary sciences have relied and benefited, both directly and indirectly, fertilizations, findings, paradigms and techniques from diverse disciplines. Let me quote Michael Shermer from his essay entitled “A skeptic’s journey for truth in science” as further examples:

   To be fair, not all claims are subject to laboratory experiments and statistical tests. Many historical and inferential sciences require nuanced analyses of data and a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry that point to an unmistakable conclusion. Just as detectives employ the convergence of evidence technique to deduce who most likely committed a crime, scientists employ the method to determine the likeliest explanation for a particular phenomenon. Cosmologists reconstruct the history of the universe by integrating data from cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, spectroscopy, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Geologists reconstruct the history of Earth through a convergence of evidence from geology, geophysics and geochemistry. Archaeologists piece together the history of a civilization from pollen grains, kitchen middens, potshards, tools, works of art, written sources and oth er site-specific artifacts. Climate scientists prove anthropogenic global warming from the environmental sciences, planetary geology, geophysics, glaciology, meteorology, chemistry, biology, ecology, among other disciplines. Evolutionary biologists uncover the history of life on Earth from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, and so on.

   LikeLike

8. Nate,

   Just dropping a line.

   Regards

   LikeLike

9. Hey, Nate, what brings you my way? I got your regards. Thank you. I see you still got the evolution thing going. It is strange how some of us are so drawn to the Gospel message, and others so repelled, but as for me, the day I see a perfectly painted picture happen as a result of a garage blowing up, that is the day I will consider evolution. I know, just that design theory again, but it is true. It simply would never never happen, but more than that, is the effect the Gospel has on people. It is evident that there is more to the Gospel than any man can surmise, it is drawing those who love the things of God, and repelling those who don’t. As for those who never had the chance to accept Christ, I suspect God does what he did before the Law came along and gave awareness of sin. It had something to do with judging the conscience. I’m no expert on it, but I’m sure a perfect God has a perfect answer. As for me, I heard the Gospel and was drawn to it. I’m past the point of any exceptions. Glad you’re doing well. Stop in any time.

   LikeLike

10. That’s right, everything that “IS” must have had a beginning and a catalyst to that beginning and a designer to create something so complex… except God… the infinitely complex God is too complex to have had a beginning… or a catalyst… or a designer….

    huh, maybe complex living things don’t need any of those… unless they do… I’m sort of confused. Do things need to be created or don’t they? I guess there could be a Goldilocks range of things that need creators. The very simple may not need a creator and apparently the extremely complex do not either, just everything in between?

    LikeLike

11. If you are talking about “spirit”, that is a horse of another color. God is “spirit”. The flesh and blood, Jesus, of course, was birthed into being. Genesis says God breathed (spirit/life) into Adam, and he became a living “soul”. LIFE must be very hard to create since man in all of his intelligence has not managed to create one form of life from nothing, in all his years of trying, and yet all these different life forms have been able to accidently develop? Not one life form, but several? When man cannot even create one? I guess the odds are in the zillions? I don’t know. I think there is a better chance of a miraculous spirit “Being” somehow existing, than any other material thing, such as a “spark” (material), that ignites a bunch of gas (material). At least in my exploding garage I give you material to start with. But it doesn’t matter. Both our minds are obviously made up. Somehow were both sure were right. Something in me is convinced one way, and something in you convinced the other. At least “man not creating life” is a “fact”, where as evolution is still all theory. I look at the facts I do have, (and there are others also), and when I add them up my soul is convinced of God, of which I cannot prove, so must remain as faith, or theory. I have my facts, you have your wanna-be facts. (That’s what theory is.) I know it is taught as fact, but that is really just lying, because it is not fact no matter how much people try to say it is. (Like Obama trying to say we don’t have a spending problem. Actually, we have a SIN problem that causes a spending problem.) I must admit that the evolution discussion really tires me. So many trips around the same mulberry bush. Either you believe God created us, then came here to save us from our own stupidity, or you do not. That is the Gospel message. I offer that message to you one more time, because I am a believer, and that is what we do. I never try to guess if someone will accept, or reject. Not even someone who has accepted before.

    LikeLike

12. Hi Cowboy,

    Just a couple of things real quick. In scientific terms, a theory is a collection of facts about a particular subject, like the “theory of gravity.” So in that sense, evolution is a fact. So far, there is no scientific reason to doubt its validity. If it’s a subject you’re interested in, I can recommend some good books that lay out the evidence. If you’d rather not spend your time on that (and I can completely understand if that’s the case), then no hard feelings. But to me, your judgment on this issue seems a bit too harsh unless you’re willing to actually study the subject in more detail.

    Thanks,

    Nate

    LikeLike

13. @ jsutacowforchrist,

    you’re funny, and I dont mean in the funny sense. the only “fact” that you laid out in your response was that “man hasnt created life.” Then you say I have my theory and you have your facts…. I mean, I also agree that man hasn’t created life from nothing, so it seems we have the same facts and are in agreement.

    We may disagree on our theories, however, but as you pointed out, there aren’t any facts supporting your theory. And your mind may be made up. And why shouldn’t it be, you have a fact that has nothing to do with your theory or the theory of evolution.

    The difference here is honest objectivity. I’ve seen both sides. I’ve been a fervent believer. the thing is, i’m not an atheist, although agnostic may be close. I would assume by your name that you’re not aware of the facts surrounding your bible. Now based upon those facts are why I no longer believe in it. It’s funny because when i was reading the last portion of your latest response, i thought you were talking about religion.

    LikeLike

14. Yes, here is where we could really begin to run around that mulberry bush, for I have many responses to what you have said, but I have decided that my testimony in Christ, and the Bible”s witnesses on Christ is enough. As Jesus said, unless the Father draws someone, they will in no wise come. If the Gospel message produces no drawing in you, then I certainly cannot either. I have learned that. It was good to hear from you again, I certainly wish you the best, anytime you stop in you know what you can expect to hear from me, and I from you. At least we’re consistant! (LOL!)

    LikeLike

15. How and why is the bible enough given its contradictions, errors, and problems surrounding its compilation?

    LikeLike

16. I have seen so many “supposed” contradictions that were not, that my head spins every time someone brings it up, but still, we strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I am surrounded by all the evidence I need. What you believe to be true is simply impossible. Spirit is a different realm. Life does not happen by accident, not even once, let alone all the examples I see. For me to ignore what I am surrounded by would be to swallow the camel. Nice try. Obviously we don’t think the same. We are exercising futility here. How you can ignore the impossibility of life blows my mind! I don’t just read God’s word, I have “tested” it, and have been greatly blessed in the results. Again, to ignore 50 years of testing would be to swallow the camel. I know you mean well, I suppose, but your words seem hollow and meaningless. When your life is over and you no longer remember ever existing, what will any of this mean? But of course, maybe you will still exist. maybe you will remember the conversation you kept pursuing.

    LikeLike

17. can you share your means of testing and the test results?

    and I personally think that nate has done a good job of illustrating many of the problems (blatant contradictions, i suppose) within the bible. so far i haven’t seen answers to… let me rephrase that, so far I have only seen improbable and absurd suppositions for a rebuttal.

    have you answered those on nate’s posts? if so, i’ll go back through to review what you’ve offered.

    and I’m not sure you know what i believe, so to assert that it is “impossible” may be your own violation of Prov 18:13. I forgive you… If i forgave you before you asked for forgiveness, would that make me more merciful than the god of the bible? Just curious, because i dont want to be guilty of that.

    and cowboy, keep ’em straight up ‘ahr.

    LikeLike

18. I left the endless debates some time ago, but if you would like to pose to me one of his biblical contradictions, I’ll take a look at it. Please keep it to one, for now, I have a lot of ministry going on and don’t usually have a lot of time. I actually took a day off from work today, just so I could catch up. So shoot one at me and I’ll look at it. Thanks. (Probably won’t get an answer back until at least tomorrow.)

    LikeLike

19. P.S. I have an article I just wrote up at my site, called: “Spending Problem?” I would love for you to read it and give me your opinion. God’s word cuts straight through the problems of our time and reveals truth. That is one way I have tested God’s word, by the way it reveals a spade as a spade time and time again. A book so old, and yet it is still ahead of us? We have yet to catch up to the wisdom it offers.

    LikeLike

20. Cowboy,

    I just posted an essay on my blog, concerning some of the points you were making. Just click on my web name.

    “Life does not happen by accident, not even once, let alone all the examples I see.”

    Biopoiesis research seems to be making some head way about how life arises from inorganic matter. You may have heard it called abiogenesis. Just to give one example the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that amino acids–the building blocks of life–can be racemically–one that has equal amounts of left- and right-handed enantiomers of a chiral molecule. That’s just organic chemistry stuff–synthesized in conditions probably similar to the early Earth’s conditions. Just Google the subject. There is some very fascinating research in this area of study. Oh, and autotrophs, like plants, phytoplankton, and some bacteria, turn inorganic matter into organic matter. Also, there is the simple, everyday occurrence of eating bread or cooked meat that turns non-living material into living tissue. Damn, I keep forgetting stuff I wanted to mention. Ahaha, also, in empty space, there are virtual particles popping in and out of existence in a time span so short they are nearly undetectable. We know they are real because they interact with other particles and physicists have devised ways of measuring those observable effects. Here again, life just sort of seems to be happening, accidentally.

    As for the creation of the Universe, firstly, why couldn’t the reason the universe exists be for gods instead of for God? Aristotle allowed for multiple prime movers.

    Secondly, how do you know the universe is contingent and not a necessary being, an eternal brute fact? The idea of infinite regress seemed like an obvious absurdity until the nineteenth century. But now, even though scientists and mathematicians talk about the beginning of the universe and the relativity of time, they no longer consider an infinite regress as necessarily impossible. Without the idea that infinite regress is an absurdity, the argument loses its main premise.

    Thirdly, the force of this sort of argumentation resides in the dilemma: either there is a non-contingent being or the universe is ultimately unintelligible. Clearly the argument of contingency is persuasive only if the second alternative has been ruled out. However, it has not only not been ruled out, but represents the atheist’s position.

    Fourthly, I am quite certain you believe in the existence of a personal, completely good God but to get from the god of the argument of contingency to the god of theism requires an extraordinary leap in logic. This sort of argumentation may lead you to accept that the world was created in time and it may offer a hint of a divine creation, but more evidence is necessary to get to the God of theism.

    Also, the person who jumps to a close by absolute truth–God–in order to avoid relativism finds another kind of relativism. It appears that an absolute is utilized to perform a specific philosophical function, that is, to provide a solution to relativism, which is done by creating an explanation that is outside physical space and time. This doesn’t make knowing less relative but more. The problem becomes that these things are not relative in a way that allows access to truth in a classical way–agreement of the intellect and thing–but they are relative to something outside physical reality and time, which makes them relative in a way that disallows access to truth because they are not relative in accordance with the relation between mind and thing in a natural reality that is essential for human knowing. Descartes, Kant, Spinoza created more philosophical problems than they solved by placing God in useful metaphysical roles, in my mind.

    Lastly, do you think like Parmenides that nothing cannot exist? If so, does it follow that it is impossible for it to exist? It seems that if nothing cannot exist that being must always exist. However, a number of philosophers, Leibniz among them, are not sold on this idea of being. So, if being is not absolutely necessary then wouldn’t there be a place for nothing to exist?

    “If the Gospel message produces no drawing in you, then I certainly cannot either. I have learned that.”

    As to my own position, to put it simply, I see the non-being of God rather than the being, which makes God nonexistent, for me at least. That is why I am an atheist. Of course, I could trot out the problem of evil or the hiddenness of God or flaws in religion or the superfluity of god as a result of advances in science or sacred text inaccuracies or the less than convincing arguments for God’s existence in philosophy, but, while all those things play a part in my atheism, when I look to where the theist says he sees the divine; I see nothing. That is why I am an atheist.

    Regards

    LikeLike

21. I skimmed your words. Like I said, I’ll take one good question. Thanks.

    LikeLike

22. christcowboy,

    okay, one issue at a time. The genealogy of christ. mathew gives one way to jesus through Joseph, luke gives another way to jesus through joseph, and neither completely jive with the OT’s genealogy. So we basically have 3 genealogies in the bible and not a one of them matches.

    So, it is essentially like saying the recipe for the perfect cookie is flour, two eggs, 1/2 cup of milk and a 3lbs of sugar. then, in the same cookbook, it lists a recipe for the prefect cookie with 1 tbs spoon of water, 1 cup of soy, 1 lbs of sugar, and a hand full of chocolate chips, and then as you continue reading in your cookbook, you find yet another recipe for the perfect cookie…

    how can it be perfect if there are three different ones all claiming to be the same thing?

    nate, can you post a link to your blog on this topic? I’m afraid the extent of my computer competency is limited to typing. to me, a spreadsheet is the thing I use to make my bed.

    LikeLike

23. Here’s the link:
    https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/contradictions-part-6-jesuss-genealogy/

    Thanks

    LikeLike

24. And to Persto…. Wow!

    LikeLike

25. @Persto,

    In your HUGE resposne you said “So, if being is not absolutely necessary then wouldn’t there be a place for nothing to exist?”

    I thought the idea that energey always exists contradicted this and that this was a working theory. Meaning that when we die we are still energy. For you that means you are dispersed into the univers but still energy for me it is I go to heaven, still energy. Wouldn;t this support that “nothing” cannot exist?

    God bless:)

    LikeLike