… at least that is the case according to the person President Biden wants to name as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Yes, you read that right! Kristen Clarke, the person being nominated to the position that is specifically charged with protecting civil rights, believes that protecting freedom of religion in America is shameful.
Back in 2018, when her predecessor was put in place with a mandate to look at the various ways religious freedom was being attacked in American society, Ms. Clarke took to Twitter saying, “DOJ should be working to fight discrimination and protect the rights of vulnerable communities. Instead, Jeff Sessions is launching a Religious Liberty Task Force to make it easier for people to use religion to mask their discriminatory goals. Shameful.” Apparently she doesn’t see religious liberty as a civil right, AND she believes that discriminating against one group (Christians) is a way to end discrimination she perceives against others. Of course, both of these notions are absurd.
But that is the mindset of a very prominent element in modern American society. It is a mindset that makes up its own morality based on bullying and power plays. It is a mindset that has no tolerance for people who believe differently than they do. It is a mindset that not only does not believe in God, but hates those who do.
Why the visceral hatred? It is because these people are religious zealots for their own religion. Of course, most of them would deny it claiming they are not even religious. In fact, most assert that their beliefs are based on science. But both their definition of religion and their understanding of science is wrong. They believe that if they are not part of a religions organization, or do not self-identify as “spiritual,” that they are not religious. But being religious only means that one’s core beliefs are based on faith. In spite of the fact that most of these people honestly believe that their core beliefs are not based on faith, that is simply not true.
The foundation of their beliefs is Naturalism – the belief that the natural universe operating by natural laws is all that exists. There is no science to back up this belief. They must believe it by faith.
The reason they hate Christianity so much is mostly because they don’t like the moral standards Christianity teaches. They don’t want to be held accountable to God for sin, so they deny the existence of God and make up their own definition of sin. For them, sin does not include biblical beliefs about sexual morality, family, or anything else that infringes on their personal autonomy.
Many Christians find it difficult to push back against those who promote a naturalistic agenda. The difficulty in doing that is not so much in the actual effort to push back, but because of an internal dissonance many feel due to not fully understanding what is going on.
Click here to continue reading.
Naturalism is not a faith. It is the default position. Accepting what we can observe and test is the only reasonable position, barring solipsistic nonsense. Faith is accepting claims without evidence. What you call naturalism is the opposite.
Naturalism is a set of worldview beliefs that asserts that the natural universe operating by natural laws is all that exists. It is absolutely a set of beliefs and is only the default beliefs of those who believe in it. You seem to be attempting to equate Naturalism with empiricism. That is absolutely not true. Naturalism is a faith system and there is NO empirical verification for it. If you believe it, you believe it by faith.
You do not understand the issue, clearly. You do not understand what faith is.
Please explain to me how accepting observable, testable, repeatable evidence for a claims and tentatively rejecting those that fail that standard is faith?
You have framed the argument incorrectly. No one ever said anything about not accepting observable, testable, repeatable evidence. I believe in the validity of the scientific method as fully as you do. The problem is, the things you are talking about (the existence or non-existence of God) does not fit into a category that can be studied empirically. The validity of the scientific method is not what is at issue here. Your naturalistic beliefs are not based on science, and are thus faith assertions (religious beliefs). If we continue this discussion, I will try to help you understand where you are off base on this.
How many times do I have to tell you I do not assert the non-existence of any deity. I reject the claim because no evidence has been provided. Please try to get that right. It is really quite simple.
If the existence of your god can’t be studied empirically, please explain why you believe it. Once you try to do that, you may begin to understand why your entire position is invalid.
You are the one who doesn’t seem to understand the implications of your arguments. I have told you several times already that there is evidence. For instance, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is proof of the existence of God. What do you find wrong with that evidence?
You keep saying there is evidence. Define what you mean by evidence and provide it.
What do I find wrong with the claim that the resurrection proves your god? The fact that we do not know there was such an event.
Please stop with your unwarranted condescension and answer my questions if you can or admit it if you can’t.
So, do you not accept any eyewitness testimony at all, or do you limit your skepticism to what is in the Bible? Once again, you are assuming certain kinds of evidence is invalid without providing any valid reason why you are rejecting it. We do know that there was such an event because we have eyewitness testimony from multiple individuals. Your previous response represents a totally unreasonable and uneducated statement.
I’m sorry that you feel that a reasonable reply to your mistake is condescending. It seems to speak more to your personal sense of insecurity than to my reply.
Once again, you have failed to define exactly what you mean by evidence or present any. Are you able to do so? if you can’t or you refuse to, just say so. Then we can address its validity.
Eyewitness testimony is extremely weak. It is wildly unreliable. One must always be cautious and skeptical with it. In regards to the resurrection, there are no eyewitness testimonies in the bible. Are you unfamiliar with the scholarship regarding when the gospels were written?
I’m sorry that you feel you must deny your condescension and I’m stunned that you think your response is reasonable. That speaks to your arrogance and shocking lack of understanding of the issue at hand.
Now, how about that definition of what you consider to be evidence?
You are the one who keeps dancing around the definition of evidence. You seem to have this belief that your unspoken (and perhaps even unconscious) definition of evidence is true. You keep asking for evidence, I give you some, and you simply dismiss it. So until you tell me exactly what kind of evidence you are willing to accept, nothing I say will satisfy you. So, be straight and tell me what you will accept.
You are simply in error that eyewitness evidence is weak. In fact, it is some of the strongest evidence that exists. So I suppose you question the historical reality of Julius Caesar, Socrates, or Genghis Kahn? Do you question the historicity of all ancient events that are based on eyewitness testimony? Really?
And yes, I am quite familiar with the scholarship regarding the gospels (and the other biblical writings, as well). In fact, that is a part of my own academic background. How about you? Where did you get your theological training? What hermeneutical standard were you taught regarding the interpretation of the biblical texts? You are the one who keeps making claims about things without ever giving evidence that what you are saying is true. All you have done is spout your opinion without any corroboration. I think it is about time that you backed up your arguments. What is your evidence that the biblical record is not accurate? What is your evidence that there were no eyewitness testimonies in the Bible?
I continue to be sorry that you feel that my dispute of your arguments is condescension. It is not. I am simply pointing out the errors in your reasoning. You really don’t need to make yourself the victim here.
I have given it repeatedly and clearly. I will do so again. It is observable, testable, repeatable support for a claim. Do you think there is some benefit from such an obviously false charge?
What you have not done, not even tried to do, is define what you mean by evidence. I ask and ask and ask, yet you don’t try. What do you think evidence is? Stop dodging the question.
I do not doubt the existence of those historical figures. They are documented by numerous contemporary sources and artifacts. This is unlike Christ, who is documented only in the gospels, which disagree with each other on details, and were written between 66 AD and 110 AD. No contemporary eyewitness accounts exist. There is the passage in Josephus but that has been revealed to have been a medieval forgery. All that said, was there an itinerant Jewish evangelist who claimed to be the Messiah named Jesus Christ? Very possibly. Was he god incarnate? You’re gonna need to bring some evidence for that… if you can ever bring yourself to say what you think evidence is.
You have an Academic background and your thinking is this disjointed and incoherent? Astonishing. Your profound inability to grasp logic and how to approach epistemic question is astonishing.
Now, for what feels like the hundredth time, what do you consider evidence to mean?
Macro-evolution is neither observable, testable, nor repeatable. You assertion is simply false.
Your evaluation of the biblical text, as well as of my reasoning, is simply false. You keep making claims like this, but you have never backed it up. What are the sources for your claims? Where did you do your theological studies?
I will ask one more time. What kind of evidence will you accept? It is useless for me to continue giving you evidence then you reply that it is not really evidence.
We are done. You are not an honest interlocuter. You have been presented with the evidence regrading evolution and you refuse to even look at it. You have been asked repeatedly to explain what you mean by “evidence” and you have refused to do so. You deny obvious facts regarding the content of the bible. You continue to engage in pitiful ad hominem attacks. You keep asking what kind of evidence I will accept, I have answered, yet you keep asking.
I had hoped for more but you are nothing but a typical, dishonest apologist who knows little and will learn nothing.
I doubt very seriously you will post this. If you do, you may have the last word. I will certainly not be reading it. You are not worth serious consideration.
The evidence you have presented is not based on science, but on your opinion informed by naturalistic philosophy.
In spite of your protestations, you never have been willing to tell me what kind of evidence you are willing to accept. And any time I actually presented some kind of evidence, you rejected it out of hand without any kind of objective reason. I am not willing to call you dishonest at this point, but at the very least you are ignorant of the implications of the topic we are dealing with.
Your “obvious facts” concerning the Bible are not really obvious facts, but are your unsupported interpretations of the text.
I do pray that one day you will be able to see the flaws in your naturalistic worldview beliefs and come to a personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. He will change your life.