When Atheists Tell The Truth...

[1liesalot]

He doesn't.  If He did, you'd be worshipping.

Explain this, then....

"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:" (Exodus 34:14-16)

[Odoital778412]

odoital778412:

He doesn't.  If He did, you'd be worshipping.

Explain this, then....

1liesalot:

"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:" (Exodus 34:14-16)

I'm not sure what you're wanting me to explain exactly.  It seems entirely clear to me that nothing I said is refuted for violated by what you've cited.  God's sovereign will is what He requires.  In other words, if it were His sovereign will that all humans would worship Him, then all humans would worship Him.  Unfortunately though, human beings would cease to be free creatures in that case, as they would simply be unable to violate the sovereign will of God.  However, God's moral will, which is what you've cited, is what God desires to have happen but often does not.  In other words, God's moral will can be and is routinely violated.  The fact that God has shared His moral will with humanity does not mean that He has somehow required you or anyone else to do it.  He's simply told you that this is what you "should do" not "must do".  If it were otherwise, you'd be worshiping that jealous God right now.

I would also point out that what you've cited is God declaring His moral will with respect to the worship of other Gods, not explicitly the worship of Him, though that is certainly implied.  But in any case, it falls within the realm of His moral will, which can be contravened and is actually the basis upon which Christ was sent to provide payment for our violation of God's law (i.e. crimes against Him).

I would suggest taking time to really reflect on these issues.  One of the things that I find when I interact with atheists is that they've really not looked into these issues in any detail, and if they have, it's only been by way of an echo-chamber.  If you want what you might perceive as the nonsense beliefs of theists or Christians addressed, you're better off trying to look at scholarly Christian materials for answers to the questions you have.  Most Christians, unfortunately, will not be able to answer every single objection a person might have, but Christianity has a long history and there are very few objections that haven't been dealt with, often many times over and by many people, within Christendom over the centuries.  I hope that helps.

[Odoital778412]

  I think you don't understand concepts that are outside of your experience.

I suppose that’s at least possible.  I guess we’ll see.

  First lets go back the original question

  How would it affect your atheism?

   Atheism is a lack of belief, in my case it's due to lack of evidence, and nothing more.

On this, we disagree.  The actual meaning of atheism is 'alpha (neg) theos (God) = No God.  As a result, if you are going by the actual meaning of the word then atheism is the affirmation of an absolute negative or of there being “No God”.  Since atheism, as a movement, was confronted with the problem in logic of attempting to affirm a universal negative, they've tried to define themselves back into agnosticism while still retaining the term atheism.  Of course, agnosticism isn't all that hard to demonstrate, at least on the surface, as you need only show that you don't know that there is a God.  In any case, whether one is affirming that no God exists, or you’re saying that no evidence for a God exists; it’s still two sides of the very same coin.  If you really think atheism is merely a lack of belief, it turns all of the books by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens into absurdities.  Whoever heard of writing volumes and volumes of material on the lack of a belief?  The fact of the matter is that these men have many many beliefs, and they all just happen to support the following notions:

1) There is no evidence for God
2) The evidence for God is bad or unconvincing
3) The God that is NOT there is a terrible one not worthy of the God moniker

None of that seems to come from a mere lack of belief.  They are clearly trying to affirm the non-existence of God.  Merely lacking a particular belief shouldn't motivate the writing of hundreds or thousands of books regarding its absence.  There’s something else going on, and I would invite you to reflect on the atheist’s project and re-evaluate how you might describe it.

How would you reconcile yourself to embracing the need to worship him, :worship:  to denying your atheism?

  It is never explained why the need to worship him?  Is he a dictator???

I’m not sure that this is the appropriate question.  With the knowledge of God being an incommensurable good, His being the source of your very existence, the promise of your existence after this physical life, the offerer of a pardon for your crimes by way of personal self-sacrifice, and the only perfect being; why would you not worship Him?

His is not a dictator, or you would be worshiping Him now.  The fact that you are not answers that question for you.  If you are to give Him your worship and love, He desires it only by way of your freedom.  If you are not free, then your worship and love are utterly meaningless.

I said I wouldn't like it, why ? because the God in the bible is not a moral being, that is why.

  Now, if the characterization of God as is described in the bible turns out to be completely wrong, then who knows. Ill give her a chance.

Is He not moral because you are holding Him to standards of human prerogative and authority rather than those prerogatives and authorities that would rightly belong to the creator of all that has ever come into existence and upon which all contingent things depend?  If so, then He is perceived as not being moral on the basis of your misunderstanding.  If you have questions about that, we can certainly talk about it, though I’ve addressed it considerably in other threads.

[Odoital778412]

odoital778412You have a misapprehension of God and His actions.

You use this phrase or one very much like it a lot.  Many of us -- myself included -- were raised in one flavor or another of Christianity.  Those of us who were are versed, to one degree or another, in Christian mythology, Christian apologetics, and various Christian views of what their god is like.

These kinds of things might be true, but I have found that they are most often not true.  Most often, I find that the atheist has trouble even addressing questions of Christianity without being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive.  For example, your use of the world “mythology” instead of “theology”.  It wasn’t necessary, but somehow the disdain you have for the beliefs I hold had to be included in your words.  I wonder if you think that helps to facilitate discussion or shut it down?  In addition, I have found that some experience in churches or groups that call themselves Christian is relatively common, but most of that even is fairly limited.  In addition, it’s almost never the case, regardless of the church one attends, that the kinds of questions and objections one my get from an atheist are actually well and fully addressed in any particular church.  It’s very rare.  So experience in going to church or being involved in church isn’t necessarily any measure of ones deeper understanding of Christianity, such that the kinds of objections and questions atheists might have are answered.  And I have occasionally run into an atheist who is superficially familiar with one or more apologists or have looked at one or more books.  However, more often, when I’ve engaged atheists in ongoing discussions, what turns out to be the case is that they’re more familiar with an atheist (usually on-line) who’s written extensive rebuttals or reviews of particular apologists or their work.  In other words, it’s more often the case that the atheist would like me to believe that they are familiar with everything I have to say and so, are impervious to any measly arguments or evidence that a lowly ignorant Christian might want to give.  I don’t know if this is true of you or not, but that has been my experience.

How do you know -- and by know, I very much mean 'I can demonstrate objectively' rather than 'I really really believe' -- that you're not the one with a misapprehension?  Never mind other religions, or those with no religion -- there are over 40,000 different denominations just of Christianity.  Even Christians can't agree among themselves on the nature of god, of Jeshua bar-Joseph (assuming he even existed in the first place) -- heck, even over whether you should cross yourself right-to-left or left-to-right.  That doesn't suggest truth, revealed or otherwise.  So the question of authority and demonstrability is now very important, as you're speaking in pronouncements and conclusions rather than in the give-and-take of debate.

In one sense, this is a very easy question to answer.  The reason is because I actually know what orthodox Christianity teaches and purports to believe.  When I hear atheists discuss it or put it forward for examination or objection, it is virtually always misconstrued or misrepresented out of ignorance, misunderstanding, or deliberation.  I prefer to think that the misrepresentations are mere mistakes resulting from ignorance or misunderstanding.  Admittedly, I’m letting my bias take over, in that I’m intentionally trying to give atheists the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are not intentionally distorting Christian beliefs so that they can publicly knock them down and give others the impression that they are false, irrational, etc…  So for example, when I hear an atheist say that because God is all-powerful, He can do absolutely anything, I just have to sigh.  I say to them, “Well, that’s not actually true.  The definition of God’s omnipotence is more precise than that.”  Then of course a quotation of their former youth pastor or some other well-meaning Christian is given saying exactly that.  “God being all-powerful means that God can do absolutely anything!”  And of course, you can find well-meaning but probably superficial and somewhat ignorant professing Christians all over the place that will tell you that very same thing and argue with you when you tell them that they’re incorrect.  But because someone professing to be a Christian says something doesn’t mean that the Bible teaches it or that it’s consistent with the historic teachings of Christianity.  In short, there is a difference between the mixed behavior, knowledge, and fervor of the professing Christian population and the actual historic teachings, doctrines, and theology of the Christianity itself.  If you’re going to make judgments, you should generally focus on the latter rather than the former.  Christianity is something in particular that is relatively well defined, but the behavior and beliefs of everyone who likes to slap on that moniker can be pretty whacky and all over the place.  So the point I’m making is that it’s usually pretty easy for me to tell when someone is operating or speaking about Christianity in ways that are at variance with the way Christianity would speak for itself because I’m more familiar, though not an expert, with the teachings, doctrines, and theology of Christianity than the typical atheist.  Most often, the atheist has a relatively superficial understanding or it’s come from a Christian or Christian church’s superficial understanding.  Why would a church have a superficial understanding of its own religion that it claims to be following?  Well, that’s a whole new thread in itself, but usually it’s because the teaching within a church is for a mass audience mixed with believers and unbelievers.  Meaning that it’s kept fairly simple or to one of the lower common denominators for the purposes of consumption and understanding.  A Sunday sermon isn’t typically meant for a seminary class.

Related to this, it’s possible that I might have a misapprehension of atheism, and the atheist is probably in a better position to know that than I would be.  Why?  Because the atheist is probably more familiar with the kinds of things atheists believe than I am, though I am experienced in the area.

I don't question your faith.  I'm sure you genuinely believe.  But belief just isn't good enough for me and I expect it isn't for many (most?) others here, and 'I/the Bible/god said so' is not sufficient authority to compel belief.  This is what we call an extraordinary claim: that there is a divine authority behind all of physical reality whose existence defies objective demonstration.  As has been said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  I'm not even sure how you could differentiate between an alleged miracle, and the action of an extremely advanced alien intelligence -- Clarke's Law applies here, too.  If any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, any sufficiently advanced (technology-using but biologically evolved and otherwise perfectly material and natural) alien is indistinguishable from a magic-worker.

I agree with some of what you’ve said here, but there is one idea that is simply false.  An extraordinary claim requires ADEQUATE evidence, not EXTRAORDINARY evidence.  Really.  Think about that.  Think about all of the things that we might believe, even in the area of science, that we believe by way of adequate evidence rather than what would be considered extraordinary evidence.  It’s almost never the case that you have extraordinary evidence until many years later when you have so many different pieces of evidence that lead you to the same conclusion.  This is a rhetorical trick common to fans of Sagan and various other baloney detecting men of his type, but I think Sagan was the main popularizer of that particular and somewhat deceitful tactic.

I want to remind you that the bible is not evidence, not any more than 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' is evidence that there's a school of magic up in Scotland.  There are a few events therein that are confirmed by outside sources, for example the Babylonian exile, but there are many more that are not, and many that are demonstrably factually inaccurate, and many that are mutually exclusive -- they cannot both be true.  You may choose to accept it, but that does not compel its acceptance as valid to anyone else.

The Bible can be evidence, but it depends on several factors.  One major factor is whether it’s been shown to have been reliably preserved over time.  And the other factor has to do with what is it evidence for?  Is it evidence for what or why Christians believe a certain thing, or is it evidence for God’s existence.  I would argue that it can be both, so long as other criteria have been met prior.  However, if you mean merely quoting the Bible as having some evidential merit with you or an atheist, then I’d agree that it is not and does not.  I think that’s a mistaken view of many well-meaning Christians.  It’s also a view that I do not hold.  Having said that, we disagree on the attestation of the Bible with regard to events like the Babylonian exile.  I would point you to several resources:

Archaeology and the Old Testament by Alfred J. Hoerth
Bible Archaeology: An Exploration of the History and Culture of Early Civilizations by John McRay and Alfred Hoerth
The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible: Discoveries That Confirm the Reliability of Scripture by James M. Holden and Norman Geisler

I would simply invite you to look into the issue more, not for the purpose of conversion, but simply because I know that a lot of what passes for information on these topics is anything but.

Fundamentally, you are speaking mysticism to rationalists.  Carl Sagan wrote a short essay called The Dragon in my Garage.  I don't ask you to read it in the hope that you'll change your beliefs.  I ask you to read it in order to understand the rationalist/skeptical minds that you're trying to communicate with here -- as far as I'm concerned, you're claiming there's a dragon in your garage, and I begin to suspect that you really don't understand why you're not getting anywhere by just repeating the claim or adding another special case.

Yes, thank you.  It’s been around for many years, and it’s been read many times.  The problem with the essay is that some people find it convincing.  Sagan is defending naturalism or materialism with his little essay, and as such, he ends up undercutting his own case, which has been pointed out ad infinitum.  Let me attempt to illustrate.

The Dragon In My Garage â€" by Carl Sagan

Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?  If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?  Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true.  Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.

In the first place, Christianity is falsifiable on many fronts.  Prove that the universe is eternal.  Prove that life can come from non-life without reference to mind.  Prove that information can arise, drastically increase, substantially vary, and end in purposeful functionality without reference to mind.  There are others that are more specific to the Bible that could be listed as well, but it is falsifiable.  But the more important point is that the naturalism he’s trying to defend and the laws of logic themselves that allow him to construct meaningful sentences to make the argument, are themselves, immaterial and impervious to scientific testing.  And so if metaphysical, epistemological, and methodological naturalism are the only ways of knowing anything about reality, then we’re left with no reality at all. 

I actually think that I do understand why I’m not getting anywhere, and one of the main reasons is that I’m not trying to get anywhere, at least not in the sense you mean.  I didn’t come in here with the goal of converting anyone or even with the expectation that anyone would be open to honestly and genuinely discussing our views.  That may or may not happen.  If it doesn’t, I won’t be surprised, and if it does, that’s great.  My goal is be available for conversation, to put myself in the hot seat on a part-time basis, and hopefully to provide a credible example of a well-meaning and somewhat thoughtful Christian that atheists may not be accustomed to dealing with.  If someone accepts Christ or moves a step closer to a belief that a God might exist, that’s great.  But I’m specifically not here for that purpose.  Anyway, I hope that helps.

[doorknob]

damn it I missed another thread!

To the OP

I would not reject god in the sense that I wouldn't believe in him. I'd still believe in him if it were proven to be true I just reject god as something to be worshiped or worthy of my love. He's a pretty evil dude in the bible. Killing innocent babies to punish a group of people is wrong no matter how you slice it.

[Hydra009]

In the first place, Christianity is falsifiable on many fronts.  Prove that the universe is eternal.

It's not actually possible to prove that the universe is eternal.  We can't go back further than our universe's big bang.

Prove that life can come from non-life without reference to mind.

Well, we know that the universe didn't initially have life.  We know that it does have life now.  And we know that the building blocks of life can be created by natural processes.  Without invoking magic, it's fairly obvious that life did indeed emerge from non-life.

Prove that information can arise, drastically increase, substantially vary, and end in purposeful functionality without reference to mind.

Creationist cdesign proponentsist gibberish.

There are others that are more specific to the Bible that could be listed as well, but it is falsifiable.

Right.  Like factual inaccuracies.  Contradictions.  Or if one found out that the miraculous events in the bible aren't corroborated by any other people who lived at that time and who really should've noticed.  Stuff like that would be a pretty big strike against the veracity of the Bible.

But the more important point is that the naturalism he’s trying to defend and the laws of logic themselves that allow him to construct meaningful sentences to make the argument, are themselves, immaterial and impervious to scientific testing.  And so if metaphysical, epistemological, and methodological naturalism are the only ways of knowing anything about reality, then we’re left with no reality at all.

Classic presuppositionism.  Either God or nothing at all.  Sounds legit.

[Mike Cl]

1.--  Most often, I find that the atheist has trouble even addressing questions of Christianity without being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive.  For example, your use of the world “mythology” instead of “theology”. 

2.-- The reason is because I actually know what orthodox Christianity teaches and purports to believe.  When I hear atheists discuss it or put it forward for examination or objection, it is virtually always misconstrued or misrepresented out of ignorance, misunderstanding, or deliberation.

3.--   A Sunday sermon isn’t typically meant for a seminary class.

4.--Related to this, it’s possible that I might have a misapprehension of atheism, and the atheist is probably in a better position to know that than I would be.  Why?  Because the atheist is probably more familiar with the kinds of things atheists believe than I am, though I am experienced in the area.

5.--I actually think that I do understand why I’m not getting anywhere, and one of the main reasons is that I’m not trying to get anywhere, at least not in the sense you mean.  I didn’t come in here with the goal of converting anyone or even with the expectation that anyone would be open to honestly and genuinely discussing our views.  That may or may not happen.  If it doesn’t, I won’t be surprised, and if it does, that’s great.  My goal is be available for conversation, to put myself in the hot seat on a part-time basis, and hopefully to provide a credible example of a well-meaning and somewhat thoughtful Christian that atheists may not be accustomed to dealing with.

I'd like to offer some comments about your comments--I numbered them 1 thru 5, and oddly enough, I'll tackle them in that order.

1. I've been on several boards and have suffered the same as you--you say, "the atheist has trouble even addressing questions of Christianity without being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive."  Substitute christian for atheist and you have my experience, as well.  What I think the problem is that when discussing religion we are talking about a deeply held worldview.  And to change that view is very, very difficult.  Both atheist and christian often resort to name calling rather than listening and trying to figure out the 'why' of the other person.  As for using various words, sometimes it is simply that neither party has defined terms.  I would use mythology when discussing religion, especially christanity rather than theology.  Why?  Because I think christianity is simply another mystery religion--and I think Jesus is a myth and not an actual person.  So, mythology fits my personal definition better than theology.  It is not meant to be a put-down, but I can also see where you may think that it is. 

2.  You may know what orthodox christianity is, but there are so many different sects that profess to be 'the' way and only way to god, that it is almost impossible to make generic comments about the christian religion.  So, unless you explain what that is, there is no way for others to know what you mean. 

3.  No, a sermon is not meant to be a seminary class.  One of my concerns about god is why did he make the process to get to  know what he wants and how he wants it so obscure?   So convoluted?  He very easily could have had his owners manual dropped on every contentment; put into the hands of all the peoples of the world in their language.  That did not even come close to happening.  Why does there need to be a seminary to learn about god???  That makes no sense to me.  Except that it does. Seminaries and all places like them are about teaching the hierarchy how to interpret their scripture and how to then speak to the laity.  It is all about power and control.  I see it as that simple.

4.  The problem with lumping all atheists under one banner is that it does not help to define them.  I am an atheist.  I don't believe in anything.  I think there is a lack of evidence of any kind of supernatural anything.  If it exists, it is natural.  There are no living beings that are invisible.  There are no spirits or ghosts or the like.  I have reasons for what I think is the way things are--not beliefs.  And I am different than any other atheist--so lumping us together does not help explain who I am, nor what I think.  And I think the same applies to you.  You claim Christianity.  That's fine--but it tells me absolutely nothing about what your beliefs are.  That's why I enjoy talking to people one-to-one.  Terms can be defined and progress can be make toward understanding what that person actually believes or thinks.

5..I actually stopped visiting the boards I used to frequent because it all to often became a name calling contest.  It became boring.  After about 5/6 years of staying away from the forums, I stumbled upon this place and found that I enjoy it here.  With your appearance, it has become more fun. 

[DeathandGrim]

Virtually everyone essentially said that even if the Bible or the God of the Bible were proven to be true, they would still reject Him. In one sense, that doesn’t surprise me, since that’s what the Bible predicts. 

Because he's an asshole. Both Jesus and Yahweh can eat a barrel of dicks because their rules and thought processes don't make any fucking sense. If he was real we can't deny him being real, but we certainly can choose not to follow him.

But in another sense, seeing that level of denial is a bit mind blowing.

I'm sure that it isn't denial. It's more rebellion. Like it was stated, the hypothetical assumes it's all true.

But it started me thinking about the demand for evidence and whether or not the demand is real or just rhetorical (i.e. used for mere effect)?

Are you asking if we're faking it?

Do you think your own demand for evidence or the objections you have are just rhetorical, real, or maybe both?

They're both. The objections are real and our demands for evidence are both real and rhetorical. They're often extremely difficult demands to theists only because the premise has no basis in reality and it's really to teach a lesson (or attempt to)

[DeathandGrim]

The incommensurable good is to know God, but that can only be done through free choices.

How about making himself known?

Otherwise, things like worship and love are meaningless.

Why does he care? He's perfect.

So while God desires your appropriate behavior toward Him, He does not require it.  Nor does He force Himself upon you.

The threat of hell?

[trdsf]

These kinds of things might be true, but I have found that they are most often not true.  Most often, I find that the atheist has trouble even addressing questions of Christianity without being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive.  For example, your use of the world “mythology” instead of “theology”.  It wasn’t necessary, but somehow the disdain you have for the beliefs I hold had to be included in your words.  I wonder if you think that helps to facilitate discussion or shut it down?

You're asking me to be a hypocrite if you ask me to use 'theology'.  While I am willing to accept that you believe it and that to you it is a 'theology', I do not, and for me to use that term would be wholly inaccurate and entirely dishonest.

In addition, it explicitly cedes ground that I will not cede, that there is a real god about whom one might discuss a real theology.  I continue to assert that there is none, and that for me to use a term other than 'mythology' would be intellectually and philosophically dishonest.  Or do you expect me to refer to Classical Greek 'theology' and Norse 'theology' -- to say nothing of Hindu, Islamic or Pagan 'theologies'?

And do you genuinely not think it disdainful, hostile or rude when you assert that all atheists are joyless nihilistic materialists, and that we "just don't understand"?  Is it not disdainful or hostile to demand a higher respect for your view of the very matter on which we disagree than we do?

I will not be a liar or a hypocrite for you, or for anyone else.  I would never complain that you call it 'theology', since it is 'theology' to you and is entirely appropriate for you to use that term.

But it is very much mythology to me, and I stand by the word and my use of it. 

In one sense, this is a very easy question to answer.  The reason is because I actually know what orthodox Christianity teaches and purports to believe.

This is basically saying "I know because I believe" or even just "I know because I know", which is certainly the ultimate in circular reasoning.  While this may be an answer to your satisfaction, it isn't to mine -- it lacks any reference to the repeatable, the experiential and the demonstrable.

Granted, saying "I know" is philosophically problematic all around, at least if one wants to engage in the kind of deep, logic-chopping philosophy that makes my eyes cross.  I presuppose that when I say "I know" something, that it's meant in the sense that it has been demonstrated beyond all possible contradiction -- that is, it's thunderingly obvious and denying it is the mark of the clinically delusional, as in "I know 1+1=2"; or, it's meant with an assumed "pending further observations" tacked onto it.

So I can say "I know Mars has two moons" and stand on firm ground.  If a third moon is discovered tomorrow, continuing to assert that would be wrong, but based on the data and observations currently available, I am for the time being entitled to say that I know this.

I can not say that "I know" there are other intelligent species in the galaxy, or in the rest of the universe.  I consider their existence exceedingly likely, and given a chance I can make quite a compelling case for supposing they exist, but I don't have the tiniest shred of direct evidence to say so and therefore I am in no way, shape or form entitled to say that I know they're out there.

Statements about the existence of a god necessarily fall into this same category.  Until it can be demonstrated, it is a belief.  It is not knowledge.

Related to this, it’s possible that I might have a misapprehension of atheism, and the atheist is probably in a better position to know that than I would be.  Why?  Because the atheist is probably more familiar with the kinds of things atheists believe than I am, though I am experienced in the area.

I think it's extremely likely you have a misapprehension of atheism.  You've spent quite a bit of time declaring what (you think) atheism is and what (you think) atheists are, rather than asking for clarification.

Also, and I copy it down here because of its relevance, you said:

In addition, I have found that some experience in churches or groups that call themselves Christian is relatively common, but most of that even is fairly limited.  In addition, it’s almost never the case, regardless of the church one attends, that the kinds of questions and objections one my get from an atheist are actually well and fully addressed in any particular church.  It’s very rare.  So experience in going to church or being involved in church isn’t necessarily any measure of ones deeper understanding of Christianity, such that the kinds of objections and questions atheists might have are answered.

Why is your above-claimed experience in atheism applicable to this conversation, when you also claim that my experience of having once been a Christian is not?  We're back to you making assumptions and presuppositions and basing your arguments on those strawmen rather than asking and engaging.

I agree with some of what you’ve said here, but there is one idea that is simply false.  An extraordinary claim requires ADEQUATE evidence, not EXTRAORDINARY evidence.  Really.  Think about that.  Think about all of the things that we might believe, even in the area of science, that we believe by way of adequate evidence rather than what would be considered extraordinary evidence.  It’s almost never the case that you have extraordinary evidence until many years later when you have so many different pieces of evidence that lead you to the same conclusion.  This is a rhetorical trick common to fans of Sagan and various other baloney detecting men of his type, but I think Sagan was the main popularizer of that particular and somewhat deceitful tactic.

Adequate evidence for an extraordinary claim would be pretty extraordinary.

This is just wordgames anyway -- the point is, adequate or extraordinary, the evidence is still necessary.

The Bible can be evidence, but it depends on several factors.  One major factor is whether it’s been shown to have been reliably preserved over time.  And the other factor has to do with what is it evidence for?  Is it evidence for what or why Christians believe a certain thing, or is it evidence for God’s existence.  I would argue that it can be both, so long as other criteria have been met prior.  However, if you mean merely quoting the Bible as having some evidential merit with you or an atheist, then I’d agree that it is not and does not.  I think that’s a mistaken view of many well-meaning Christians.  It’s also a view that I do not hold.  Having said that, we disagree on the attestation of the Bible with regard to events like the Babylonian exile.  I would point you to several resources:

Well, the Bible is suspect as a historical source for the simple reason that the version(s) in common circulation today are so far removed from the source material -- which is itself missing.  The earliest copies are exactly that: copies of unknown generation.  If it were one of several books by the same author -- the works of Cicero, Ovid, Thucydides, Herodotus -- we would have bases upon which we could judge their reliability.

And despite your assertion, we really can't say the Bible -- certainly not the New Testament -- has been "reliably preserved".  It has been the subject of politicially and/or philosophically biased translation from the very beginnings, whether those in power were trying to suppress Gnosticism, Manicheanism, all the way up to the King James Version, which was commissioned in part to combat Puritanism rather than to just provide a definitive English-language bible.

Yes, thank you.  It’s been around for many years, and it’s been read many times.  The problem with the essay is that some people find it convincing.  Sagan is defending naturalism or materialism with his little essay, and as such, he ends up undercutting his own case, which has been pointed out ad infinitum.  Let me attempt to illustrate.
In the first place, Christianity is falsifiable on many fronts.  Prove that the universe is eternal.  Prove that life can come from non-life without reference to mind.  Prove that information can arise, drastically increase, substantially vary, and end in purposeful functionality without reference to mind.  There are others that are more specific to the Bible that could be listed as well, but it is falsifiable.  But the more important point is that the naturalism he’s trying to defend and the laws of logic themselves that allow him to construct meaningful sentences to make the argument, are themselves, immaterial and impervious to scientific testing.  And so if metaphysical, epistemological, and methodological naturalism are the only ways of knowing anything about reality, then we’re left with no reality at all. 

That is probably the most incorrect reading I've seen of the scientific method and logic that I've ever seen.  Of course logic can be applied to logical systems to test their consistency and completeness.  That's among the reasons we know that logic and the scientific method are good tools -- they have been tested, and passed the fundamental tests of consistency and repeatability.

You're also suggesting here that if the Bible is falsifiable, then so is everything else, and that just doesn't hold.

Lastly, you also evade the central point: what is the difference between an entity that cannot be detected by any physical means whatsoever, and one that's just not there at all?  At some point after special case number n+1 has been pled in response to objection n, there is justification in saying it's not there.

I might refer you to Asimov's short story "The Obvious Factor", one of his Black Widowers mystery shorts, on the nature of adding special case after special case after special case when trying to deduce the facts of a matter.  There comes a point when, after the goal has been moved one more time, it's not worth kicking that football again

I actually think that I do understand why I’m not getting anywhere, and one of the main reasons is that I’m not trying to get anywhere, at least not in the sense you mean.  I didn’t come in here with the goal of converting anyone or even with the expectation that anyone would be open to honestly and genuinely discussing our views.  That may or may not happen.  If it doesn’t, I won’t be surprised, and if it does, that’s great.  My goal is be available for conversation, to put myself in the hot seat on a part-time basis, and hopefully to provide a credible example of a well-meaning and somewhat thoughtful Christian that atheists may not be accustomed to dealing with.  If someone accepts Christ or moves a step closer to a belief that a God might exist, that’s great.  But I’m specifically not here for that purpose.  Anyway, I hope that helps.

Fair enough.  To that end, I might recommend making fewer declarations about what atheism "is" and what atheists "are", and asking instead.

[1liesalot]

I'm not sure what you're wanting me to explain exactly.  It seems entirely clear to me that nothing I said is refuted for violated by what you've cited.  God's sovereign will is what He requires.  In other words, if it were His sovereign will that all humans would worship Him, then all humans would worship Him.  Unfortunately though, human beings would cease to be free creatures in that case, as they would simply be unable to violate the sovereign will of God.  However, God's moral will, which is what you've cited, is what God desires to have happen but often does not.  In other words, God's moral will can be and is routinely violated.  The fact that God has shared His moral will with humanity does not mean that He has somehow required you or anyone else to do it.  He's simply told you that this is what you "should do" not "must do".  If it were otherwise, you'd be worshiping that jealous God right now.

I would also point out that what you've cited is God declaring His moral will with respect to the worship of other Gods, not explicitly the worship of Him, though that is certainly implied.  But in any case, it falls within the realm of His moral will, which can be contravened and is actually the basis upon which Christ was sent to provide payment for our violation of God's law (i.e. crimes against Him).

I would suggest taking time to really reflect on these issues.  One of the things that I find when I interact with atheists is that they've really not looked into these issues in any detail, and if they have, it's only been by way of an echo-chamber.  If you want what you might perceive as the nonsense beliefs of theists or Christians addressed, you're better off trying to look at scholarly Christian materials for answers to the questions you have.  Most Christians, unfortunately, will not be able to answer every single objection a person might have, but Christianity has a long history and there are very few objections that haven't been dealt with, often many times over and by many people, within Christendom over the centuries.  I hope that helps.

You've lost me.

[Unbeliever]

Even if God did exist (I mean the Judeo/Christian/Islamic omnimax God) then I would certainly not worship him, even if it meant spending eternity in hell. I've read the Bible, so I know what that God is like:
What the Bible's God Is Really Like

Any such being as that is surely a monster, not any sort of loving God. It's just lucky for all of us, Christian or otherwise, that we're free from that cosmic bully!

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Richard Dawkins

[Unbeliever]

I would use mythology when discussing religion, especially christanity rather than theology.  Why?  Because I think christianity is simply another mystery religion--and I think Jesus is a myth and not an actual person.  So, mythology fits my personal definition better than theology.  It is not meant to be a put-down, but I can also see where you may think that it is. 

I agree. Using the word theology, meaning "the study of divinity," presupposes that a divinity exists to be studied. Mythology is better because believers in one religion will accuse people of other religions of believing mythology. So they're all mythology.

[Aletheia]

I agree. Using the word theology, meaning "the study of divinity," presupposes that a divinity exists to be studied. Mythology is better because believers in one religion will accuse people of other religions of believing mythology. So they're all mythology.

Agreed. Like many religious individuals, the OP expects us to use a term that assumes his deity exists before providing any evidence that such a deity actually exists. I grow so tired of the games of semantics that theists love to play.

[SGOS]

Most often, I find that the atheist has trouble even addressing questions of Christianity without being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive.  For example, your use of the world “mythology” instead of “theology”.

You can't intrude on another's world view, either by trying to outright convince others that your belief in spirits should be adopted, or by passing laws that step on the rights of others, or even to just defend wacky beliefs.  It evokes hostility and insults.  Oh, I'm sure you want people to listen with interest, and say, "Oh yes, this all sounds very logical.  I don't have a reason in the world to not believe what you do.  Please show me how I can learn to believe in mystical things."   And of course we are going to dismiss your ideas when you have no evidence to support the existence of your especially favored spirit.  That's exactly what not believing something that contradicts reality is.  It is so far from reality it gets dismissed.