tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post2551935506940846379..comments2023-11-09T02:43:59.293-08:00Comments on Christian Medical Comment: Twenty questions atheists struggle to answer: How theism does better on the first sixPeter Saundershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comBlogger113125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-76222940793171671442020-09-19T15:46:26.966-07:002020-09-19T15:46:26.966-07:00Prove the universe is not an uncaused cause. If th...Prove the universe is not an uncaused cause. If the universe is fine tuned the why is our only source of light and heat dangerous radiation that kills millions of people every year? An all powerful God could have provided safe light and heat. The universe is rational? How so? The first cells had no DNA. Complexity arose over about 4 billion years. Same with the genetic code. All of these questions are answered by, "An Index to Creationist claims." Look it up before you expose your willful ignorance again.Borishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05144276364770005919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-23559777126896190922013-11-12T00:09:57.538-08:002013-11-12T00:09:57.538-08:00Peter, re question 1. Your question is often asked...Peter, re question 1. Your question is often asked, but does anyone agree on what we mean by "the universe"? Do we mean all of the matter + antimatter + whatever that was apparently released at the Big Bang, or do we mean all of the stuff that contains that, if there is such a thing? We can only consider the origins of this universe because that's all we can observe, but why can't eternity consist, for example, of an infinite sequence whereby the universe collapses into a singularity, re-Big Bangs, collapses again, etc, over billions of years?<br /><br />Also you say "Anything extrinsic to the universe must be both immaterial, beyond space and time and must have unfathomable power and intelligence. Moreover, it must be personal, as it made the decision to bring the universe into existence, and decisions only come from minds. "<br /><br />Can you explain the logic to these statements? Why must anything extrinsic to the universe have unfathomable power and intelligence? And why must it be personal? That assumes that the creation of the universe was a decision. Couldn't the cause of creation be random? I'm aware that in subsequent questions and answers you explain that you don't believe it could be random, but I think that, in the context of this question alone, there's no basis for assuming that creation was the result of a decision.Big Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-23507528577442017192013-10-18T18:05:59.671-07:002013-10-18T18:05:59.671-07:00It is for good reason that we cannot experience Go...It is for good reason that we cannot experience God in our ordinary existance for those of us who have been permitted the experience, you would simply not want to continue living this earthly existence. His Presence is just soooooo loving that it can be felt as a very powerful positive force that you would not hesitate to want to leave this existence and be with Him. That is not what He wants, He wants you to continue to live and experience life to the full, which cannot be done in the experience of His Presence. So He remains distant from us, but that in my experience is just an illusion. God's apparent absence from His created universe is arguably the greatest illusion ever as He is literally everywhere except for one place: human comprehension.Roger Hayesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-41796062067298587872013-08-31T01:39:49.744-07:002013-08-31T01:39:49.744-07:00All these questions are to do with scientific conc...All these questions are to do with scientific concerns, and so in my view miss the point. The central issue which atheists cannot answer on their own materialist terms is the existence of good and evil.<br />In the Old Testament, we are introduced to the brilliant story of the fall of man, without an understanding of which it must be nigh impossible to make sense of the world. As human beings, we are challenged on a daily basis to make decisions of right or wrong. The old lady is struggling upstairs slowly with bags she can hardly carry: do I stop, risk being late for my vital appointment, to give her a hand, and wait for her until she hobbles to the top of the stairs? I owe money to a friend: do I "forget" or pay? As Christians, seeking to follow Christ, we have to do what is right, as the prohpets taught, and as Christ taught. <br />People have asked the terrible question: where was God in Auschwitz, when He was most needed? The answer is that he was present in the hearts of a few saints, while the tormentors hearts were filled with evil. <br />Good and evil exist. We cannot escape the choice. Jonathan Storynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-84626450257657246492013-08-28T17:36:20.125-07:002013-08-28T17:36:20.125-07:00Richard Wilson, a servant of Jesus Christ, in love...Richard Wilson, a servant of Jesus Christ, in love to those who read this.<br />I’m compelled to share in this forum, without malice or judgment, hoping simply to share my personal conviction and perhaps to bring you hope in the name of Jesus. <br />There is missing from this discussion thread a major component. The premise of Dr Peter Saunders questions “20 Questions Atheists Struggle to Answer” certainly incites debate, although it may not prove either position. <br />If there are scientific and/or theoretical questions that atheists can or can’t answer, it’s irrelevant in that this does not prove there is a God or gods. Neither does answering every question scientifically or theoretically prove God doesn’t exist.<br />To simplify, you either don’t believe in God or you do.<br />The reason I personally believe God exists is that it answers the big question, “Why”. My belief is that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-when, everywhere: eternal. Out of His amazing love and desire to be in relationship with us as sentient beings, we were created. Created with free-will because love without a choice isn’t really love. Upon choosing to believe in Christ Jesus as the Son of God, repenting of our sins and receiving his salvation from sin and death, we are in fellowship with Him today and for eternity. (This is my belief and is not intended to diminish each individual’s freedom.)<br />If I didn’t believe this, I may hold the belief that life as we know it is a matter of chance. If life is a matter of chance alone, then what is the “Why”? If life and the known universe exist without God’s divine authority and purpose, is all I have this life and then “I” disappear?<br />Faced with the individual choice, I choose the amazing love of God and His plan for salvation. <br />So why write this? Why subject myself to the probability of ridicule? Because, God loves you. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-29287641404455928122013-07-09T09:00:30.004-07:002013-07-09T09:00:30.004-07:00The teleological argument was never more than a go...The teleological argument was never more than a god of the gaps circular fallacy and argument from personal incredulity. <br /><br />It was was refuted in 1859 by Darwin and Wallace. Do try to keep up.<br /><br />I like the way you appealed to the authority of a renowned Atheist, BTW.<br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-70781964688052133032013-07-09T08:51:19.870-07:002013-07-09T08:51:19.870-07:00I see you're still claiming these questions ha...I see you're still claiming these questions haven't been answered even though they have been, as readers can see here: <a href="http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2012/05/twenty-questions-atheists-have-answered.html" rel="nofollow">Twenty Questions Atheists Have Answered</a>.<br /><br />Isn't this called, 'bearing false witness', which I understand is a Christian sin?<br /><br />I also note you haven't yet managed to answer any of the counter questions I put to you over a year ago here: <a href="http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2012/06/questions-christians-struggle-or-refuse.html" rel="nofollow">Questions Christian Struggle (Or Refuse) To Answer.</a><br /><br />Isn't expecting others to do what you won't do yourself called 'hypocrisy', also a Christian sin?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-39467178173793745042013-07-09T08:48:39.639-07:002013-07-09T08:48:39.639-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-44888549778840740832013-04-01T13:13:26.647-07:002013-04-01T13:13:26.647-07:00one could just as easily exchange the term atheism...one could just as easily exchange the term atheism for theism in this answer. Science could not exist without theology. Just as atheism cannot exist without faith.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01999074668477471197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-90926749854177282212013-01-19T13:27:22.925-08:002013-01-19T13:27:22.925-08:00Hahaha....I LOVE this SUPREME question, is GOD=SPI...Hahaha....I LOVE this SUPREME question, is GOD=SPIRIT=SOUL just as real as matter=earth-fire-water-air-118 periodic (not idiotic)sub-atomic-elements=to CREATING a universe! Well, is it matter&SPIRIT indivisably conjoined or only FASINATINGLY complex matter that exists? Hmmmm,I THINK, since even a IGNorANT blind man is CAPABLE of REALIZING matter exisits WE no longer NEED to PROVE how CLEVER WE are in OUR UNDERSTANDING the MINDboggling NATURES exibited in matter and FOCUS on the real question...is SPIRIT real too? I WILL type the words that HINT at and point out OUR SPIRITUAL (dna-teehee)exists as well as this matter/universe in capital letters if YOU don't MIND/brain since WE are only water/meat forms otherWIZE. One of the many beautiful aspect of SPIRIT is that the most powerful nuclear micro-scope is incappable of showing the "things" and elements of SPIRIT that our un-educated blind man is ABLE to easily REALIZE exist within his CONCIOUSNESS. <br />GOD=SPIRIT=YOU-ME-CONCIOUSNESS-LOVE-KINDNESS-LOYALTY-CURIOSITY-SOUL-WISDOM-THOUGHT-PATIENCE-GRACIOUSNESS-GOALS-LOGIC-GENTLENESS-RESPECT-HOPE-GENEROUSITY-FACINATION-CONSCIENCE-MERCY-AWE-INSPIRATION-TRUTH-CREATIVITY-RATIONALITY-HUMOR-PASSION-COMPASSION-INTEREST-GENUINESS-FAITH-US-THEM-INTELLIGENCE-CHARITY-BELIEFS-DOUBTS-CONCEPTIONS etc,etc....these words and the depth of their MEANING is the evidence I PROPOSE exists to SUGGEST SPIRIT is as complicatedly real as matter is.<br />Bonny Zimmerman.....Toronto/CanadaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-85278179825257052932013-01-14T15:49:11.211-08:002013-01-14T15:49:11.211-08:00At last an answer! As you would expect, I will com...At last an answer! As you would expect, I will come back on the points you have made. <br /><br />First of all, your dismissal of beauty as a valid criterion is purely arbitrary as is your restricting yourself solely to objective standards. The subjective character of beauty does not make it irrelevant for this discussion, as you are just as capable as I am of recognizing it in nature, although our tastes may differ. Beauty can indeed be observed. <br /><br />Why am I saying that there is "some thinking" behind the order found in nature? Well, if there is no thinking there, then everything that contributes to this order just happened to be there, by coincidence. That would mean, it is pure coincidence that there is a planet Earth, that it stands at the exact point in the solar system where the conditions are met not only to make life possible but also to contribute to its developing the way it has - since it has been proven that were the Earth slightly closer or slightly further away from the Sun life (as we know it anyway) could not have developed. It would also be pure coincidence that life did indeed appear - that the conditions were gathered does not necessarily mean that it would, just that it could happen. Pure coincidence also that this life has the potential for reproducing itself, that the sex cells are the only cells in the organism to possess half of the chromosomes, and this in both male and female, which is why the newly-formed embryo does not possess more than the amount of genes which make up for the genetic code of its species. <br /><br />In other words, we've been lucky all the way...<br />... Unless all of this is the result of careful thinking.<br /><br />As for what God is like, we can only know through what we call "Revelation". However, this discussion is not about what God is like, but whether He exists in the first place. <br /><br />Your alternative explanation is also arbitrary. On which ground can you affirm that "there is" (an as yet undiscovered naturalistic explanation for the order of the universe)? For this reason, your explanation cannot possibly be better than mine. I do notice though that you do not provide any "evidence" either.<br /><br />Finally, the "naturally occurring forest" is indeed part of the universe and what I have said about the universe still applies here. However I do recognize here this same trick of yours which allows you to dismiss out of hand embarrassing questions. And as I think it does happen to you occasionally, if you went past such a garden, would you really believe it just happened to be there? Would you not rather believe that someone actually put it there (and indeed, that there was some thinking behind it)? Also, if it would be absurd to think the same garden to be there by coincidence, then why is it no longer absurd to think that the much more complex universe is there by coincidence?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-23184325955942669092013-01-13T10:22:44.323-08:002013-01-13T10:22:44.323-08:00The element of your statement that is wrong is so ...The element of your statement that is wrong is so obvious, I surprised I have to point it out to you, but I guess I do.<br /><br /><i>The observation of the order and beauty in the Universe leads necessarily to the conclusion that there is some thinking behind it, which means there is a thinker, hence a Creator.</i><br /><br />First of all, while I agree there is "order" to the universe (otherwise, science would be a futile pursuit), I do not accept that "beauty" is an objectively integral part of the universe. That is only a subjective response of some of the sentient beings that exist in the universe.<br /><br />More importantly, your conclusion that this means there must be some "thinking" behind the order of the universe is simply an assertion. You do not support it in any way. It's as simple as that. There is no argument for me to refute, because you have not <i>offered</i> any argument.<br /><br />I could just as easily say that every ditch must have a Digger behind it, and that Digger must be Paul Bunyan. There is as much logic to back that up as there is to support your assertion. (BTW, do you really think Paul Bunyan is my own creation? Google him if that's the case.)<br /><br />I am not obliged to provide a "better" explanation for the order of the universe, because you have not provided an actual explanation. You have just invented a being called "God" and ascribed the order to him. You don't provide any explanation of how this "God" actually produced order, not where this God itself came from. If this God posseses order itself, then there must be some thinking behind it as well, right?<br /><br />So my alternative explanation would be simply that there is an as yet undiscovered naturalistic explanation for the order of the universe, and in so doing I have already provided a better explanation than yours, since mine does not depend on magic or the supernatural, elements for whose existence there is no evidence.<br /><br />Your example of the garden actually argues against your point. It is, of course, possible to distinguish a carefully planned garden from a naturally occurring forest. However, the problem is that it is the forest you are trying to explain. So by saying we can recognize the "thinking" behind a garden, you only demonstrate that the same kind of "thinking" is not behind a forest, otherwise they would be indistinguishable. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-11806308070229569512013-01-13T08:33:53.805-08:002013-01-13T08:33:53.805-08:00Lutesuite, with all due respect, your question was...Lutesuite, with all due respect, your question was "According to your standards, that would be an answer to the question 'How was the Grand Canyon created?'"<br /><br />From the way this question is phrased, there can only be two possible answers: "yes" or "no". <br /><br />My answer was "there is absolutely no reason for me to believe that your fabricated myth can account for the creation of the Grand Canyon. " <br /><br />In other words: "no". Therefore, I have answered your question. Could it be that you also have a strange concept of what constitute "a question"?<br /><br />Coming back to your statement, assuming the Grand Canyon was effectively dug by someone, it could only be true if and only if, all things considered, there was nobody else but Paul Bunyan who could possibly have done it at the time the Grand Canyon was "created". Otherwise, the observation of the Grand Canyon would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is Paul Bunyan who did it. Nor does it lead necessarily to the conclusion that the digger had to be big, by the way (Did he do it throwing himself to the ground?). This is pure logic.<br /><br />However stupid you may find it, I'm putting before you, once again, the statement that the observation of the order and beauty in the Universe leads necessarily to the conclusion that there is some thinking behind it, which means there is a thinker, hence a Creator. What I keep asking you is to tell me what element in that statement you disagree with (and I am asking you to quote here), to explain why you think it is wrong and finally to provide a better explanation for it. Your repeated failure to do so - and that does not make you look any brighter, especially when you think my argument to be ridiculous - and your going round in circles could well be an implicit acknowledgement that you find some truth in what I've said. <br /><br />If you saw a beautiful garden, very well organised according to defined patterns, would you ever think that it all just happened to be there, that it required no external intervention and that it was a random product of evolution?<br /><br />However, for some reason (which obviously you cannot give), what would be absurd thinking here is no longer absurd when applied to the much wider and incredibly more complex universe. <br /><br />If atheists can't see anything wrong with that, are they then in a position to question the rationality of other people's beliefs?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-81474052997008300942013-01-12T15:04:33.852-08:002013-01-12T15:04:33.852-08:00Not only have you not answered my question, you ha...Not only have you not answered my question, you have not even understood it. <br /><br />I can see that the Grand Canyon is a very, very big and very, very deep ditch. This is evident even to people who are not atheists. All of this suggests that there must be a Very Big Ditch Digger, hence the necessity for Paul Bunyan to have created the Grand Canyon.<br /><br />There is absolutely no difference between this argument and yourse, except for the fact that I realize how ridiculous this argument is, and you believe yours.<br /> Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-89092115174874509792013-01-12T12:02:57.521-08:002013-01-12T12:02:57.521-08:00Throughout this discussion, it has amazed me how a...Throughout this discussion, it has amazed me how atheists have avoided the topic at every single occasion to focus on other things instead. <br /><br />Your distraction about the Grand Canyon will certainly not save you from explaining, if you can - which I have now come to doubt -<br />1) How my previous statement does not answer the question of our origin,<br />2) What better explanation you've got for it. <br /><br />Or could it be that it is rather you who have a strange concept of what constitute an "answer"? In that case then, little wonder that you can't agree with the Church. <br /><br />To answer your question, according to my standards, I can see that the world is organised, that there is unity, order and beauty, an observation even people outside the Judeo-Christian tradition such as Plato have made. All of this suggests that there has been some thinking behind it, which means there was a thinker, hence the necessity for a Creator. There is nothing mythological about this. Therefore, based on this standard, there is absolutely no reason for me to believe that your fabricated myth can account for the creation of the Grand Canyon. <br /><br />Once again, you've failed to understand that my argument had much more to do with the observation of the universe than it had with the fact that the Church said it.<br /><br />I've answered your question. Are you able to answer mine? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-76616643693470945082013-01-12T11:16:10.752-08:002013-01-12T11:16:10.752-08:00Again, you have a very strange concept of what con...Again, you have a very strange concept of what constitutes and "answer". People have always created mythologies to explain how things in the natural world arose. For instance, people used to tell the story of how the Grand Canyon was created by Paul Bunyan dragging his axe along the ground. According to your standards, that would be an answer to the question "How was the Grand Canyon created?" Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-75323211339733968422013-01-12T11:13:33.139-08:002013-01-12T11:13:33.139-08:00These scientific questions were very much about th...<i>These scientific questions were very much about the origin of the material world, and the reason of its being organized the way it is. All scientists do is to uncover the mechanisms that govern it.</i><br /><br />The problem that arises is from Saunders' assumption that science is unable to answer the above questions, as well as the fact that he fails to understand the science behind most of the issues he discusses. This is already detailed in the commnets above. So he uses his own ignorance to declare questions unanswerable, and tries to cram his god into the gap he creates. That's just sloppy thinking.<br /><br /><i>You seem ready to accept that atheism might be unable to answer deep human questions and whether or not you are convinced by Christianity's answers to these human questions, does not mean that Christianity has not answered them.</i><br /><br />You seem to have a very idiosyncratic definition if tge word "answer." Stuff someone just made up is not an "answer." It's just made up stuff.<br /><br /><i>Assuming it were true that "the vast majority of so-called scientists today are atheists" - which I'm quite happy to believe - this could very well be explained by the shift in demographics. </i><br /><br />That's exactly the point I was making. <br /><br /><i>Either way, my argument was that one can both be a believer and a scientist, as has been evidenced in the past, which brings me back to my point that the assumption that atheism and science go hand in hand is simply false. I never suggested that Christianity was responsible for scientific thought in the past. What is fallacious is simply your failure to understand the argument.</i><br /><br />Then your complaint should be against Saunders. He is the one who is claiming (erroneously) that sciene has failed to answer certain questions, and then presents this as a failure of atheism. So any conflation of the two is on his part. I challenge you to point out anywhere here where and atheist has equated the two. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-49460098505479144352013-01-12T06:44:18.333-08:002013-01-12T06:44:18.333-08:00The Catholic Church says that the unity, order and...The Catholic Church says that the unity, order and beauty seen in the material world testify of the intervention of a Creator with a superior intelligence , Who created everything out of nothing through Wisdom and Reason. <br /><br />1) How does this not answer the question of our origin? <br />2) What would you suggest that would make more sense? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-20385828834970368722013-01-12T05:33:26.533-08:002013-01-12T05:33:26.533-08:00These scientific questions were very much about th...These scientific questions were very much about the origin of the material world, and the reason of its being organized the way it is. All scientists do is to uncover the mechanisms that govern it. <br /><br />You seem ready to accept that atheism might be unable to answer deep human questions and whether or not you are convinced by Christianity's answers to these human questions, does not mean that Christianity has not answered them.<br /><br />Assuming it were true that "the vast majority of so-called scientists today are atheists" - which I'm quite happy to believe - this could very well be explained by the shift in demographics. Either way, my argument was that one can both be a believer and a scientist, as has been evidenced in the past, which brings me back to my point that the assumption that atheism and science go hand in hand is simply false. I never suggested that Christianity was responsible for scientific thought in the past. What is fallacious is simply your failure to understand the argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-40865728844092673772013-01-12T04:23:34.104-08:002013-01-12T04:23:34.104-08:00In brief, all atheists have done on this blog is 1...<i>In brief, all atheists have done on this blog is 1) to repeat that "science" does not yet have the answers for these questions, which is completely off-topic given the question was about atheism's answers rather than science's answers.</i> <br /><br />If that's the case, then all Saunders has done here is commit a massive strawman argument. No one suggests atheism is able, or even suited, to answer these questions. <i>Science</i> is. Saunders, however, suggests that theism is not only <i>able</i> to answer the question, but that it <i>has</i> answered them. Which is based on the absurd assumption that mythological tales of magical beings constitute "answers" to scientific questions.<br /><br /><i>2) indirectly proved the point. They tried to justify their lack of answer with the broad and false assumption that atheism and science go hand in hand, ignoring in the process that science did actually take off in a believing world and involve believing people.</i><br /><br />Again, the false assumption here is on Saunders' part. And the fact that many of the early scientists were also Christian is an irrelevancy. They may have also worn powdered wigs, but that doesn't mean powdered wigs were the cause of scientific thought. And if that argument applied to the past, then the fact that the vast majority of elite scientists today are atheist means that atheism is now responsible for scientific thought. Which, of course, it doesn't. But that is the conclusion to be drawn from you fallacious argument. <br /><br />Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-69286167686792208312013-01-11T15:04:38.495-08:002013-01-11T15:04:38.495-08:00Where Dr Saunders was coming from with all these q...Where Dr Saunders was coming from with all these questions was the question of origin, which Lincoln Phipps - much like all the others before him - has been careful not to answer, but instead tried to "drown the fish" with scientific explanations, which frankly both a "theist" and an "atheist" could arrive at. This kind of proves the point Dr Saunders was making. <br /><br />Answering the question of origin with evolution, simply does not answer the question because evolution is always ... from something. <br /><br />"16.Why care about justice? Because we evolved as social beings."<br /><br />Then the next questions are: What did we evolve from and what caused that previous state to be? How does being "a social being" necessarily require to care about justice? What is in the "being" that require to care for justice?<br /><br />"Even other suitable higher-order animals have a form of justice in their behaviours." Which animals are you talking about and do they really give each their due, which is effectively what justice is, or is it something else that you interpreted as being a beginning of justice?<br /><br />As for the crimes committed under the Inquisition - which is what Lincoln Phipps was referring to - the accused person was at least given the chance to make a list of their known enemies before the court to defend themselves. The dozens of millions who died under the atheist regimes of the 20th Century - Nazism and most importantly Communism - had no such chance. So, following the same principle, you should be sick of atheism as well. <br /><br />Nowhere do atheists mention the historic fact that much of the structures of society - the school system, the universities, social services, the hospitals - written music, architecture, the calendar we use, etc. are in fact a legacy of Christianity. <br />What is the legacy of atheism, apart from gulags and concentration camps, in the bloodiest century in the History of mankind? <br /><br />In brief, all atheists have done on this blog is 1) to repeat that "science" does not yet have the answers for these questions, which is completely off-topic given the question was about atheism's answers rather than science's answers, 2) indirectly proved the point. They tried to justify their lack of answer with the broad and false assumption that atheism and science go hand in hand, ignoring in the process that science did actually take off in a believing world and involve believing people. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-74193202548062537862012-11-20T03:51:22.038-08:002012-11-20T03:51:22.038-08:00Additionally, Matthew, you conveniently ignore tha...Additionally, Matthew, you conveniently ignore that the same question exists for theists: How do you know that in a few decades, or even in the next moment, God will not change his mind and decide that all he declares as moral now suddenly becomes immoral?<br /><br />The Euthyphro dilemma: 2500 years later, theists still have no answer.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-37229720055744757032012-11-19T23:35:34.591-08:002012-11-19T23:35:34.591-08:00Matthew, the question was "16.Why care about ...Matthew, the question was "16.Why care about justice?" and I gave an answer that it was because were a social animal. That is why we care. It says nothing about what is considered acceptable in a society because that wasn't the question. <br /><br />For commandments to be effective they must be taught and understood. The commandments on their own do not magically make their contents diffuse through society. <br /><br />The Bible contains many instructions but Christians don't follow those: Christians cherry-pick only a subset of the Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:4-21. As for implementing these last few commandments then Christian societies in the past 2000 years have not managed to do that at all. It was only until the rise of secular humanism that the death penalty has been abolished for instance.<br /><br />Sure society could go back to its more Christian root and the death penalty brought back but I would hope society has learn the failures of so many centuries of bloody and brutal Christian rule that we can do better than some old book.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05385653758322168582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-81025211630307258942012-11-14T05:38:36.934-08:002012-11-14T05:38:36.934-08:00"16. Why care about justice?" Christians..."16. Why care about justice?" Christians have the Decalogue, and even if many fail to live up to it, it is still a basis on which to determine what is just. What do atheists have apart from something associated with evolved social beings – but Lincoln Phipps never shows exactly what this justice is nor shows that atheist ideas on justice can be either (1) universal or (2) unchanging.<br />The atheist, "evolved" as they are, are ultimately nothing more than very complex and evolved chemical equations reacting to complex stimuli – at a specific time. For each atheist, every thought they have at a particular moment is inevitable, so is their thoughts about what is just or unjust, and so are the actions that follow on from these thoughts<br />If an atheist sees a lynching and is revolted by what they see – how given their specific chemistry and stimuli could they do otherwise? And if many atheists see a lynching and they are revolted by what they see – how could they do otherwise? The chemical and stimuli history of each person – including the stimuli of shared thoughts through communication about what is just and unjust, makes their response inevitable (even if each thinks they made a choice, the thinking about thinking is itself only a chemical equation). This might seem to support what Lincoln Phipps states.<br />However, if some other atheists see a lynching and are elated by what they see – how could they do otherwise? KKK members in the old South might be viewed by other “evolved social beings” in their society as just people and the odd atheist (or Christian) in their society who disagrees with them could be considered as either not as evolved or are unsociable. Justice is in this example not universal but based on where you live.<br />Part of atheists being “evolved social beings” is that they never know if what is just now with be unjust in a few decades, and what is unjust now with be just in a few decades – for atheist justice is not unchanging.<br />For example, once lynching was of limited acceptance, now it is generally condemned. Once exposure of infants was of limited acceptance, now it is generally condemned. Conversely, once abortion of babies was generally condemned, now it is of limited acceptance. How many atheists knew a few decades before WWII that it would be seen as just in one group of “evolved social beings” to kill Jews? Likewise, does Lincoln Phipps know if whatever justice values he has now will be shared by atheist “evolved social beings” in a few decades from now? <br /><br /><br />Matthew, Sydney, AustraliaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-71602324544821299202012-11-14T03:44:07.004-08:002012-11-14T03:44:07.004-08:00Question " ... "
Atheist: "We don&#...Question " ... "<br />Atheist: "We don't know... YET!"<br />Theist: "God did it"<br /><br />The fallacy in this, in the use of the word YET, is the assumption the atheist will know someday the answer to the big question faced by atheists but that they never really answer "Does God exist?", or to allow for Simon D a variation of this "Do gods exist?"<br /><br />Matthew, Sydney, AustraliaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com