Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Right.
Make them read. Propaganda works best this way.
Insist they must read Bible.
It is as good as saying, "My faeces taste good. You must betray your nose telling you the taste is horrible. You must eat it first before you can argue it taste horrible."Your analogy doesn't work and capture what I was trying to say. In short, the analogy stinks (pun intended).
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Yes, science studies cause and effect. And from the effects we can infer certain things about the cause(s). Once we have postulated possible causes we can examine them further to narrow down the plausible ones, and arrive at that which is the best explanation.
2. What science has recently confirmed is that the beginning verse of the Bible is absolutely true, that time, space & matter has a beginning. And the book of Genesis dates back thousands of years. Yes, there are many things that science is still discovering, but no discovered fact would contradict the Bible, though the INTERPRETATIONS of these facts may.
3. Question is, are moral values a matter of one's opinions i.e. we decide for ourselves what is right or wrong, or are they objectively revealed by God. Morality is not to be confused with skin colour, that would be to commit the is-ought fallacy. And to answer your question, God IS good. Goodness is God's nature. So what God says or commands is an expression of His good and morally perfect nature.
4. Question is, why is the universe so intelligible? Why are there uniform laws of nature? Who established them? Atheism CANNOT account or explain this at all. Science has to presuppose them and assume that these laws of nature will hold in the future just as they were so in the past. But nothing in the philosophy of atheism will explain why this ought to be so.
LOL
3 or 4 has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is a belief of the non-existence of God.
That is a very flawed argument.
It is like two group arguing about flight capability in chicken then suddenly, instead of discussing wingspan, you discuss about the egg shell.Determination of morality, following moral education/guidance as per religious teaching is nothing related to whether something exists or not.
Just because there is uniform laws in universe does not equate to having a creator. There is the often probe whether due to limitation of human perception that we tend to limit the myriad of possibilities.
Wrong ruler, bro. -
Originally posted by Nelstar:
I see your point.
However, your point suffers when you mix truth with faith. Account for the faith and account for the truth are not really the same.
Faith is believing. It is a process.
Truth does not requires believing. It is a state.
You are suggesting that they cannot prove that your faith is falsified but you are claiming it that it is already truth when you cannot prove to them that their beliefs are falsified either.
Getting them to acceptance does not mean it changes the process into a state. It just changes the side which they believe.Instantly stating it as a truth is like saying you had proven their beliefs are falsified through scientific methods where intervention of any type cannot change the state of justification.
One can be faithful to the truth and one can have the true faith. It really depends on the context in which the words are used. But my point was that atheism cannot account for the existence of truth.
The Biblical definition of faith is more akin to trusting, not just mere intellectual assent.
Truth is simply that which corresponds to reality, it is what is.
What I am suggesting is that atheism fails to explain what needs explaining. As a worldview atheism does not have the explanatory powers as compared to theism.
My reasoning is along the lines of: UNLESS God exists, nothing in the universe makes sense.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
One can be faithful to the truth and one can have the true faith. It really depends on the context in which the words are used. But my point was that atheism cannot account for the existence of truth.
The Biblical definition of faith is more akin to trusting, not just mere intellectual assent.
Truth is simply that which corresponds to reality, it is what is.
What I am suggesting is that atheism fails to explain what needs explaining. As a worldview atheism does not have the explanatory powers as compared to theism.
My reasoning is along the lines of: UNLESS God exists, nothing in the universe makes sense.
It doesn't make sense doesn't mean something is wrong.
Blaming everything that does not make sense to something/someone is an easier way does not mean the other method is wrong.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
LOL
3 or 4 has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is a belief of the non-existence of God.
That is a very flawed argument.
It is like two group arguing about flight capability in chicken then suddenly, instead of discussing wingspan, you discuss about the egg shell.Determination of morality, following moral education/guidance as per religious teaching is nothing related to whether something exists or not.
Just because there is uniform laws in universe does not equate to having a creator. There is the often probe whether due to limitation of human perception that we tend to limit the myriad of possibilities.
Wrong ruler, bro.Atheism is not just a mere statement of there is no God.
Theism is not just a mere statement of there is a God.
Both are WORLDVIEWS, and many consequential beliefs arise out of that starting belief.
The question is, what best account for the existence of the laws of nature? If your answer is "I don't know" then it is at best an appeal to ignorance and does not warrant the conclusion that "it ain't God".
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
It doesn't make sense doesn't mean something is wrong.
Blaming everything that does not make sense to something/someone is an easier way does not mean the other method is wrong.
If atheism cannot make sense of the universe, then it should be rejected. Of course, if God exists then atheism IS wrong.
It is not about being is easier to say "God did it". Atheists also think it is easy to say "No God did anything". The issue is about whether it is true that God exists. And whether it makes better sense.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Atheism is not just a mere statement of there is no God.
Theism is not just a mere statement of there is a God.
Both are WORLDVIEWS, and many consequential beliefs arise out of that starting belief.
The question is, what best account for the existence of the laws of nature? If your answer is "I don't know" then it is at best an appeal to ignorance and does not warrant the conclusion that "it ain't God".
Just because someone is an atheist does not also necessary mean that the person believes in evolution.
Get it? No? -
Originally posted by Nelstar:Based on TS original subject and first post.
A physical count contains 20 questions.I believed, you might consolidate your points rather than throw more than 6 questions and then cause readers to wonder why you ask so many and which six of these questions you want answered.
Those sub-questions flow from the main 6 questions, simple as that.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Just because someone is an atheist does not also necessary mean that the person believes in evolution.
Get it? No?Wrong. An atheist MUST believe in evolution. There is no other alternative available to him.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
If atheism cannot make sense of the universe, then it should be rejected. Of course, if God exists then atheism IS wrong.
It is not about being is easier to say "God did it". Atheists also think it is easy to say "No God did anything". The issue is about whether it is true that God exists. And whether it makes better sense.
Just because you have inadequate understanding of the world, you adopt a "believing" attitude because it is easier to lean or explain?
Both atheism and theism are stances of believing. Just because it did not make sense to theists that God/Gods don't exist, does not equate to whether it is the truth or not.
Perhaps at this conjecture, you are wondering why I debate about this.
If you are referring the dogma that the atheists used for their debates, then that is only with reference to the atheists you are subjecting your opinion to.
Thus, whether the questions has relevance to whether "God" exists, it does not if they do not use the same methology as you believed most atheists practised. At the same time, it is not a determination factor whether the existence of such entity exists because it can be and can not be, since there are cultists who believed in creators who desire murder and other fallacies which you are morally against.
So, you are only using your own method of justification against your suspected questions but these justifications may not be necessary a factor in determining the outcome. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Wrong. An atheist MUST believe in evolution. There is no other alternative available to him.
There are atheists that believed in neither, they believed that they were scientific results of aliens.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
There are atheists that believed in neither, they believed that they were scientific results of aliens.
Do you know that belief in aliens are predicated on the belief that evolution is true? That's why aliens are considered to be advanced species, for those who believe in aliens and UFOs.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Do you know that belief in aliens are predicated on the belief that evolution is true? That's why aliens are considered to be advanced species, for those who believe in aliens and UFOs.
No, you got it backwards.
Evolution = Man came from Apes.
Alien creators = Man came from test tubes. -
"Again, Tcmc did admit that objective truth exists. Think about it: To say that there is no objective truth is already to presuppose there is, otherwise that claim is irrational."
You'd still insist Tcmc conceded when its you who got the context confused...
"I did not raise any bar. I made clear what is meant by feet firmly planted in mid-air. Your magnetic levitation and aeroplane do not fit at all and it misses the point. But ASSUMING that I grant your examples, does it mean relativism is true. Of course not."
It apparent you did just no so to your good self. Anyway told you its was your strawman, this relativism but you choose to argue all the way. Applause for your effort.
"Why the lack of obligation or incentive to ask where the laws of nature come from? Is it because you do not wish to see that the answer is ultimately philosophical, even theological but not scientific? Sciences cannot go beyond and ask why there are natural laws or who establish them is because that's beyond the capabilities of science. But that just mean that science is limited, we do not need to be limited in the same way. We can always ask further. To do science one has to PRESUPPOSE the existence and uniformity of these laws."
I'd inquired from my preferred source just not obligated to share it. You, however seemed to have an agenda on teaching your perceived rightness of things so no stopping you there.
"But if I was right about an argument being a series of statements then why were you so reluctant to affirm it? You were wrong not merely because of my insistence that I am right, but because your error has been shown. An argument is NOT a statement (singular) but a series of statements (plural)."
"My first example was that my BELIEFS changed over time, but not the objective truth about my religious position in 1990. Same too with durians example. The objective truth is that I like durian in 1990 but hate it in 2000. My tastes changed but the truth did not. It would be objectively wrong to change it to say that I hate durian in 1990 but love it in 2000, that would be contradictory to the facts in the example."
How can you be so confused... your 1st example was the Singaporean, the 2nd was your beliefs. These and your other examples does not fulfill your definition of objective truths.
"OK, you were right, you were the one who said that God was cruel. This is what you said, "So are you saying the other lifeforms suffered mortality because of one man sin? Conclusion: God is cruel to impose such suffering to other lifeforms on the 1st mistake that man supposedly made." So you are telling me that you were NOT making a moral judgement about God being cruel but just stating something neutral? I don't see how you can maintain this. The point is that people with a properly working moral compass all agree that being cruel is morally wrong. But now you said it is neither good or evil?"
Let you be the judge so show me the laws or definitions pertaining to cruel as being morally wrong in this particular context. I assert again, I did not make any moral judgement when I said God is cruel to the other lifeforms. If you want to pass judgement please refer to law or definition else its just bias and prejudice.
"I know what the definition of troll is, I am challenging YOUR accusation that the mere emotional response you have to my talking about your kids is tantamount to trolling. Mind you I wasn't even badmouthing them. But I am willing to let this pass so that we can move on."
It questions your intention of refering to my kids when you could have done perfectly without. Very reasonable question. If you not willing to explain, I'll take it that I can exercise the priviledge make your mom references.
"Concerning the "chewing the cud" issue, what critical ambiguity are you talking about really? As mentioned ad nauseum to you, the context was about the kind of animals that are considered unclean to the Israelites. They were to eat only those that chew the cud AND have divided hoofs, but not if only one of the conditions were met, as with the rabbit and coney."
The description "chewer of the cud" can be left out if it was as you claimed. However, if its written it would mean to use the description to identify. You had cloud the description with an ambiguity thats critical for identification. I'll take it as you just don't know whats "chewer of the cud" means.
"Whether you insult me or my alleged hypocrises, the fact is that you DID insult. But like I said, I am not going to continue this slugfest, though you have trampled and spit on my olive branch that was extended to you, justifying that as a refusal to compromise."
I did insult your hypocrisies and I'm proud of it. I trample on hypocritical formalities as well.
"You are CONFUSED between treating the Bible as a science textbook and using the Bible to inform our scientific study of the world. The Bible is NOT a science textbook. It is a HISTORY book as it tells us about beginnings, and also a futuristic one as it informs us of the end to come."
The bible is not, but those people ARE taking it as science text, making scientific references to it ALL the time.
"Yes, I find it hard to believe that you are not here to win arguments. If you were that conscious of tearing down your opponent's fallacies, then why are your posts peppered with such fallacies as well, to the extent that you mocked me for not pointing out more which you committed? Pretty inconsistent, aren't you?"
Its just your bias or your unwillingness to concede. These does not concern me, only logic and truth does. You really don't understand these fallacies as a tool to test an arguement do you?
"And whether you intend to insult mother or not, I'm going let it pass. If you did not, then your conscience is clear. And if you did, I'm letting it go and choosing not to hold it against you. So you have absolutely nothing to lose and is walking out of this. A good deal really, win win for you."
You are implying that I could have insulted your mother when you cannot even define it. I was not even involved in the insulting in the 1st place. Where from I walk away? But you did accused me of insult. Judge and you shall be judged upon.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Wrong. An atheist MUST believe in evolution. There is no other alternative available to him.
Let me re-elaborate another example of the other atheists' thinking.
Some atheists believed we are a reality within reality within reality. What happens here is just a computer-like programming within a sandbox by many modular makers which resulted in myriad of boolean fragmentation. The reality in which you call science is just pre-implemented rules set by multiple different programmers. And these programmers belong to a different subset of results not added in the rules of the current sandbox.
Get it?
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Just because you have inadequate understanding of the world, you adopt a "believing" attitude because it is easier to lean or explain?
Both atheism and theism are stances of believing. Just because it did not make sense to theists that God/Gods don't exist, does not equate to whether it is the truth or not.
Perhaps at this conjecture, you are wondering why I debate about this.
If you are referring the dogma that the atheists used for their debates, then that is only with reference to the atheists you are subjecting your opinion to.
Thus, whether the questions has relevance to whether "God" exists, it does not if they do not use the same methology as you believed most atheists practised. At the same time, it is not a determination factor whether the existence of such entity exists because it can be and can not be, since there are cultists who believed in creators who desire murder and other fallacies which you are morally against.
So, you are only using your own method of justification against your suspected questions but these justifications may not be necessary a factor in determining the outcome.Wrong again. It is not about easier explanation, but best explanation.
I am glad you recognise that atheism is a BELIEF and has its own dogma which many are dogmatic about.
Question is, which belief, theism or atheism, corresponds to reality i.e. is true?
Can you explain what you mean by methodology of atheism? I don't quite get what you are trying to say at the last part.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Wrong again. It is not about easier explanation, but best explanation.
I am glad you recognise that atheism is a BELIEF and has its own dogma which many are dogmatic about.
Question is, which belief, theism or atheism, corresponds to reality i.e. is true?
Can you explain what you mean by methodology of atheism? I don't quite get what you are trying to say at the last part.
Unless you understand the last post about us not really existing, your explanation is not really the best.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
No, you got it backwards.
Evolution = Man came from Apes.
Alien creators = Man came from test tubes.Not sure if you were being facetious in your reply.
But you should know that evolution is not just man coming from apes.
And to talk about aliens being creators only begs the question of who created the aliens.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Unless you understand the last post about us not really existing, your explanation is not really the best.
Please elaborate. I really did not understand your last post last part. What do you mean by us not really existing?
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Let me re-elaborate another example of the other atheists' thinking.
Some atheists believed we are a reality within reality within reality. What happens here is just a computer-like programming within a sandbox by many modular makers which resulted in myriad of boolean fragmentation. The reality in which you call science is just pre-implemented rules set by multiple different programmers. And these programmers belong to a different subset of results not added in the rules of the current sandbox.
Get it?
Sorry catch no ball. You talking Matrix?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Not sure if you were being facetious in your reply.
But you should know that evolution is not just man coming from apes.
And to talk about aliens being creators only begs the question of who created the aliens.
Aliens can be a race existing since beginning of time. I mean why can't they? If your God can exist at the beginning, why can't they? I dont see why they need to evolve in the first place if they exist.
In fact why are you saying that they evolved since they are advanced? Did your god evolve too? What is he before evolving?
Since they are an advanced species, aliens can distort science with probabilities and methods not known to man. Your god can make serpent out of sticks, why cant aliens distort our perception with farts?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Sorry catch no ball. You talking Matrix?
Best answer ever.
-
Originally posted by Nelstar:
Aliens can be a race existing since beginning of time. I mean why can't they? If your God can exist at the beginning, why can't they? I dont see why they need to evolve in the first place if they exist.
In fact why are you saying that they evolved since they are advanced? Did your god evolve too? What is he before evolving?
Since they are an advanced species, aliens can distort science with probabilities and methods not known to man. Your god can make serpent out of sticks, why cant aliens distort our perception with farts?
EXCEPT you missed something. Aliens, assuming your argument, exists within the universe. The universe has a beginning, which means your alleged aliens could not have existed at the beginning of time. How did they come to exist? By what means? Farts?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Please elaborate. I really did not understand your last post last part. What do you mean by us not really existing?
You and me are simultaneous dreams in dream world.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
EXCEPT you missed something. Aliens, assuming your argument, exists within the universe. The universe has a beginning, which means your alleged aliens could not have existed at the beginning of time. How did they come to exist? By what means? Farts?
Aliens can create man out of test tube, they can also create universe by sneezing.