Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Well, you haven't given me good reasons to reject the existence of God. You may start by answering the Six Questions.
You are the troll here.
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
Your 6 questions equivalent to:
When someone already explains to you that the Person B is a man, there you go with your 6 questions. What is the cup size of Person B's breast? When does Person B have period? What size dress does Person B wear?
It's redundant.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
You are the troll here.One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
Your 6 questions equivalent to:
When someone already explains to you that the Person B is a man, there you go with your 6 questions. What is the cup size of Person B's breast? When does Person B have period? What size dress does Person B wear?
It's redundant.
Now you are abusing language and definitions here.
In what sense are my postings provocative and with intent of causing maximum disruption and argument?
Kiddo, this is a CHRISTIAN sub-forum. My postings are to stimulate and generate discussion, and not mean to provoke anyone. And atheists should be the least offended of all, since most of the time they are on the offense against the religious folks.
Anyway, you don't have to be here if you do not wish to. As it is, it is your postings and those of your ilk who are causing maximum disruption and argument. Just look at your red herrings and irrelevant elephant hurling tactics.
Your analogy of my 6 questions is both irrelevant and redundant, not to mention absurd. If your atheism fails to answer the questions, just admit the bankruptcy of your worldview instead of whining about the questions.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Your analogy of my 6 questions is both irrelevant and redundant, not to mention absurd. If your atheism fails to answer the questions, just admit the bankruptcy of your worldview instead of whining about the questions.
I LOL when I read this..........hahaha.......thats funny, because this is getting more and more absurb from your wild claims that your answers is as relevant as the trishaw in this day and age.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
I LOL when I read this..........hahaha.......thats funny, because this is getting more and more absurb from your wild claims that your answers is as relevant as the trishaw in this day and age.
Since you do not have the intellectual mettle and substance to interact with the arguments, what else can you offer except to LOL, right?
And you haven't demonstrated anything to support the absurd claim that my answers are not relevant to this day and age. Anyway, who said that trishaws are irrelevant? They still serve a tourist function. Nobody is asking you to use them as a normal mode of daily transport.
-
i think i can take my leave off this thread =)
-
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
i think i can take my leave off this thread =)
u cant argue with a troll lah
its like arguing with a toddler who dont understand
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
u cant argue with a troll lah
its like arguing with a toddler who dont understand
Don't liddat say ppl larh... mus respect ppl also. -
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
Don't liddat say ppl larh... mus respect ppl also.It can't be just me. It seems that people have long known laurence82 to be a troll even as far back as 2005! Case of pot calling kettle black. Anyway, my experience with laurence82 is that he will not show respect to the Christian who can best him in an argument.
-
Everybody here is a troll, you are the only saint around.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Everybody here is a troll, you are the only saint around.
Wrong on both counts!
1. Just because you have been rightly labeled a troll does not mean that everybody else here is a troll. You earned that label by your own actions.
2. I'm not the only saint around here. There are other Christians here too. And in case you don't know, the Bible calls believers "saints".
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Wrong on both counts!
1. Just because you have been rightly labeled a troll does not mean that everybody else here is a troll. You earned that label by your own actions.
2. I'm not the only saint around here. There are other Christians here too. And in case you don't know, the Bible calls believers "saints".
Errmmmm.....
Didn't you just called everybody who participated in your topic a troll?
Sighs.......
In denial mode again.
Seriously, it's good to have Jesus in YOUR life, god only knows what could've happen if this void was empty.
If no god in your life, you would have been an immoral person.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Many times, as Christians, we find ourselves on the defensive against the critiques and questions of atheists. These questions, then, are meant to be a part of a conversation. They are not, in and of themselves, arguments or "proofs" for God. They are commonly asked existential or experiential questions that both atheists and theists alike can ponder.
1. If there is no God, “the big questions” remain unanswered, so how do we answer the following questions: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet, and is there any meaning to this life? If there is meaning, what kind of meaning and how is it found? Does human history lead anywhere, or is it all in vain since death is merely the end? How do you come to understand good and evil, right and wrong without a transcendent signifier? If these concepts are merely social constructions, or human opinions, whose opinion does one trust in determining what is good or bad, right or wrong? If you are content within atheism, what circumstances would serve to make you open to other answers?2. If we reject the existence of God, we are left with a crisis of meaning, so why don’t we see more atheists like Jean Paul Sartre, or Friedrich Nietzsche, or Michel Foucault? These three philosophers, who also embraced atheism, recognized that in the absence of God, there was no transcendent meaning beyond one’s own self-interests, pleasures, or tastes. Without God, there is a crisis of meaning, and these three thinkers, among others, show us a world of just stuff, thrown out into space and time, going nowhere, meaning nothing.
3. When people have embraced atheism, the historical results can be horrific, as in the regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who saw religion as the problem and worked to eradicate it. In other words, what set of actions are consistent with particular belief commitments? It could be argued, that these behaviors – of the regimes in question - are more consistent with the implications of atheism. Though, I'm thankful that many of the atheists I know do not live the implications of these beliefs out for themselves like others did! It could be argued that the socio-political ideologies could very well be the outworking of a particular set of beliefs – beliefs that posited the ideal state as an atheistic one.
4. If there is no God, the problems of evil and suffering are in no way solved, so where is the hope of redemption, or meaning for those who suffer? Suffering is just as tragic, if not more so, without God because there is no hope of ultimate justice, or of the suffering being rendered meaningful or transcendent, redemptive or redeemable. It might be true that there is no God to blame now, but neither is there a God to reach out to for strength, transcendent meaning, or comfort. Why would we seek the alleviation of suffering without objective morality grounded in a God of justice?
5. If there is no God, we lose the very standard by which we critique religions and religious people, so whose opinion matters most? Whose voice will be heard? Whose tastes or preferences will be honored? In the long run, human tastes and opinions have no more weight than we give them, and who are we to give them meaning anyway? Who is to say that lying, or cheating or adultery or child molestation are wrong –really wrong? Where do those standards come from? Sure, our societies might make these things “illegal” and impose penalties or consequences for things that are not socially acceptable, but human cultures have at various times legally or socially disapproved of everything from believing in God to believing the world revolves around the sun; from slavery, to interracial marriage, from polygamy to monogamy. Human taste, opinion law and culture are hardly dependable arbiters of Truth.
6. If there is no God, we don’t make sense, so how do we explain human longings and desire for the transcendent? How do we even explain human questions for meaning and purpose, or inner thoughts like, why do I feel unfulfilled or empty? Why do we hunger for the spiritual, and how do we explain these longings if nothing can exist beyond the material world?
I am submitting the above questions for serious discussion, dialogue and debate. No trolls please.
Source: http://www.rzim.org/community/engagingconversations/tabid/105/entryid/14/default.aspx
1. If there is no God, “the big questions” remain unanswered, so how do we answer the following questions: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet, and is there any meaning to this life? If there is meaning, what kind of meaning and how is it found? Does human history lead anywhere, or is it all in vain since death is merely the end? How do you come to understand good and evil, right and wrong without a transcendent signifier? If these concepts are merely social constructions, or human opinions, whose opinion does one trust in determining what is good or bad, right or wrong? If you are content within atheism, what circumstances would serve to make you open to other answers?
I honestly don't care. Moral views are that of the individual's. One man's wine is another man's poison. What is yours is yours and what is mine is mine. And why is there something rather than nothing? Cause there is something, lah! If death is the end then it is the end. If there is afterlife then there is afterlife. So what?
2. If we reject the existence of God, we are left with a crisis of meaning, so why don’t we see more atheists like Jean Paul Sartre, or Friedrich Nietzsche, or Michel Foucault? These three philosophers, who also embraced atheism, recognized that in the absence of God, there was no transcendent meaning beyond one’s own self-interests, pleasures, or tastes. Without God, there is a crisis of meaning, and these three thinkers, among others, show us a world of just stuff, thrown out into space and time, going nowhere, meaning nothing.
Humans are born (though with a mind) but are materially naked. We are born naked and we die naked (figuratively, of course). And again, if there is nothing, then there is nothing. If there is no transcendent meaning beyond one's own self-interest, pleasures or tastes, there is no meaning then. Honestly, life is too short to care about material needs or philosophical needs.
3. When people have embraced atheism, the historical results can be horrific, as in the regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who saw religion as the problem and worked to eradicate it. In other words, what set of actions are consistent with particular belief commitments? It could be argued, that these behaviors – of the regimes in question - are more consistent with the implications of atheism. Though, I'm thankful that many of the atheists I know do not live the implications of these beliefs out for themselves like others did! It could be argued that the socio-political ideologies could very well be the outworking of a particular set of beliefs – beliefs that posited the ideal state as an atheistic one.
There are also people who embraced religion and used them as their basis of war. No one is greater than the other. Two wrongs don't make one right. In this context, it is of little debatable value.
4. If there is no God, the problems of evil and suffering are in no way solved, so where is the hope of redemption, or meaning for those who suffer? Suffering is just as tragic, if not more so, without God because there is no hope of ultimate justice, or of the suffering being rendered meaningful or transcendent, redemptive or redeemable. It might be true that there is no God to blame now, but neither is there a God to reach out to for strength, transcendent meaning, or comfort. Why would we seek the alleviation of suffering without objective morality grounded in a God of justice?
I base it on Newton's Third Law of Motion, whereby an action results in a reaction. Call it karma or whatnot, I don't care. But NTLM, that I believe in. For the Christians I thus ask, why is there redemption when an action does not beget a reaction?
5. If there is no God, we lose the very standard by which we critique religions and religious people, so whose opinion matters most? Whose voice will be heard? Whose tastes or preferences will be honored? In the long run, human tastes and opinions have no more weight than we give them, and who are we to give them meaning anyway? Who is to say that lying, or cheating or adultery or child molestation are wrong –really wrong? Where do those standards come from? Sure, our societies might make these things “illegal” and impose penalties or consequences for things that are not socially acceptable, but human cultures have at various times legally or socially disapproved of everything from believing in God to believing the world revolves around the sun; from slavery, to interracial marriage, from polygamy to monogamy. Human taste, opinion law and culture are hardly dependable arbiters of Truth.
Whose opinions matter most? Everyone has one opinion, and that of his/her very own. It is only the amount of people that support one opinion/view that makes it stronger. No more, no less. And that is why different people from different parts of the world have different opinions about different things. Why is abortion illegal in some countries but legal in others? It is all because the respective culture in that country permits or disallows that. It is as simple as that. In the same logic, if that is what you say, how can you be so certain that God speaks the Truth and nothing but the Truth? Standards are derived from values. Different people have different values. Other people can have different values from me. I respect that. But if they don't respect me for what I value, then I don't care about them. It is as simple as that.
6. If there is no God, we don’t make sense, so how do we explain human longings and desire for the transcendent? How do we even explain human questions for meaning and purpose, or inner thoughts like, why do I feel unfulfilled or empty? Why do we hunger for the spiritual, and how do we explain these longings if nothing can exist beyond the material world?
We don't make sense? Why so? In the same token, if there was also a God, why would the supreme being not make us all believe in its existence? And not everyone hungers for the spiritual. For me, if nothing exists beyond the material world, then so be it. If there lies something, then so be it.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Errmmmm.....
Didn't you just called everybody who participated in your topic a troll?
Sighs.......
In denial mode again.
Seriously, it's good to have Jesus in YOUR life, god only knows what could've happen if this void was empty.
If no god in your life, you would have been an immoral person.
Since when did I call EVERYBODY who participated in my thread "troll"? Please produce specific post and words. But I DID label you a troll. If you think the label doesn't fit, explain briefly why.
Yes, I am happy to have Jesus in my life. God knows what changes He could make to your life if you let God in. Maybe you would be a better person.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Since when did I call EVERYBODY who participated in my thread "troll"? Please produce specific post and words. But I DID label you a troll. If you think the label doesn't fit, explain briefly why.
Yes, I am happy to have Jesus in my life. God knows what changes He could make to your life if you let God in. Maybe you would be a better person.
Whether a person is a troll or not depends on his behaviour on the forum rather than his beliefs. I'm not saying all atheists are trolls, but I am convinced that many are on this forum based on my exchanges with them.
There is no need for me to explain on how you want to label me or anyone, it's your choice and frankly I can't be concerned with how YOU view me or anyone else.
-
Oh speaking of views, I don't need BIC to reply to me cause I don't subscribe to his and we can keep it at that.
-
Originally posted by Fryderyk HPH:
1. If there is no God, “the big questions” remain unanswered, so how do we answer the following questions: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet, and is there any meaning to this life? If there is meaning, what kind of meaning and how is it found? Does human history lead anywhere, or is it all in vain since death is merely the end? How do you come to understand good and evil, right and wrong without a transcendent signifier? If these concepts are merely social constructions, or human opinions, whose opinion does one trust in determining what is good or bad, right or wrong? If you are content within atheism, what circumstances would serve to make you open to other answers?
I honestly don't care. Moral views are that of the individual's. One man's wine is another man's poison. What is yours is yours and what is mine is mine. And why is there something rather than nothing? Cause there is something, lah! If death is the end then it is the end. If there is afterlife then there is afterlife. So what?
2. If we reject the existence of God, we are left with a crisis of meaning, so why don’t we see more atheists like Jean Paul Sartre, or Friedrich Nietzsche, or Michel Foucault? These three philosophers, who also embraced atheism, recognized that in the absence of God, there was no transcendent meaning beyond one’s own self-interests, pleasures, or tastes. Without God, there is a crisis of meaning, and these three thinkers, among others, show us a world of just stuff, thrown out into space and time, going nowhere, meaning nothing.
Humans are born (though with a mind) but are materially naked. We are born naked and we die naked (figuratively, of course). And again, if there is nothing, then there is nothing. If there is no transcendent meaning beyond one's own self-interest, pleasures or tastes, there is no meaning then. Honestly, life is too short to care about material needs or philosophical needs.
3. When people have embraced atheism, the historical results can be horrific, as in the regimes of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who saw religion as the problem and worked to eradicate it. In other words, what set of actions are consistent with particular belief commitments? It could be argued, that these behaviors – of the regimes in question - are more consistent with the implications of atheism. Though, I'm thankful that many of the atheists I know do not live the implications of these beliefs out for themselves like others did! It could be argued that the socio-political ideologies could very well be the outworking of a particular set of beliefs – beliefs that posited the ideal state as an atheistic one.
There are also people who embraced religion and used them as their basis of war. No one is greater than the other. Two wrongs don't make one right. In this context, it is of little debatable value.
4. If there is no God, the problems of evil and suffering are in no way solved, so where is the hope of redemption, or meaning for those who suffer? Suffering is just as tragic, if not more so, without God because there is no hope of ultimate justice, or of the suffering being rendered meaningful or transcendent, redemptive or redeemable. It might be true that there is no God to blame now, but neither is there a God to reach out to for strength, transcendent meaning, or comfort. Why would we seek the alleviation of suffering without objective morality grounded in a God of justice?
I base it on Newton's Third Law of Motion, whereby an action results in a reaction. Call it karma or whatnot, I don't care. But NTLM, that I believe in. For the Christians I thus ask, why is there redemption when an action does not beget a reaction?
5. If there is no God, we lose the very standard by which we critique religions and religious people, so whose opinion matters most? Whose voice will be heard? Whose tastes or preferences will be honored? In the long run, human tastes and opinions have no more weight than we give them, and who are we to give them meaning anyway? Who is to say that lying, or cheating or adultery or child molestation are wrong –really wrong? Where do those standards come from? Sure, our societies might make these things “illegal” and impose penalties or consequences for things that are not socially acceptable, but human cultures have at various times legally or socially disapproved of everything from believing in God to believing the world revolves around the sun; from slavery, to interracial marriage, from polygamy to monogamy. Human taste, opinion law and culture are hardly dependable arbiters of Truth.
Whose opinions matter most? Everyone has one opinion, and that of his/her very own. It is only the amount of people that support one opinion/view that makes it stronger. No more, no less. And that is why different people from different parts of the world have different opinions about different things. Why is abortion illegal in some countries but legal in others? It is all because the respective culture in that country permits or disallows that. It is as simple as that. In the same logic, if that is what you say, how can you be so certain that God speaks the Truth and nothing but the Truth? Standards are derived from values. Different people have different values. Other people can have different values from me. I respect that. But if they don't respect me for what I value, then I don't care about them. It is as simple as that.
6. If there is no God, we don’t make sense, so how do we explain human longings and desire for the transcendent? How do we even explain human questions for meaning and purpose, or inner thoughts like, why do I feel unfulfilled or empty? Why do we hunger for the spiritual, and how do we explain these longings if nothing can exist beyond the material world?
We don't make sense? Why so? In the same token, if there was also a God, why would the supreme being not make us all believe in its existence? And not everyone hungers for the spiritual. For me, if nothing exists beyond the material world, then so be it. If there lies something, then so be it.
Thank you for taking the time to tackle the six questions. I understand that you do not need a reply from me, but nevertheless I would like to respond to them. You can leave it as that if you wish. Let's take a look at them.
1. I hope you are not confused between apathy and argument. Yes, something exists, we all know that. Question is why? Saying "I don't care" is not answering the question at all. Perhaps it shows that atheism supplies no answer.
2. As an atheist you necessarily affirm that life is without meaning, though you did not demonstrate that life is indeed without meaning. And it seems to go against human experience that seeks meaning in life. So why do you bother with anything at all? Or are you suggesting that we should all live a hedonistic and nihilistic lifestyle? Do you really not care for material needs?
3. If atheism is true, then one cannot judge that what atheist regimes have done is wrong or evil. But if theism is true, then one has a basis to call it evil or wrong. In any case, it is to point out that atheists should not be too quick to point out the evil done in the name of religion when much worse atrocities have been done in the name of atheism.
4. Newton believed in a Creator. The laws of Newton are based on the notion that God has set in placed regularities in nature. But you should not confuse physical laws of motion with moral laws for living. Physical laws do not give rise to moral laws. To do so would be to commit the is-ought fallacy. For the Christian redemption is needed because we are all sinners.
5. Your response to this question demonstrates the problem highlighted in the question! Thus at the end of the day you can only resort to might makes right. But do you think this is right? I hope not.
6. If there is no God, then life is just a random accident. What meaning do you perceive in random accidents? God made us free-willed beings, which is why you can choose to reject Him. God did not want to make us robots. BTW, everyone hungers for the spiritual. But many SUPPRESSES that hunger and chase after transcient things to fill that void. And how certain are you that there is nothing beyond the material world? Can you prove that matter is all there is?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Yes, I am happy to have Jesus in my life. God knows what changes He could make to your life if you let God in. Maybe you would be a better person.
christians as better person lol hahahaha. that is very hilarious. if xtians are better person, there wont be so many holy wars waged and bloodshed, just look at their history. rony tan and his like minded brethrens insulting other religions as better person?
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Whether a person is a troll or not depends on his behaviour on the forum rather than his beliefs. I'm not saying all atheists are trolls, but I am convinced that many are on this forum based on my exchanges with them.
There is no need for me to explain on how you want to label me or anyone, it's your choice and frankly I can't be concerned with how YOU view me or anyone else.
Do you know the difference between accusing me of saying that EVERYBODY is a troll and me actually saying that MANY atheists are trolls?
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
christians as better person lol hahahaha. that is very hilarious. if xtians are better person, there wont be so many holy wars waged and bloodshed, just look at their history. rony tan and his like minded brethrens insulting other religions as better person?
The way you pour scorn on Christians already make you the lesser person.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Do you know the difference between accusing me of saying that EVERYBODY is a troll and me actually saying that MANY atheists are trolls?
I didn't accused you, you said it yourself.
Then tell us how many of those atheists here who participated in your topics are not trolls?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
The way you pour scorn on Christians already make you the lesser person.
But then it's alright because he is NOT Christian, people other than Christians are all lesser people.
-
The more you discuss, the more it shows to the other forum participants what kind of religion is Christianity.
Maybe you can be more specific and tell us what Christian sect you belong to.
It will bring great glory for your sect.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
But then it's alright because he is NOT Christian, people other than Christians are all lesser people.
That's what YOU are saying, not me.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
The more you discuss, the more it shows to the other forum participants what kind of religion is Christianity.
Maybe you can be more specific and tell us what Christian sect you belong to.
It will bring great glory for your sect.
Actuallu, I think the more you discuss the more it shows what kind of an atheist I am dealing with.
Why does it matter what sect I belong to, or whether I subscribe to any sect at all? It's completely irrelevant.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Actuallu, I think the more you discuss the more it shows what kind of an atheist I am dealing with.
Why does it matter what sect I belong to, or whether I subscribe to any sect at all? It's completely irrelevant.
You belong to unorthordox sect is it?
Don't even dare disclose Christian sect.
Are you a moonie?