Six Questions to Ask An Atheist

last SG · 2012-04-05T16:15:24+00:00

This is a very entertaining and logically sound read- unlike our Thread Starter. Introductory note: Russell delivered this lecture on March 6, 1927 to the Na...

BroInChrist SG

BIC

LOL. Similarly, the choice is yours to choose the Muslim heaven or the Greek one.

It's YOUR choice.

You know the consequences!

The consequences depend upon the TRUTH. But then again, an atheist cannot account for the existence of truth.

BroInChrist SG

There are a host of problems in an atheistic worldview based on philosophical naturalism that are self-refuting. The following includes a few examples:

1. The consistent atheist says there is nothing immaterial. Those who say otherwise can’t be atheists, as that would allow God, who is immaterial (John 4:24), to possibly exist. But this means that logic cannot exist either as it is immaterial (i.e., abstract). Logic has no mass and is universal (even the universe obeys the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction). Being made in the image of a logical God who created and sustains the universe makes sense. Of course, many people do not perform logic correctly. That is because we have lived in a sin-cursed world ever since Genesis 3. Our fallible, imperfect minds do not always correctly “think God’s thoughts after Him.” But in the atheistic viewpoint, how can one maintain that there is no immaterial and yet refer to the immaterial at the same time in the same relationship? Information is immaterial, Truth is also immaterial. Love, hate, sadness, and all other emotions are immaterial.

2. The consistent atheist says the universe came from nothing, is going to nothing, and nothing matters (i.e., no purpose). So why debate the subject of God, the Bible, Christianity, and so on (why have this purpose)? In other words, how can one have purpose and have no purpose at the same time in the same relationship?

3. The consistent atheist says there is no morality (since there is no God who sets an absolute standard of morality). Yet many atheists say there are some absolute moral standards, such as not to murder.

4. Science comes out of a Christian worldview where God upholds the universe in a consistent fashion (e.g., Genesis 8:22; Hebrews 1:3). And God, who knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10; Revelation 22:13), has declared that this consistency will be the same in the future until the end (Genesis 8:22), so we have a basis to do science since things like the laws of nature should not change (i.e., allowing repeatable and observable science). But why would that be the case in an atheistic evolutionary worldview? How can one know things won’t change tomorrow? Furthermore, how can one know that one accident could explain another accident? There is no basis for science in an atheistic worldview. How can one have no basis for science and yet do science?

Bottom line: Unbelievers must borrow from the biblical worldview to make sense of the world. They must betray their professed worldview and stand on the Bible’s truth to argue for atheism and oppose the Bible!

Nelstar SG

The consequences depend upon the TRUTH. But then again, an atheist cannot account for the existence of truth.

His word? Her word? My word?

Absolute Truth is 1+1 = 2 (Based on true integer value)

ThunderFbolt SG

There are a host of problems in an atheistic worldview based on philosophical naturalism that are self-refuting. The following includes a few examples:

1. Strange. Many Buddhists say that they believe in the immaterial. Energy is immaterial, yet we can study it. The real problem is in regards to existence. Whether it can be observed and studied. How know if the observations seen are only because of 1 explanation, or can other explanations properly explain it.

2. Most I know would say that, while Science is trying to understand what is going on at time very close to the start of the universe, they do not yet know how the universe came into existence. Neither do scientists say that the universe is going into nothing, or that nothing matters.

3. Once again, not that I've heard of. Morals, by definition are what people perceive as principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethicality. Every one has their own idea. Just as different Christians (and all other religions as well) have different ideas of morality, so do atheists. (Euthanasia, divorcing, marriage, slavery, skin color, etc.?)
Also, if your God is your idea of what goodness is, how do you know he is really good? Was good defined before God? Was good defined by God? Why are certain actions defined as so?

4. The entire idea of Science is to try to make sense of the world, to find patterns. If there were be change, scientists will try to understand it and why. Of course, by your logic, atheists would have absolutely no basis on why things wouldn't change radically all of sudden tomorrow. So far in the history of the world, that has yet to happen though.
The idea of Science is to predict, observe, explain, and predict some more. Scientists do not have 100% certainty that some is or something will happen, but they have a pretty good understanding of what would happen from past observations.

For example, I can say now that I predict you will disagree with my statements. Whether or not this is true, I have to wait and see, and then alter it accordingly to have a better psychological analysis of you. This is what Science is. How would I know you wouldn't radically or minutely change before I complete your analysis of at this very moment? I don't know. It is just a premise or assumption that I have to work on. Until otherwise shown that my premise is false, I am just assuming it to be true.

BroInChrist SG

His word? Her word? My word?

Absolute Truth is 1+1 = 2 (Based on true integer value)

Indeed, absolute truth exists. We all know that and live by that all the time. Problem is, atheism CANNOT account for the existence of truth. They can surely affirm it, but they cannot account for it. That's my point.

Nelstar SG

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."

Nelstar SG

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.

Nelstar SG

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.

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

2. Why is there conscious, intelligent life on this planet, and is there any meaning to this life?

3. If there is meaning, what kind of meaning and how is it found?

4. Does human history lead anywhere, or is it all in vain since death is merely the end?

5. How do you come to understand good and evil, right and wrong without a transcendent signifier?

6. 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?

7. If you are content within atheism, what circumstances would serve to make you open to other answers?

8. 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?

9. 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?

10. 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?

11. Why would we seek the alleviation of suffering without objective morality grounded in a God of justice?

12. If there is no God, we lose the very standard by which we critique religions and religious people, so whose opinion matters most?

13. Whose voice will be heard?

14. Whose tastes or preferences will be honored?

15. 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?

16. Who is to say that lying, or cheating or adultery or child molestation are wrong –really wrong?

17. Where do those standards come from?

18. If there is no God, we don’t make sense, so how do we explain human longings and desire for the transcendent?

19. How do we even explain human questions for meaning and purpose, or inner thoughts like, why do I feel unfulfilled or empty?

20. Why do we hunger for the spiritual, and how do we explain these longings if nothing can exist beyond the material world?

BroInChrist SG

"Tcmc did admit that objective truth exists, and that's the objective truth!"

Conditional. Congratulations only if concede = true.

"Using magnetic forces to hold you up (as substitute for wires) is not planting your feet in mid air. The same goes for using the law of aerodynamics to make planes fly."

Raising the bar... saw it coming when you were unwilling to commit on the definitions.

"But I suppose you did not go one step further and ask why do these laws of nature exist and who established them?"

The respective science did not attempt to go further. I have no incentive or obligations to ask, but if it delights you, go ahead.

"Your definition of objective truth is grossly inadequate.

You had agreed to it previously... and now you say not adequate... Men... *sigh*

Objective truth is that which really is, independent of place, time, feelings, perceptions etc. It refers to facts that are independent of whether anyone believes in them or not. As mentioned before, you have confused matters of beliefs (which can change over time) with matters of truth (which does not change over time). Both examples I gave were examples of objective truth which you failed to see."

I repeat again. Your 1st example was affected by time. You 2nd example was a truth of the statement where it is subjective to the subject. Does not help your argument to add more definitions... One more time before ad nauseum...

"Why accuse me of causing confusion when Tcmc was the one who said God was cruel? Like I said, I was only asking Tcmc to justify her moral stance since atheism provides no basis for moral judgement."

What a confusion you have shown yourself to be in... Tcmc did not for the last ten pages of this thread. I was the one... if Tcmc ever did, tell me which page.

"Regarding being cruel see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty"

There is nothing moralistic regarding your link above. What is your point.

"Why would eliciting an emotional response from you when talking about things you value personally be tantamount to trolling? Is that even the defintion of trolling? Whatever happened to other defining factors, like being inflammatory?"

Troll.<--- click here to be educated so that you will be more initiated to find out more on the subject before asking stupid questions which lead you being spoon fed.

"My link more than just specified about ruminant or refection concerning the issue of cud chewing. Again the text is not teaching the how to of identifying animals that chew the cud, it is about telling the Israelites not to eat the rabbit or coney."

If the animals can be identified(rabbit, coneys, cows..), there are no reasons that the behaviours or appearance(chews cud, split hooves...) can't. Critical ambiguity. And I award you an ad nauseum.

"What false compromise are you talking about? Are you denying that you ever insulted me? I'm just telling you that we were both guilty of that and move on. But it seems that you prefer to continue hostilities."

You did not click the link in the word. I insult your hypocrisies. To compromise is to collaborate with the hypocrisies that I hate and would imply that I'm one. 道不同不相为谋

"Facts that back up my claim that creationists do not treat the Bible as a science textbook can be found on these main creationist sites in the following http://creation.com/but-genesis-is-not-a-science-textbook or http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/can-creation-models-be-wrong"

And you totally ignore the fact that there are creationists teaching creation science using the bible. *slow claps*

"It is a fallacious appeal to motive that you accuse me of pointing out your fallacies to win the argument whereas you make out yours to be so noble sounding. But even if true, it does not invalidate the fact that you committed fallacies in your reasoning, which calls into question the soundness of your arguments. Not only that it amounts to you committing the fallacy of appeal to motive."

Told you I'm not for winning arguments, I'm tearing down fallacious ones to build a reasonable communication standards, so that the discussion can yield better benefits. Is it so hard to believe...

"Whatever re the last point. Slugfest not entertained."

I did not insult your mother. Please take back your accusation.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

BroInChrist SG

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.

BroInChrist SG

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).

Nelstar SG

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.

BroInChrist SG

I see your point.

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.

Nelstar SG

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.

BroInChrist SG

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.

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".

BroInChrist SG

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.

Nelstar SG

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.

Just because someone is an atheist does not also necessary mean that the person believes in evolution.

Get it? No?

BroInChrist SG

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.

BroInChrist SG

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.

Nelstar SG

If atheism cannot make sense of the universe, then it should be rejected. Of course, if God exists then atheism IS wrong.

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.

« Previous Page Next Page »