Does a Christian have to answer every challenge an atheist raises in order to give a credible, persuasive case for Christianity? Are there some challenges that a Christian doesn’t need to answer?
« Why Would a Good God Allow Pain and Suffering? | Main | Challenge: The Bible Only Mentions Homosexuality Six Times »
The comments to this entry are closed.
The truth is Christians have no answers for atheists at all. Here's one that will continue to stump the creationists forever: Can you name the mechanism that could stop microevolution from becoming macroevolution and describe exactly how it does this? How about proving that the mass-energy that comprises the universe has not always existed in one form or another? Here's one that sends the Christians into a full out panic: Tell me everything you can about Jesus using only extra-biblical sources that were written within 50 years of the time Jesus was supposedly crucified. Some challenges? Greg, or whatever your name is, you're not up to ANY challenges. Where's YOUR proof eyewitnesses wrote the gospels.
Posted by: Boris | August 12, 2013 at 11:43 AM
Boris Karloff your lack of cogent thinking is indeed frightening. One truth that you can always count on is that you will never arrive at a correct conclusion when you start with a false premise. Your first statement is just not factually accurate. If that were the case, there would never be any debates between Christians and atheists would there? All that follows is a journey down the wrong logical path. The person making the claim (blind evolutionary dogma to explain complex life forms) is the one responsible for exhibiting proof for their position. Not the other way around. Same problem for your second question. Your third point is moot since the Bible has proven to be a reliable source. But perhaps we can address that point just as soon as you scientifically "prove" how life began.
Posted by: Lumbergh | August 12, 2013 at 12:17 PM
Lumburgh,
Maybe Boris went a little too far.
That doesn't justify making fun of his name, though. Does it?
Anyway...
What DOES prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution? Who says 'blind evolutionary dogma explains complex life forms'? You are too impressed by complexity. If two simple things combine, they become more complex. Right? Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Is that so tough? I sense people have a volitional objection to macroevolution rather than an intellectual one.
What evidence IS there that the Big Bang was creation from nothing? Are there pictures of the nothing? Is there even a theory of nothing?
What evidence IS there that the Bible is reliable when it describes miracles? If the Bible (or any other book) gets some geography right or some history, does that mean it's right about miracles? If the evidence for Christianity were good people wouldn't wouldn't insist on unlikely stuff like: We know who wrote the gospels.
You'd be in good shape with your demand for a natural explanation for the origin of life (were that the subject) and were it not for the fact that what we DO know about the history of life suggests that 1) Life began a long time ago. Strike one against learning the details. 2) It probably began on a microscopic - no a molecular - scale. Strike two. 3) Life probably then ate the evidence. Strike three.
Posted by: RonH | August 12, 2013 at 06:50 PM
Not to side-track the discussion, but this highlights what I think is a double-standard applied to the Bible by the scholarly community.
First, to equate the Bible to "any other book" isn't quite accurate. The scholarly community doesn't treat the Bible in the same manner as they do any other book. But in the same breath, they'll expect us to just buy that the Bible is no different than any other book.
For example, let's say ancient author A writes about a variety of events. And of those events chronicled by author A, we have other evidence that corroborates A's accounts on only some things. The other things A writes about, we have no evidence supporting it. What I have seen of the scholarly community is to "give the benefit of the doubt" to A and say basically, "Well, we know A was right about some things; therefore, A is a reliable source, so we can assume he/she was right about these other things for which we have no other record."
And the scholarly community is so willing to say that for a variety of texts, except when it comes to the Bible, it's the opposite. And that is a double standard.
In other words, the Bible has demonstrated its reliability in a variety of aspects; therefore, it should be considered reliable for those things that we haven't any corroborating evidence.
Posted by: r | August 12, 2013 at 07:23 PM
r,
Let's be completely fair to author A; no double standard.
We'll say: The testimony of A shifts the probability of every proposition A makes in proportion to the quality his track record. And A's track record is good: A has demonstrated his reliability in a variety of situations. A is a trustworthy guy.
Now consider these propositions:
1) It rained half an inch in Seattle yesterday and the high temperature was 65 degrees F.
2) Six feet of snow fell in Death Valley yesterday and the low temperature was -40 degrees F.
Most people, if the know anything about Seattle and Death Valley, would say #1 is far, far more likely than #2.
Now suppose A calls you up and states both #1 and #2.
Is it a double standard if, (after hearing the testimony of A) you still believe #1 but not #2?
Of course not. Bayes Theorem.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | August 12, 2013 at 08:58 PM
"Maybe Boris went a little too far."
No he didn't go a little too far.
He statement was wrong.
"That doesn't justify making fun of his name, though. Does it?"
It was a play on words, Ron.
I read a comment on this blog the other day talking about Christians not having a sense of humor. Lighten up Ron.
"What DOES prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution?"
I answered that question in my reply to Boris.
Perhaps you missed it.
"Who says 'blind evolutionary dogma explains complex life forms'?"
Darwin.
"You are too impressed by complexity. If two simple things combine, they become more complex. Right?"
You are too impressed with overly simple explanations. A single strand of DNA contains an encyclopedic amount of information.
"I sense people have a volitional objection to macroevolution rather than an intellectual one."
Our senses often deceive us don't they?
Especially when there is something personal to be gained.
"What evidence IS there that the Big Bang was creation from nothing?"
You are repeating Boris' mistake here.
"What evidence IS there that the Bible is reliable when it describes miracles?"
R did a nice job of addressing the double-standard employed here.
"You'd be in good shape with your demand for a natural explanation for the origin of life (were that the subject)"
I believe that this was the subject of Greg's video. Atheists demanding an answer for every question without being able to answer tough questions addressed to them.
"1) Life began a long time ago. Strike one against learning the details. 2) It probably began on a microscopic - no a molecular - scale. Strike two. 3) Life probably then ate the evidence. Strike three."
This is the main reason I gave up on atheism.
I didn't have enough faith.
Posted by: Lumbergh | August 13, 2013 at 06:56 AM
Lumburgh, I will comment on your claims point by point. First I shouldn’t have to point out that you did not respond to any of my questions or accept any of my challenges, which sort of proves my point, now doesn’t it? However, in the interest of fairness and the fact that you are so poorly equipped to defend your claims, I’ll give you another chance. Can you name the mechanism that could stop microevolution from becoming macroevolution and describe exactly how it does this? How about proving that the mass-energy that comprises the universe has not always existed in one form or another? Tell me everything you can about Jesus using only extra-biblical sources that were written within 50 years of the time Jesus was supposedly crucified. How about some proof eyewitnesses wrote the gospels?
Lumburgh: Boris Karloff your lack of cogent thinking is indeed frightening. One truth that you can always count on is that you will never arrive at a correct conclusion when you start with a false premise.
Boris says: At least I am allowed to let my thinking go anywhere, unlike you who must keep his or her thoughts in captivity. What false premise have I started with? What about the false premise you begin with by assuming that the people who frightened you into believing the Bible is the Word of God were telling the truth? There is no more indefensible first premise than the claim that the Bible is the Word of God.
Lumburgh: Your first statement is just not factually accurate. If that were the case, there would never be any debates between Christians and atheists would there? All that follows is a journey down the wrong logical path.
Boris says: The atheists who debate Bible believers do so to demonstrate my point which is that Christians really do not have any answers for atheists. Their answers and apologetic arguments are all riddled with logical fallacies and I’ll be more than happy to demonstrate this fact. Name ‘em and claim ‘em. Of course you may not be able to detect the fallacies because if Christians could recognize logical fallacies or the tactics Christianity uses to command obedience and discourage doubt they would not be Christians.
Lumburgh: The person making the claim (blind evolutionary dogma to explain complex life forms) is the one responsible for exhibiting proof for their position. Not the other way around.
Boris says: Thanks for proving my last point. That is the logical fallacy known as shifting the Burden of Proof. The person making the outrageous or implausible claim that fairy magic is the only possible explanation for the existence of complex life forms has the burden of proof. That would be you. Every Christian college and university with a science department teaches evolution so I’m hardly the one making an implausible claim. Not only does your own CHRISTIAN academic community agree with me, they go to great lengths to distance themselves from creationism and Intelligent Design Magic and the hoaxers who promote this garbage, like Behe and Dembski. The commitment to established dogma is monopolized by creationists, not scientists. The only dogma there is in science is strict adherence to the Scientific Method. This means that no finding is the final word and all findings are subject to further study and even outright rebuttal. Your religion claims to be the final word, its “truth” claims are not open to further study and outright rebuttal, at least not by its followers. There is no avenue of human endeavor that is more open to scrutiny than science. If someone could refute evolution they would become instantly rich and famous and win a Nobel Prize for science. However this has not happened and it’s never going to happen either. Contrasting that, nothing is more closed to free inquiry and critical thinking than Christian dogma and doctrine, at least to its adherents. Bible believers are outraged that outsiders can do what they are not allowed to do which is question the supposed authority of the Bible. Maddening isn’t it? The Bible is just chock-full of defenses against free inquiry and critical thinking. So you just go right ahead and keep your thoughts in captivity and waste the rest of your life in intellectual servitude to false beliefs. I don’t care.
Lumburgh: Same problem for your second question. Your third point is moot since the Bible has proven to be a reliable source. But perhaps we can address that point just as soon as you scientifically "prove" how life began.
Boris says: The Bible is a reliable source? For what? Brainwashing? Historical fiction usually contains references to actual people and places. That the Bible does this is of no help to your case. Historical narratives do not contain dialog, word for word conversations with people, fairies and talking animals all speaking in complete sentences. Only fictive narratives contain such dialog and there are no exceptions to this literary guideline. When we hold the Bible up to standard criticism it fails every test there is for historicity and passes all the tests for fiction with flying colors. Bible thumpers want their fairy tale book given a special pass on standard criticism for no good reason demand it be mindlessly accepted as being historically accurate. No dice. None of the stories, prophecies or the existence of any of the major figures in the text, including Jesus Christ can be verified by independent sources.
How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Let’s see you prove how life began.
Posted by: Boris | August 14, 2013 at 12:23 PM
"Lumburgh, I will comment on your claims point by point. First I shouldn’t have to point out that you did not respond to any of my questions or accept any of my challenges, which sort of proves my point, now doesn’t it?"
Quite the contrary. It proves that I am not going to spend time refuting any silly fantasy that you can come up with. The person making the claim is the person responsible for defending that claim.
Even your friend RonH had this to say about your illogical thoughts:
"Maybe Boris went a little too far."
He's being incredibly generous.
Posted by: Lumbergh | August 14, 2013 at 01:05 PM
"However, in the interest of fairness and the fact that you are so poorly equipped to defend your claims"
Still haven't figured it out yet have you? I haven't made any claims. The person making the claim is the one responsible for defending them. That's you buddy.
I would love to debate this with you all day, but honestly I don't have time to read your 50 page manifesto and considering the ill-conceived notions of the first paragraph, I don't hold out much hope for a cogent discussion.
I will add this in summary. The reason no one is answering your questions is because they start with the assumption that your claims are common knowledge and that evidence must be produced to disprove your claims. That is the opposite of the way an intellectually honest debate takes place.
The first sentence of your first comment disqualifies you from any other useful discussion.
Posted by: Lumbergh | August 14, 2013 at 01:17 PM
“Have to” it seems is unnecessary. For anyone really. Much of it often has to do with re-phrasing the question and, also, doing so which exposes both side’s presuppositions. Prove your presupposition and I’ll prove mine, and so on. From there it’s a matter of the breadth of plausibility, to some degree. Also, sometimes questions are framed in such a way as to house buried within in it an absurdity from the get go. More often than not this method of “answering” helps defragment, demystify, and expose some core assumptions in both directions.
For example:
An atheist may posit this: God cannot learn, does not know that experience, thus God is not omniscient.
This has, buried in it, the non-differentiation of “God Learning” confused with “Man Learning”. Now, the former is known, tasted, by no one (it’s a round square, a non-actuality), while the latter is an actuality and of course known by God. It’s a false identity claim of A = B. But “God learning” and “Man learning” are two different actualities assumed within the question to be one actuality. Nonsense. Thus “God not learning” is not the same as “Man learning”, and so on.
For fun on this sort of typical absurdity:
Does God know what it is like to “learn”? Well of course He does.
And how could that be?
The word we use here is this, “Learn”. And here we are describing a human experience, not a God-Experience, of a very specific sort for this very specific event is comprised of various ebbs and flows among and amid photon fluxes there inside myriad lipid bi-layers winding around and through miles and miles of neurons. And where is the Any-Thing which is magically outside God’s Uncreated Mind? Which crevice is etched by a finger other than His and is therein beyond His brutal an unforgiving awareness there inside of our skulls? Which photon flux up and over there in our neurons has He not in delight Himself fashioned, explored, and tasted there by His fingertips within Uncreated Mind or which photon flux down and in there within our skulls has He Himself not within intention patterned to the Nth degree to, in such a flux, birth to consciousness the “feel” of This or the “feel” of That? Where is the quantum cloud He has not tasted to the full for what is feel but the very circuit He Himself has not in sheer creative delight dived into as He and He alone fashions the endless permutations and combinations which we like to call experience and which we like to call feel but which Uncreated Delight calls today’s etch upon His Fingertip tasted in bracketed fullness there in Uncreated Mind? Yes, whatever experience is to us, whatever feel is to us, though we assert in error that these are our all-in-all, these are to Him known through and through and not just these but even ten thousand other nuances of “feel” and of “experience” of which He tastes to the full there in His Tool Shed and which we have yet to taste and may never even taste ever in ten thousand life times. Human “Learning”? Human “Feel”? Human “Experience?”
These are to Him but tiny crevices which His Delight has filled, tasted, and known from A to Z in but a nanosecond of clay’s pressure there upon the potter’s wheel within Uncreated Mind for where is the up and in photon flux which He Himself has not in bitter specificity crafted to yield His Will’s Delight for the Agent called Man, which we call “feel” and “learn” and “experience”, of which Uncreated Mind fills from beginning to end? There is no “feel” which lies outside on some other wheel. There are no other wheels.
What is it like for human beings to learn? This God knows and to the full, even in ways and vectors which human beings have yet to discover. And so “God does not learn” is not the same thing as “Man does learn” and thus it is easy for God to know to the full the latter (the human experience of learning) while never entertaining the former (God learning).
We can push it even further: Does man know what it “feels like” for God to learn? No, because there is no such event. Does God know what it is like for man to learn? Of course, for He Himself fills all such fluxes from beginning to end. What we call “feel” on our end He calls “creative delight’s taste” on His end and what is “feel” but that which His Taste has exactingly approved? He does not taste us, know us, intimately, but, rather, He tastes us, knows us, infinitely, or, if that bothers us, then, He tastes us, knows us, through and through from the brutally exacting beginning of just all fluxes whatsoever there inside our brainstems to just all of their bitter conclusions out there in consciousness.
And further: God does not know what it is like for God to learn, nor does Man know what it is like for God to learn, for round squares are impossible. God does know what it is like for Man to learn, and Man knows this too, for such an Actual Actuality is but a crevice of Taste’s delight within the everlasting array of crevices there upon that Wheel of the One Actual Actuality Who just is Uncreated Mind.
On the sort of Knowing which Uncreated Mind knows when we speak of the Triune God, we find yet more disasters for atheism and agnosticism.
For example, does God know what it is like to taste Time? Well, yes. Does the Father? Well, no. Does God know the last day, the last hour? Well, yes. Does the Son? Well, no. That which the Son and Father speak here inside Time are that which they speak always. Knows-Not? Well, yes. Knows-All? Well, of course. All that is created is created via the Son and without Him is not made one thing that is made. It is said that the Father and Son Know each other but also Keep on know-ing one another. There is uncreated and eternal motion in His knowing just as there is in His eternal loving amid the triune. Within Him we find, not the Static and Lifeless but instead the Liv-ing God. Here inside His Knowing we begin to see how it is that He Wills, Moves, Motions, and yet Changes-Not. His love brings in these same landscapes: Love eternally poured out in self-sacrifice, debased, to the uttermost not in a jest, but to the death…..the Beloved eternally filled up, glorified, restored to the uttermost not in a jest, but resurrected, and these to ad infinitum. Motion which yet Changes-Not.
As we take this line further we find that Knowing in our own Mind is just as Contextual as Knowing within Uncreated Mind, for Knowing just is contextually related to all that which is Mind’s [In-Here/Self/I], our first Third of the Triune, and all is defined yet further in relation to, juxtaposed atop all that is [Out-There/Other/You], our second Third of the Triune, and these first two are defined yet further in that which is the fully perceived found comprised of a Whole that is the Amalgamation of these in fusion there inside the necessarily singular e pluribus unum, our final Third of the Triune. Here too we find a flaw in atheism/agnosticism’s assertions, for these assert that “Knowing is purely contextual” and thus truth is contextual. Well, of course it is. Uncreated Mind just is Triune, just does Know in this fashion, thus we do necessarily. All that is tasted in here, in my own mind so to speak, is gauged and weighed and shaped as it is perpetually shadowed by that which is tasted, noted, out there, external to my own mind, so to speak, and the Net Awareness of all Mankind is but the sum fusion of all of the above, which cannot lead to many truths, but can only lead to One Truth, for that fusion that is net-actuality yields necessarily that which can be but a Perfect-1 for Actuality, whatever it is, cannot be “many whatever it is-es”, for actuality, whatever it is, is but exactly itself which is 1 exactly, and not 1.000087 Actualities, but simply itself, simply 1, as in One, an Everlasting One, an Immutable One, and necessarily an Uncreated One. This triune geography just is the landscape of the One uncreated Mind.
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | August 15, 2013 at 03:18 AM
Lumburgh
The claim I made was that Christians have no answers for atheists and you did a really good job of proving that for me. Thanks. I knew you would not and could not answer those questions. The reason you didn’t step up to the plate and answer my questions is because you have no answers for those questions, which proves my original point: Christians really do not have any answers for atheists. You had two chances to try to prove me wrong and you could not do it. If you had any answers you certainly would have posted them. Everyone can see you took the coward’s way out. What else would we expect from someone who let OTHER PEOPLE frighten them with a bunch of old wives tales about what might happen to them after they die? Now I will prove my point beyond any doubt whatsoever by challenging anyone else to answer by questions. Here they are again: Can you name the mechanism that could stop microevolution from becoming macroevolution and describe exactly how it does this? How about proving that the mass-energy that comprises the universe has not always existed in one form or another? Tell me everything you can about Jesus using only extra-biblical sources that were written within 50 years of the time Jesus was supposedly crucified. How about some proof eyewitnesses wrote the gospels? Let’s see if anyone else has the nerve to step up to the plate. Lumgurgh seems to have lost his nerve. How about you Greg? Would you like to step up to the plate and answer my questions? Otherwise my point stands: Christians do not have any answers for atheists.
Posted by: Boris | August 17, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Boris,
I'm not sure how many times I will need to repeat this before the message sinks in. The person making the claim is the one that that is responsible for defending the claim - not the other way around.
That's about the tenth time that I have made that statement. I'm not sure why that concept is so difficult for you to understand.
In other words, when you make an obviously false statement like: "Christians have no answers for atheists" it is you my friend that is responsible for demonstrating its truth. You can't, of course, because the statement is false.
As Greg likes to say: an insult is not an argument. Your continued name-calling shows a lack of interest in truth. So I wouldn't expect a response from Greg if I were you.
Posted by: Lumbergh | August 19, 2013 at 08:02 AM
Lumburgh,
I'm not sure how many times I will need to repeat this before the message sinks in. I HAVE proved that Christians have no answers for atheists and not only that, YOU proved it too when you declined to accept my challenge. You really have taken the coward’s way out. I supplied questions and challenges that you clearly have no answers for. Greg has no answers for them either and neither do any other Christians. It is so typical of you Bible thumpers to look right at the evidence that you are wrong and still claim you aren’t. Sorry Lumburgh, you lost our little debate and you looked really bad doing so. Thanks again for proving that Christians really do not have any answers for atheists.
Posted by: Boris | August 19, 2013 at 12:57 PM
"I HAVE proved that Christians have no answers for atheists"
Boris you have not done that. And the reason is two-fold.
First the statement is obviously false. If Christians had no answers then there would never be a debate between Christians and atheists. Now you may claim that the answers are wrong, but that is not how you stated your claim. I could write a more specific claim for you, but that's your responsibility not mine.
Secondly, your statement is so poorly worded that it could mean almost anything. "Christians have no answers for atheists" could mean that they can't answer any question an atheist asks such as: what time is it? or is it raining outside?
Is that what you wished to communicate?
Its tough to answer when your questions aren't written coherently.
Posted by: Lumbergh | August 19, 2013 at 02:02 PM
"YOU proved it too when you declined to accept my challenge."
Boris
Your inquiries commit the logical fallacy known as "begging the question" and thus are not valid inquiries.
Here's the definition from Wikipedia:
Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion; in other words, basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself.[1]
You will notice that you do this in all of your questions (except for the first one that is just factually wrong and poorly worded).
Posted by: Lumbergh | August 19, 2013 at 02:09 PM
"You really have taken the coward’s way out."
Again with the insults.
But that won't help you with your lack of evidence.
Posted by: Lumbergh | August 19, 2013 at 02:12 PM
Accept my challenges or admit you cannot.
Posted by: Boris | August 19, 2013 at 02:39 PM
I admit that you can not ask a question that is not logically flawed or so nebulous that it is irrelevant.
Posted by: Lumbergh | August 19, 2013 at 02:47 PM
Boris,
In our other thread you seemed quite amiss in your entire approach to "existence" as you simply have no physical evidence which supports your claim that material stuff is not contingent, as clearly it is contingent on you know not what necessary precursor. Ultimately, for the theist or the atheist, the Necessary will trump the Contingent. No one can escape that. There is no such thing as Mass or Energy which is non-contingent, and thus it never can be Necessary. Pouring more contingents into a bag just can’t magically grant the atheist his non-contingent. Your attempt to claim Material is Necessary and not Contingent is a claim wholly non-uniform to every bit of physics we ever observe. Science just is the business of finding the cause of every observed effect, ever back in regress. If “observational reality” is the end of reality for us (it isn’t) then the claim that Material is Non-Contingent and is thus Necessary is clearly false. If God is reality, then the claim is clearly false as well. Either way, the claim that Mass/Energy is Necessary and not Contingent is false.
Now, this lack of non-contingency in any physical system carries over to other arenas for which atheism provides only incoherence as well.
Such as:
Volition of any kind, as no physical system is free of physical systems. We find here that reason itself is wholly the automaton of cascading photon fluxes, void of volitional reason-ing. So too with think-ing of any kind. Worst of all, love is wholly volition-less, the itch that is the cousin of the itch of violence, each irrationally conditioned into our neurons to perpetuate DNA. The itch to rape yet remains, yet persists in homosapien for such is quite robust in perpetuating its own genomic material, and such just is the music which the illusion that we call Self is enslaved to from beginning to end.
Atheism must, at bottom, go on pretending we are actually reasoning, actually thinking, actually loving. Logic and Love are but a Con as Mind itself is but a Con being played upon lifeless photons by Atheism’s end of regress: Indifference. Volition of any kind is an illusion.
All of this incoherence, all of this utter dissymmetry with our entire contextual experience within this contingent observational reality stems only from this rather simple business of physical-ism and contingency. This is but “Arena-1”. There are yet other arenas, many more, which, as we dive in, unmask this very same depth of incoherence within atheism’s necessary conclusions and philosophical presuppositions.
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | August 20, 2013 at 01:54 AM
Boris,
In terms of philosophical necessities, presuppositions, and necessary conclusions, what is love in your view?
The Triune God's Love starts with this: the Eternally Sacrificed Self within the triune landscape of Self, of Other, and of the necessarily begotten therein, the singular E Pluribus Unum.
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | August 20, 2013 at 02:05 AM
"Boris, In terms of philosophical necessities, presuppositions, and necessary conclusions, what is love in your view? -"
That's that song from Night at the Roxbury. ... "Baby don't hurt me..." Hilarious!
Posted by: Boris | August 21, 2013 at 11:21 AM
Scbrownlhrm
We atheists don’t have to prove anything to anybody. An atheist doesn’t have to be someone who says there is no God. We atheists are just people who say the evidence for God is on the same level as the evidence for werewolves.
Posted by: Boris | August 21, 2013 at 11:32 AM
From Dictionary.com:
Atheist - a person who denies the existence of a supreme being
Agnostic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown
Your description is an agnostic not an atheist. Which is a step in the right direction.
Atheists, Agnostics, and Theists all have a world view and are obliged to defend it.
Posted by: Lumbergh | August 21, 2013 at 12:53 PM
Anyone who add the word "Hilarious!" after their joke - never is.
Posted by: Lumbergh | August 21, 2013 at 12:54 PM
Atheism is NOT a worldview. However atheism will help a person adopt a sane one. I don't have to defend my lack of belief in God and Christians are not obliged to defend their absurd superstitions either. They just feel compelled to because their conscience is telling them what they are trying to believe is not true. Ask any shrink. The word "hilarious" in my post is referring to the movie, Night at the Roxbury. You probably weren't allowed to see that movie.
Posted by: Boris | August 22, 2013 at 04:33 PM
"Atheism is NOT a worldview. However atheism will help a person adopt a sane one. I don't have to defend my lack of belief in God and Christians are not obliged to defend their absurd superstitions either."
Not only is every single statement listed above wrong, but they contradict each other and contradict other statements that you have made earlier. What a mess of bad thinking!
"They just feel compelled to because their conscience is telling them what they are trying to believe is not true."
Greg refers to this as smuggling theist terminology into an atheist's world view.
Scott Adams refers to this line of bad logic in his book: "The Joy of Work" in the chapter: "You are wrong because..."
25. INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME THINGS HAVE MULTIPLE CAUSES
Example: The Beatles were popular for one reason only: They were good singers.
Also it is an example of judging motivations of billions of people that are unknown to you. Another mess.
"The word "hilarious" in my post is referring to the movie, Night at the Roxbury. You probably weren't allowed to see that movie."
Still not funny Boris. It wasn't that I couldn't attend (another example of prejudice against people who have a different world view), but I had the good judgment to not spend $10 on a childish parody. Bit after reading you comments, I can see how it would be right up your alley.
Posted by: Lumbergh | August 23, 2013 at 07:18 AM
Hey Lumburgh,
Can you name the mechanism that could stop microevolution from becoming macroevolution and describe exactly how it does this? How about proving that the mass-energy that comprises the universe has not always existed in one form or another? Here's one that sends the Christians into a full out panic: Tell me everything you can about Jesus using only extra-biblical sources that were written within 50 years of the time Jesus was supposedly crucified.
That's right, change the subject. Everyone can see you cannot answer my questions and cannot accept my challenges. This proves once and for all that Christians have no answers for atheists. You lose. Again.
Posted by: Boris | August 24, 2013 at 09:29 AM
"Can you name the mechanism that could stop microevolution from becoming macroevolution and describe exactly how it does this?"
Begging the question - logically flawed inquiry.
Try again.
"How about proving that the mass-energy that comprises the universe has not always existed in one form or another?"
Begging the question - logically flawed inquiry.
Try again.
"Tell me everything you can about Jesus using only extra-biblical sources that were written within 50 years of the time Jesus was supposedly crucified."
Irrelevant question since the Bible has proven itself to be a reliable source.
"That's right, change the subject. Everyone can see you cannot answer my questions and cannot accept my challenges. This proves once and for all that Christians have no answers for atheists. You lose. Again."
Again every statement is false. You are batting 1000 percent. The subject is the same. You can't defend your ridiculous claims. Not only did you lose. You didn't even get up to bat.
Posted by: Lumbergh | August 26, 2013 at 02:11 PM
Maybe the reason the atheists come here, itching for a confrontation, is because deep down inside they really are ACHING to know how to have faith? After all, not everyone comes to know Christ via intellectual discussions, or high-sounding arguments. The Truth of Scripture can be recognized only by those called to faith by God Himself. And I dare say that for most of the populace of the world, that call probably does not come by way of mental gymnastics--though rigorous debate can (and for some, does) clear the mind and prepare it for Truth.
My comments will, no doubt, be met with further ridicule by those here who belittle Christianity, but are they not the very ones who so desperately need Him? It's SOOO easy to get provoked into a battle of hurling sarcastic flaming arrows (which I have been guilty of myself, so I'm right there with you), that we lose sight of the collateral damage. They will, in all likelihood, deny vehemently that they want anything at all to do with Christians, but the obvious fact that they're here and keep coming back here seems to suggest otherwise.
Posted by: Carolyn | August 26, 2013 at 11:55 PM
"Can you name the mechanism that could stop microevolution from becoming macroevolution and describe exactly how it does this?"
Lunburgh: Begging the question - logically flawed inquiry. Try again.
Why is it logically flawed? You can’t answer the question because we both know no such mechanism exists.
"How about proving that the mass-energy that comprises the universe has not always existed in one form or another?"
Lunburgh: Begging the question - logically flawed inquiry. Try again.
Again you have no answer.
"Tell me everything you can about Jesus using only extra-biblical sources that were written within 50 years of the time Jesus was supposedly crucified."
Lunburgh: Irrelevant question since the Bible has proven itself to be a reliable source.
Well you had a chance to prove that but instead you could not.
"That's right, change the subject. Everyone can see you cannot answer my questions and cannot accept my challenges. This proves once and for all that Christians have no answers for atheists. You lose. Again."
Lunburgh: Again every statement is false. You are batting 1000 percent. The subject is the same. You can't defend your ridiculous claims. Not only did you lose. You didn't even get up to bat.
I made no statements. I asked questions that no Christian can answer which once AGAIN proves Christians have no answers for atheists. You have no critical thinking skills whatsoever. You couldn’t recognize a logical fallacy if your life depended on it. Your answers are childish as is your behavior. Of course you’re too much of a coward to admit defeat but defeated you have been. How does it feel?
Posted by: Boris | August 31, 2013 at 10:39 AM
Boris still needs prayer--perhaps we could begin with praying for a spirit of humility for him?
Posted by: Carolyn | August 31, 2013 at 11:09 AM
"Prayers may bring solace to the sap, the bigot, the ignorant, the aboriginal, and the lazy - but it is the same as asking Santa Claus to bring you something for Christmas." - W.C. Fields
Posted by: Boris | August 31, 2013 at 11:23 AM
Well, Boris, as W.C. Fields is your highest authority on the subject, the evidence of the need for prayer for you is glaring. Thanks for clarifying it for us!
Posted by: Carolyn | August 31, 2013 at 12:45 PM
You Christians are simply obsessed with authority. Hint: Knowledge does not come from authority, especially your Christian brand of non-rational authoritarianism.
Posted by: Boris | September 05, 2013 at 04:59 PM
Boris still needs prayer--lots of it.
Posted by: Carolyn | September 07, 2013 at 06:50 PM
Boris, your posts are so filled with contempt for Christians that it's tempting to respond back with similar words. But our aim is to resist such sinful urges and, instead, to remember that you are someone made by God in His image. Consequently, my personal responses to you will reflect that goal and will always be to pray for you, because you are in grave need of it. No, we are not obsessed with authority, we acknowledge the Authority who is God and bow before Him. Calling it irrational does not make it so.
Posted by: Carolyn | September 08, 2013 at 09:00 PM