tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post74158554829459094..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Another Failed Christian Attempt to Explain Away Suffering: Mary Jo Sharp's Review of the 2nd Loftus/Wood DebateUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42256154002655755792009-04-04T19:59:00.000-04:002009-04-04T19:59:00.000-04:00Science and logic can not dogmatically rule out th...Science and logic can not dogmatically rule out that which it can not observe or measure. To be blatently opposed to "Supernatural" explanations is to take the position of those who swore man would never fly, until they saw someone do it. It follows the logic of those who would say what we could see was the smallest..whoops..what we could see magnified was the smallest...whoops... what we could oberve at the atomic level was the smallest...whoops... etc... quark...etc...<BR/><BR/>Predisposition in scientific and logical observation is always, Always, ALWAYS! a bad thing. What we know we know, what we suppose we suppose, and we should never confuse the two.Jeff Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15294661319646332097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36490763985545062162009-03-15T13:14:00.000-04:002009-03-15T13:14:00.000-04:00Evan, I have one question. Can Deep Blue create a...Evan, I have one question. Can Deep Blue create a program to defeat itself at chess?<BR/><BR/>I can't contend that your position that the mind of the created can indeed be greater than the mind of the creator. <BR/><BR/>Deep Blue is the best at one task. It is not a sentient being, as are the humans who created it. Therefore the minds of the creators of Deep Blue are still greater than the 'mind' of the created. It is incapable of independant thought--at least on any subject other than chess moves. Wouldn't that make it capable of deductive reasoning rather than true 'thought'? <BR/><BR/>Ok, that's two questions.momofourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02156024549077810947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62561169418006158802009-03-11T19:17:00.000-04:002009-03-11T19:17:00.000-04:00Yes there is definitely bias in my outlook, a pred...Yes there is definitely bias in my outlook, a predisposition against supernatual explanations and beings, and I spent over half of my book defending mine before examining the evidence in the Bible itself in the later half.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55004866877601536042009-03-11T18:04:00.000-04:002009-03-11T18:04:00.000-04:00John Loftus,You made a couple of arguments I’d lik...John Loftus,<BR/><BR/>You made a couple of arguments I’d like to discuss, if you are still responding to this older post.<BR/><BR/><BR/>“…I certainly don’t see how morality is understood any better by positing God, since there are difficulties understanding how God could be called “good” if he created the moral law, and if he doesn’t create it the unresolved question is who did? It does no good at all to say God’s nature is good for we still need an explanation of what goodness is in order to call him good…”<BR/><BR/>God’s nature defines “good.” He created the moral law as it is because it is based on His unchanging, good desires. It’s not that He could not create a different morality; it’s that He doesn’t want to. He would never want the fundamental moral principles to be different that what they are.<BR/><BR/>We know what “good” is because God put that knowledge in our hearts. “Good” has been defined by God in accordance with His nature / desires. Why must the definition of “good” be external to God in order for us to be able to recognize “good” when we see it? <BR/><BR/>You have spent considerable time on this tread and others defining exactly what you mean by “atheist.” You have re-defined the word. You have a right to do that (especially when we consider that you are defining your own belief system here). <BR/><BR/>When conversing with you, I now know what “atheist” means when you say it. I can recognize you as an “atheist” because of your own definition of the term. I do not need a definition external to the one you supplied to understand your word. You have defined “atheist” in just the way you desired to. You have defined “atheist,” but I can recognize it without having a definition of “atheist” outside of the one you provided.<BR/><BR/>God can supply the definition of “good” to us. He can also make us so we can recognize “good” without relying on some definition outside Himself. We get our understanding of “good” from God, so we recognize God as “good.” God has defined His own term, and we can use it to describe him.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>“…If God created a universe to have free will people who love him, then he should not have created such a world where billions of people simply cannot grasp his unfathomable ways. Since he did not do this, we don’t believe in this Christian God…”<BR/><BR/>God’s existence is obvious to an unbiased person. The problem is that none of us is unbiased.<BR/><BR/>As a sinner, before God opened my eyes, I was oblivious to God’s existence because I suppressed my knowledge of His Existence. If a holy God existed, I would have had to confront, at a primordial level, my own unholy condition. I would have to see all of the evil nature of my heart and all of the goodness of God’s. That’s enough trauma to trigger a repression of the truth in any mind.<BR/><BR/>Could there be some bias in your outlook?<BR/><BR/>There is certianly bias in mine.J. K. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02329537522697826005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81536648624337880542009-01-13T17:33:00.000-05:002009-01-13T17:33:00.000-05:00MJ,If it's just the concept of morality that is th...MJ,<BR/><BR/>If it's just the <I>concept</I> of morality that is the "problem," then how does the Christian god solve this? You are claiming that God went to the trouble of giving everyone a sense of "ought," but made sure to make it so that no one agreed?<BR/><BR/>Is this not a problem, itself?<BR/><BR/>And are you implying that the fact that a rational natural explanation could still <I>not</I> be the best evidenced implies that the Christian god is a better answer?Philip R Kreychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13079037983351521346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31072014170281615342009-01-13T16:23:00.000-05:002009-01-13T16:23:00.000-05:00MJ,Thanks for the courteous reply. I'll try to exp...MJ,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the courteous reply. I'll try to explicate where I see things that we differ on more completely.<BR/><BR/>You say:<BR/><BR/><I>How is this true? The conclusion does not necessarily follow. You are equivocating (sic -- I assume you mean equating) a computer programmed by humans to “think” (actually programmed to process; because it is programmed to “think” only in so far as a created, programmed computer “thinks”) with a human mind. These are not the same, but that is how your above statement comes across.</I><BR/><BR/>Imagine Topalov or Anand (the top 2 players in chess currently) are playing one another. They will move pieces but will be unable to fully articulate the heuristic that they use to determine what moves they are making. Anand and Topalov may know nothing of neuroscience, nothing of the modules of sensory perception, information analysis and nothing of serial or parallel processing in their brains, but those are the techniques they are utilizing to make their choices. They need not know any more about the workings of their brains than Deep Blue does about its circuits to play chess well.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, Deep Blue analyzes moves using an algorithm that Deep Blue is unable to fully articulate, nor could any of the authors of the program fully articulate it. <BR/><BR/>Both are minds in the sense that they execute a function involving foresight, planning, and strategy as well as tactics. To say that Deep Blue is not a human is of course true, but Anand is hardly any more "human" when concentrating on chess. Certainly Anand's human abilities are a burden on him when playing chess and not an asset.<BR/><BR/>One reason Deep Blue may be so successful at playing chess is precisely because Deep Blue will never have a rumbling in the gut that distracts it from playing.<BR/><BR/><I>I still have a problem with the analogy because people, IBM, created Deep Blue. There is still a creator in your example.</I><BR/><BR/>No. There are multiple creators, no single one capable of fully understanding the entire system, and some of the creation was also done by computer programs separate from Deep Blue. There is no one person who created Deep Blue, and all the people who created it would be defeated by it at chess.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, the created mind is superior (for the purpose which it was created for) to the creator minds.<BR/><BR/>This, IMO, falsifies your initial statement and leaves little wiggle room.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, even the deist may imagine there is a god who started it all out but is relatively simple and may be free to postulate that human intelligence is, for the purposes which it is used, superior to that of the deist god. This again falsifies the initial statement that the mind of the creator must be greater than that of the created.<BR/><BR/>On a mundane level, many of us have seen students and children who surpass the intellectual capacities of their teachers and parents. While these minds are not created ex nihilo, they certainly are developed under the tutelage of these individuals and again, if your assessment were prima facie true, this should be impossible.<BR/><BR/>You then say:<BR/><BR/><I>The analogy leaves out so many aspects of the human mind; including irrationality, emotion, artistry, chemical imbalance, etc.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, and for the purposes of chess, these are weaknesses. There is nothing inherent in the concept of a god, and certainly plenty of evidence from the Bible to support the idea that deities can be capricious, emotional and imbalanced as well. To prove that God is perfect is simply impossible (it is accepted by theists as an axiom), but give me your best shot if you think you can do it.<BR/><BR/>To answer your questions:<BR/><BR/><I>1) How did you come to an understanding that all minds in existence are embodied?<BR/>I am making the assumption that “embodied” here means “resultant of matter” and not as personified, made flesh, or alive.</I><BR/><BR/>In the same way that I come to an understanding that all vertebrates have a notochord. There are no members of the group that lack this characteristic.<BR/><BR/>If you have evidence of a disembodied mind that has foresight, plans, executes strategy and tactics, I'm interested in seeing it.<BR/><BR/><I>2) Is the “embodied mind” the same as the brain?</I><BR/><BR/>For human beings, of course. However computer technology has advanced to the point where certain programs embodied in circuits can do many of the functions we associate with minds and I would not exclude this possibility.<BR/><BR/><I>3) What would you consider as evidence of a disembodied mind?</I><BR/><BR/>I can't conceive of any, but let me know what your evidence is and I'll examine it.<BR/><BR/><I>Although, I do not agree with your choice of terms; you make it sound as though some people think there are minds wandering around like ghosts somewhere.</I><BR/><BR/>What exactly is your conception of a soul if it isn't that?<BR/><BR/>Finally you say:<BR/><BR/><I>I made the argument that if there was a Creator, that Creator’s mind could not be the same as its creation’s mind(s). If it cannot be the same, because one has been made by the other, then we have some options to look at: a mind greater than or lesser than the creation’s.</I><BR/><BR/>To say that two minds are not identical is again non-controversial, but to say that any mind is superior to any other mind without being clear about what arena you are discussing or what measurement you are using is simply to toss off an axiom that you are offering without proof.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>EvanEvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56535242386575299512009-01-12T23:30:00.000-05:002009-01-12T23:30:00.000-05:00Evan:// To say Deep Blue is not a mind is to say t...Evan:<BR/><BR/>// To say Deep Blue is not a mind is to say that nobody uses their mind when playing chess.//<BR/><BR/>How is this true? The conclusion does not necessarily follow. You are equivocating a computer programmed by humans to “think” (actually programmed to process; because it is programmed to “think” only in so far as a created, programmed computer “thinks”) with a human mind. These are not the same, but that is how your above statement comes across.<BR/><BR/>I still have a problem with the analogy because people, IBM, created Deep Blue. There is still a creator in your example.<BR/><BR/>//Deep Blue cannot hold a conversation, but then again -- neither can God.//<BR/><BR/>This is not in accordance with the Christian orthodox view of God. I do not argue for or against any version of God outside of Christian orthodoxy.<BR/><BR/>// So again, the idea that one mind is greater than the other implies a simplistic and plainly false understanding of what a mind is.//<BR/><BR/>You have not proven this. Deep Blue does not function holistically as an average human mind functions, correct? I am not referring to the exceptions that you have introduced to the argument; i.e. a human with autism. Using Deep Blue as a comprehensive analogy for the creation of all human minds is not a good or comprehensive argument. The analogy leaves out so many aspects of the human mind; including irrationality, emotion, artistry, chemical imbalance, etc. <BR/><BR/>// .. a problem for the theist is that all minds extant are embodied. We have zero evidence for a disembodied mind.//<BR/><BR/>1) How did you come to an understanding that all minds in existence are embodied?<BR/>I am making the assumption that “embodied” here means “resultant of matter” and not as personified, made flesh, or alive.<BR/>2) Is the “embodied mind” the same as the brain?<BR/>3) What would you consider as evidence of a disembodied mind? <BR/>(Although, I do not agree with your choice of terms; you make it sound as though some people think there are minds wandering around like ghosts somewhere. Through similar wording, I could make numbers, emotions, values, human rights, and laws of logic sound incredible, as well, due to their conspicuous lack of matter. However, all of these seem to exist in reality without embodiment, per se, in matter. I would prefer something along the lines of arguing against or for substance dualism.) <BR/><BR/>I have not stated anywhere that God’s mind is disembodied in the sense that it lacks personification, is not alive, or cannot co-exist with human flesh (as in the case with Jesus). I made the argument that if there was a Creator, that Creator’s mind could not be the same as its creation’s mind(s). If it cannot be the same, because one has been made by the other, then we have some options to look at: a mind greater than or lesser than the creation’s. However, if there is a reasonable argument for an equivalence of minds between Creator and created, I am open to hearing that argument. <BR/><BR/>I believe you are in some way arguing for strict physicalism while I am not specifically touching on that at the moment.<BR/><BR/>Philip:<BR/><BR/>//no universal agreements among human beings, regarding morality//<BR/><BR/>Relativistic human agreements sway with culture, time, and place. Basic concepts of morality; such as the fact that there is anything at all that is considered right or wrong—no matter how right and wrong are relativistically defined—is the origins problem.<BR/><BR/>// Mary Jo, can you point out one single universal moral conviction that has been shared by all cultures, and that could have no rational natural explanation?//<BR/><BR/>Let me rephrase the end of the question and then, yes, I believe so. The universal convictions could have a <EM>rational natural explanation</EM>*, but that does not mean the explanation is 1) evidenced or 2) the best explanation. <BR/><BR/>1) The universal sense of “oughtness.” I find no people in all of history (that I have so far studied) void of “oughtness.”<BR/> <BR/>2) I think the problem with understanding a universal moral conviction is the need to understand that the various relativistic definitions of the basic conviction, ie. murder, is not equal to the ultimate premise of murder. Is there really a society somewhere in history that absolutely and completely had no conception of a person’s life taken “wrongfully”? The society may have various definitions of what was and was not “wrongful,” but did any of them—that we can evidence—fully lack this conviction. Please find me one so I may consider why I am wrong on this point. The ancient cultures I have looked at so far—including Babylonian, Canaanite, Assyrian, Sumerian, Egyptian, Mayan, Oriental, Eskimo/Aleutian, many Native American tribes—all have punishment for wrongful death; implying the concept was known.<BR/><BR/>What is the natural explanation for the origin of the concepts of “oughtness” and “murder” as evidenced in natural history? <BR/><BR/>(*I have left off “rational” due to its metaphysical property that does not seem to fit with the “natural” part of your original inquiry. I apologize if I come across as snide in doing so; this was not intended.)<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your time.<BR/><BR/>MJConfident Christianityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498956805810438972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17881931951989888502009-01-07T23:24:00.000-05:002009-01-07T23:24:00.000-05:00I think you guys would save yourselves a lot of th...I think you guys would save yourselves a lot of that tedious, high-falutin' argumentation if you'd simply challenge the purported inerrantists with stuff like, "how would you kill a baby for Jesus?"<BR/><BR/>Jesus is the god of the Old Testament, they must admit, and he commanded such things be done. Or else the Bible isn't completely true.<BR/><BR/>Get rid of the "arguers" and you get rid of the arguments. :)<BR/><BR/>They don't really believe what they say, and they know it.ismellarathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798650524118603772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73430240883764724382009-01-07T22:52:00.000-05:002009-01-07T22:52:00.000-05:00I would describe myself as an agnostic atheist, bu...I would describe myself as an agnostic atheist, but I wouldn't say that "atheism is true"; such a statement is not really meaningful to me, but I would say instead that none of the religions seem to be "true" in the way in which they claim to be true, based on the lack of supernatural evidence and all the evidence that shows the human origin of existing religions and the direct contradictions between many religious beliefs and the reality which we inhabit.<BR/><BR/>I would not say that "atheism is true" but rather that the claims that atheism does not make are true, in that they are not false, because they are non-existent, because atheism is not making any supernatural claims. Is that understandable?Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24995192400383833562009-01-07T21:07:00.000-05:002009-01-07T21:07:00.000-05:00Thanks for commenting Sarah. I liked how you put i...Thanks for commenting Sarah. I liked how you put it:<BR/><BR/><I>During my seminary studies, I have studied every possible worldview one could hold and concluded that either Christianity is true or Atheism or Agnosticism is true.</I><BR/><BR/>kiwi is sort of a troll, I think. If he wants to tell us what he actually believes I'm all ears. But usually he's a waste of my time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47944344047811985752009-01-07T20:58:00.000-05:002009-01-07T20:58:00.000-05:00Kiwi,During my seminary studies, I have studied ev...Kiwi,<BR/><BR/>During my seminary studies, I have studied every possible worldview one could hold and concluded that either Christianity is true or Atheism or Agnosticism is true. I do not see anything wrong with thoughtfully considering all the options and drawing some conclusions with sound reasoning. I would be curious to hear more about your worldview and why you believe what you do. <BR/><BR/>SarahSarah Schoonmakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14013763189170346618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5225834477550285202009-01-07T19:03:00.000-05:002009-01-07T19:03:00.000-05:00Eric, did you read through my last link?I think I'...Eric, <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/08/atheism-agnosticism-and-default.html" REL="nofollow">did you read through my last link?</A><BR/><BR/>I think I'm using the word as it has been used historically. It's an odd word, a negative word. But since we're stuck with it I'm going to use it the way it was meant to be used. You cannot fault me for that. Simply understand how I use it. Don't demand that I should conform to how you think it should be used or how others use it.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31432815749383501352009-01-07T18:55:00.000-05:002009-01-07T18:55:00.000-05:00"I can best be described as an agnostic atheist. I..."I can best be described as an agnostic atheist. I think there isn’t a God *of any kind*, but I’m not sure of that...I've told you what I mean by "atheist." There is nothing inconsistent with how I use it."<BR/><BR/>John, there is clearly an inconsistency in asserting that a Christian is an atheist with respect to Zeus, even given your conception of atheism. Look what happens when we rewrite the proposition I've been criticizing to take your definition into account:<BR/><BR/>(1) A person who believes in the triune god doesn't think there's a god of any kind when it comes to Zeus, Wotan, et al, but he's not sure. <BR/><BR/>This move does nothing to remove the contradiction: a person who believes in the triune god cannot meaningfully be described as a person who doesn't think that there is any kind of god, even if he's not certain.<BR/><BR/>Again, this may seem trivial, and I of course know what you're trying to say, but as I argued before, it assumes too much, and thus is a bit deceptive. I like Jim Turner's formulation much better: <BR/><BR/>"A Christian is a skeptic, critic, and unbeliever when it comes to Allah, the Mormon God, the Watchtower God, Zeus, and all others. An atheist is just a skeptic, critic and unbeliever in one more god."<BR/><BR/>This formulation does not suppose that the Christian is 'already' an atheist of sorts ('you're an atheist when it comes to Zeus'), or that he's 'almost' an atheist ('you're an atheist when it comes to Zeus et al; you only have to go one god more'), and so on. Also, it has the further advantage of openly advocating what must be called epistemic virtues (when understood properly), e.g. skepticism and critical thinking. Also, in this regard, it frames the issue properly, and without any deceit: Are Christians being as properly skeptical, critical, etc. towards their beliefs as they are towards, say, belief in Zeus?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21180791022928122252009-01-07T15:52:00.000-05:002009-01-07T15:52:00.000-05:00Jeff, are you suggesting that unless I can specify...Jeff, are you suggesting that unless I can specify where the sufferings of this world fit on the spectrum of what is possible then the actual sufferings of this world can be ignored until I do so? I suppose they would lie somewhere between the Christian conceptions of heaven and hell, okay? Mid point. Finite but still terrible. Yet not so bad, compared to infinity. And not so good compared to heaven.<BR/><BR/>Does that do anything for you? I can't see why. For this world does not reflect the perfect goodness of the God you worship. That's the point and I make it easily. <BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, I can know that a fine of $1 is not a big enough one for some infraction without being made to specific what the exact fine should be. And I can conceive of a much better world, easily.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29844110035150763852009-01-07T15:46:00.000-05:002009-01-07T15:46:00.000-05:00Thanks, SirMoogie, for bringing that up.Wiki menti...Thanks, SirMoogie, for bringing that up.<BR/><BR/>Wiki mentions a few rare cases - where more than one child has this affliction in the family. <BR/><BR/>I wonder what the hell their parents were thinking, after having already seen with one child that their genetics made it likely that they'd have another with the same problem.<BR/><BR/>In one case, they really won the lottery with their second child: she also has cerebral palsy.<BR/><BR/>Here's an article on the oldest UK survivor, who had FOUR OTHER SIBLINGS pass away from this condition as children. (There's also a US triathlete (!) who's around 28.)<BR/><BR/>http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-health-news/2008/05/09/nelly-is-a-real-diamond-girl-65233-20886612/<BR/><BR/>Obviously everyone wishes her the best. I shudder to think what would have happened, had she been born in Bangladesh.<BR/><BR/>"Suffering may sometimes be necessary, but why doesn't it have limits" is a pretty hard-hitting, seldomly-asked question I wish my liberal/deistic worldview didn't have to explain.<BR/><BR/>"God has an eternity to make up for it" only works if there's no permanent Hell.<BR/><BR/>Would any orthodox Christian here like to tell me what they would like to see happen to these people if it turns out they're not Christians?<BR/><BR/>Your silence speaks volumes.ismellarathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798650524118603772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87025783573336424972009-01-07T15:19:00.000-05:002009-01-07T15:19:00.000-05:00I'm merely asking why people suffer so much.John,s...<I>I'm merely asking why people suffer so much.</I><BR/><BR/>John,so much in relation to what? How do we know where we are on the spectrum of suffering?Jeff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04502136139528025066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88401582452616766122009-01-07T14:51:00.000-05:002009-01-07T14:51:00.000-05:00MARYAnd who is to judge me or you according to the...MARY<BR/>And who is to judge me or you according to their view of right and wrong...a mere human? Who is able?<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>I think this means that Mary considers herself above American law, as she does not think her fellow human beings in America are able to judge whether it is right or wrong for her to take crack cocaine.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure she doesn't take crack cocaine, but if she did, she would find her confident assertions about the inability of me to judge her to be somewhat reality-challenged.<BR/><BR/>How can somebody write that human beings are not able to judge each other?<BR/><BR/>I find such statments just plain weird. <BR/><BR/>How can anybody become a Christian if it means saying in public that they do think 'a mere human' can judge each other according to their view of right and wrong?<BR/><BR/>Did her God create the speeding laws that she obeys?<BR/><BR/>Did her God create the taxes that she pays?<BR/><BR/>Humans created all those laws that Mary Jo obeys because she knows she will be judged as a criminal if she disobeys them.<BR/><BR/>And human beings created all the laws in the Bible....<BR/><BR/>None of them were created by her alleged god - not even the one which says rapists must be forced to marry the woman they raped.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57899118399353639232009-01-07T14:19:00.000-05:002009-01-07T14:19:00.000-05:00kiwi, yes, I think it does. At the very least, it ...kiwi, yes, I think it does. At the very least, it offers reasons not to care even if there is a deist God. <BR/><BR/>But you continue to comment without understanding what you're talking about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69794677341248973782009-01-07T14:14:00.000-05:002009-01-07T14:14:00.000-05:00Why do you parrot the same thing, instead of addre...Why do you parrot the same thing, instead of addressing what I've said?<BR/><BR/>Does your book refute deism for example, yes or no? The answer to the question is very simple. It's only one word.<BR/><BR/>The world doesn't revolve around your book. What I'm saying is that it's silly to think atheism is the only alternative to her version of Christianity. This observation has absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing to do with your book.kiwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05574278615993892853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57897332097334573682009-01-07T13:58:00.000-05:002009-01-07T13:58:00.000-05:00kiwi, I'm sure you haven't read my book yet, for i...kiwi, I'm sure you haven't read my book yet, for if you had you'd see that while I provide arguments against Christian theism it's the methodology that I use to do so that can easily be used against other religions, including liberalism. That's why she said it's the "only other resort." Whether it is or not that's what she concludes. Why don't you become informed before commenting further?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74977004663628755372009-01-07T13:51:00.000-05:002009-01-07T13:51:00.000-05:00Eric and Jim Turner, we're just talking about the ...Eric and Jim Turner, we're just talking about the definition of terms, nomenclature. When using a term one must try to understand what the person using it means by it. I've told you what I mean by "atheist." There is nothing inconsistent with how I use it. You may call the same phenomenon whatever you want to. When you do I must try to understand what you mean. That's the nature of language.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5906902089822091772009-01-07T13:30:00.000-05:002009-01-07T13:30:00.000-05:00For Philip R Kreyche - the intuition and basic pre...<I>For Philip R Kreyche - the intuition and basic premises have remained in spite of cultural influences and changes. What is the origin?</I><BR/><BR/>... what intuition and basic premises? You mean things like theft, murder, sexual taboos? I'm sorry, but are absolutely no universal agreements among human beings, regarding morality.<BR/><BR/>For example, stealing: communes share all property. There's no concept of personal possessions, so theft is not recognized.<BR/><BR/>Murder: in many parts of the Arab world, notably Pakistan, young girls are frequently beaten and stomped to death by their family for consorting with men from other tribes. The family members do not consider it murder, while most other cultures probably would.<BR/><BR/>Sex: in the Trobriand Islands, it has been common practice for young teenagers to pair off and have sexual relations before any sort of "marriage." Many other cultures would consider this to be taboo.<BR/><BR/>Mary Jo, can you point out one single universal moral conviction that has been shared by all cultures, and that could have no rational natural explanation?Philip R Kreychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13079037983351521346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69220753796721492782009-01-07T12:28:00.000-05:002009-01-07T12:28:00.000-05:00MJ -- sorry but I fail to see how your clarificati...MJ -- sorry but I fail to see how your clarification works.<BR/><BR/>First, minds are not mathematical symbols. An autistic artist has a mind that may have a markedly greater capacity for musical memory and expression than someone who is not autistic. When it comes to music, that mind is greater, and if music is what you value, than you will pick that mind. <BR/><BR/>When it comes to chess, Deep Blue is the best mind on earth. To say Deep Blue is not a mind is to say that nobody uses their mind when playing chess. Deep Blue cannot hold a conversation, but then again -- neither can God.<BR/><BR/>So again, the idea that one mind is greater than the other implies a simplistic and plainly false understanding of what a mind is.<BR/><BR/>In addition -- a problem for the theist is that all minds extant are embodied. We have zero evidence for a disembodied mind. Even Christianity focuses on the embodied mind of the Christ part of the triune deity-thingie to the near exclusion of the other two portions, since they are almost by definition inscrutable, as you hint at in your last post.<BR/><BR/>Your mind may be good at figuring out Biblical texts, but not so good at calculus. My mind may be good at imitating voices, but not so good at making a pizza.<BR/><BR/>To glibly state that one mind is greater than another just seems <I>prima facie</I> nonsensical.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>EvanEvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34182699893934869762009-01-07T11:59:00.000-05:002009-01-07T11:59:00.000-05:00Eric said "Steve, he doesn't deny that he lacks be...<B>Eric said "Steve, he doesn't deny that he lacks belief in Zeus; he denies that this makes him an atheist when it comes to Zeus. As he says, it makes him an 'a-Zeusist,' but not an atheist. As I said, calling a Christian an atheist when it comes to Zeus is a rhetorical trick."</B><BR/><BR/>It seems like the whole issue can be greatly clarified by just slightly adjusting some terms.<BR/><BR/>For instance, Loftus said "She herself is an atheist when it comes to Islam." Instead, try "She herself is a skeptic, critic, and unbeliever when it comes to Islam."<BR/><BR/>Doesn't the following sound much better?<BR/><BR/>"A Christian is a skeptic, critic, and unbeliever when it comes to Allah, the Mormon God, the Watchtower God, Zeus, and all others. An atheist is just a skeptic, critic and unbeliever in one more god."<BR/><BR/>How's that sound?<BR/><BR/>- Jim T.Jim Turnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08382752988191965423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20472381486878173672009-01-07T11:55:00.000-05:002009-01-07T11:55:00.000-05:00John, you have said yourself that your book doesn'...John, you have said yourself that your book doesn't cover all bases and the focus is mainly on evangelical Christianity. <BR/><BR/>I don't need to read your book to know that it doesn't refute all possible non-atheistic worldviews. Do you have a bullet-proof argument against deism in your book, for example?<BR/><BR/>But this is not even relevant, as it isn't about your book. The person claims the only other resort to Christianity is atheism. I refuse to believe a person finishing a M.Div degree would say something so black and white, unless the education offered at the Denver Seminary is seriously lacking.<BR/><BR/>This is all too characteristic of fundamentalists to think that the only reasonable alternative to their version of Christianity is atheism; it's the typical all-or-nothing attitude of fundies.kiwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05574278615993892853noreply@blogger.com