An Amusing Set of Questions

Stumbled upon this particularly goofy set of questions for atheists.  Why not?  I'll bite...

"Do you take pleasure in telling lies or are you just so gullible that you believe any anti-religious lie you hear?"
Neither.

"Are you only capable of mimicking and copying arguments you heard from Dawkins and other atheists?"
No.

"What’s the reason that you continue to use racist atheists as viable sources, celebrate racist atheist biologists and racist/atheist countries?"
Unsupported premise.  The sources are not specified.

"Do you have any independent mind of your own or ability to question what other atheists say or think?"
Yes on both.

"Why do you consider any criticism of atheists, atheistic arguments, or atheistic beliefs as “trolling” but not consider condemning, ridiculing, or making fun of religion as “trolling”?"
False premise.  I don't.

"Why have you intentionally remained silent in opposition to racism but not silent in opposition to Intelligent Design, Creationism, and many other things?"
False premise.  I don't.

"Why do you value high IQ as being worth more than contributions?"
I have no idea what this question is asking.

"Why do you discourage belief without evidence, intuition, and originality?"
I'm not sure why someone would want to believe something without evidence, and I'm not sure how the questioner is using the other two terms.

"Why are you an anti-science fanatic who strongly opposes free and open criticism, scrutiny, and questioning?"
False premise.  I'm strongly pro-science.

"Who do you hate more, Jews or Muslims?"
False premise.  I don't hate anyone who hasn't earned it.

Well, that was constructive...

More Questions for Atheists

Thought I'd have a shot at the list of questions for atheists on the "Who Is He?" website...

"How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe if there is no God?"
Unsupported premise.  It has not been established that the universe has a "high degree of design."

"How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?"
Lots of mythology is based on real people, places or events.

"Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of divine origin?"
Unsupported premise.  It has not been established that "no Bible prophecy has ever failed."

"How do you explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion (Psalm 22) 1000 years before Christ lived?"
False premise.  Neither Jesus nor crucifixion are mentioned in Psalm 22.

"How do you explain that the prophet Daniel prophesied the exact YEAR when the Christ would be presented as Messiah and also prophesied that the temple would be destroyed afterwards over 500 years in advance (Daniel 9:24-27)?"
False premise.  No units of time are given in the passages in Daniel.

"How could any mere human pinpoint the precise birth town of the Messiah seven full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?"
False premise.  The term "Messiah" does not appear in Micah.

"How do you account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ?"
Unsupported premise.  The given odds are not established.

"How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it occurred?"
False premise.  The verse refers to someone named Immanuel.

"How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and the proximity to the originals of its many copied manuscripts?"
Unsupported premise.  This information about copied manuscripts has not been established.

"In what sense was Jesus a "good man" if He was lying in His claim to be God?"
Unsupported premise.  The existence of Jesus as a real person has not been established.

"If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as "the Good Book"?"
False premise.  Only Christians regard the Bible this way.

"Did you know that the Bible has been the number one bestseller almost every single year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?"
False premise.  Best-seller lists did not exist in 1436.

"If God does not exist, then from where comes humanity's universal moral sense?"
It evolved from the need to live together in societies to survive.

"If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?"
False premise.  A human being's molecular structure is not random.

"Can you explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos?"
I cannot, because I am not an expert in the required fields.  However, I could direct the reader to sources on the topics.

"If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have been willing to face death for what they knew to be a lie?"
Unsupported premise.  The existence and characteristics of the people mentioned in the question have not been established.

"How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and society to this day?"
Assuming the question refers to Jesus, unsupported premise.  The existence of Jesus as a real person has not been established.

"Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers?"
Not enough information to answer; the thinkers in question would need to be specified.

"Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and dead, have been men and women of great faith?"
No.

"If time never had a beginning, but rather goes backwards infinitely or has gone through an infinite number of cycles, then how is it possible that we are here today?"
Unsupported premise.  Whether or not time had a beginning has not been established.

"How can something as small as a brain understand extremely complicated aspects of the universe, even though it is (supposedly) just a bunch of chemical reactions and electrical signals?"
I am unqualified to answer questions on neuroscience, but I would be happy to direct the reader to sources.

"But at the same time, this brain can’t create another brain like itself, so how can nature, that has no brain, create a brain?"
Unsupported premise.  The idea that nature "creates" has not been established.

"Everyone knows Mount Rushmore was the result of intelligent design. Do you think the human body is the result of intelligent design?"
No.

"When you look at a lot of creatures such as zebras, turtles, butterflies, bees, lady bugs, leopards, etc., you will notice amazing color patterns designed into them. Who came up with those?"
Unsupported premise.  The idea that they had to be "come up with" by a "who" is unsupported.

"Does nature have a “taste” in colors, and does it know which colors go together nicely?"
No.

"How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible complexity of its essential components?"
False premise.  The idea of irreducible complexity has been debunked.

"How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?"
"How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with naturalism and the Law of Entropy?"
Thermodynamic laws and entropy only hold true in closed systems.

"How come there are some things on our planet seem that they are especially designed for us? For example, the 2 most comfortable colors are blue and green , which happen to be the color of the sky and most of the nature around us."
False premise.  Those things do not seem designed at all.

"Who chose those colors to be there , before earth even existed?"
Unsupported premise.  It has not been established that those things require a "who" to choose them.

"Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's holy books, contain such detailed prophecies of future events?"
Unsupported premise.  It has not been established that anything in the Bible describes a future event.

"Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively true that "all things are relative?""
False dichotomy.  It has not been established that these are the only two options regarding truth.

"Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?"
No.

"Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose?"
Yes.

"How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian believers down through history?"
Not enough information to answer; the believers in question would need to be specified.

"Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and credible manner?"
False premise.  They have not.

"What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?"
Not enough information to answer; sources would need to be specified.

"Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?"
Unsupported premise.  The existence of such worldwide attempts has not been established.

"Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?"
Unsupported premise.  This fact has not been established.

"How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries?"
Unsupported premise.  Evidence is not provided.

"If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place at His tomb?"
"If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?"
"If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?"
Unsupported premise.  The historical accuracy of these accounts his not been established.

"How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?"
False premise.  The cited passage contains no such testimony.

"If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own self-delusion, why didn't He show evidence of lunacy in any other areas of His life?"
Unsupported premise.  The existence of Jesus as a real person has not been established.

"Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad experience with an imperfect church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?"
No.

"How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?"
False premise.  The Bible is not one unified message.

"Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, how does the theory of "evolution" amount to anything more than just another faith system?"
False premise.  Evolution does not describe how life originated, only how it diversified.

"What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?"
If by "theological awareness," you mean belief in some sort of deity, there are evolutionary hypotheses to account for the development of religious beliefs, with varying degrees of support.  I can direct the reader to sources if desired.

"If every effect has a cause, then what or who caused the universe?"
Unsupported premise.  The idea that the universe is the effect of a cause has not been established.

"How do you explain the thousands of people who have experienced heaven or hell and have come back to tell us about it?"
Unsupported premise.  The idea that people have experienced heaven or hell has not been established.

"How do you explain the countless people who have received miracles from God?"
Not enough information to answer.  The people and "miracles" in question would need to be specified.

"Is there any evidence that would satisfy you and persuade you to become a believer, or are you just going to believe what you WANT to believe?"
I would absolutely believe in any god if compelling evidence could be provided.

Stripping God Down

In a Fox News blog post, Johnnie Moore makes the tired argument that atheists are religious, but he has strip away much of the definition of God in order to do it:

"Religion certainly includes an idea of a God under whom man is inherently subservient, but religion also governs the belief system undergirding the way people think about, and live, their lives.  It tells them who their authority is and it informs their values and behavior."

To illustrate his point, he says:

"First, they have a functioning God under whom they are subservient (normally it’s science or rationality, but mainly themselves), and that idea of God informs the way they live and interpret their lives. It informs their biases and determines their values, and governs any sense of morality or ethics they adhere too, or ignore."

Christians, is this really how you want to define God?  Anything to which you're subservient and thus compels you to make value choices?

By this definition, you employer is God.  Your employer has authority over you, and you have to make choices in line with making him or her happy.  You might want to stay up late watching TV, but being at work the next day requires you to do the ethical thing and go to bed instead.

No omnipotence.  No omnipresence.  No supernatural element.  No Scriptures...  THIS is how you define God?

Amazing how you have to water Him down to make this bogus argument about atheists.

Relying on the Gospels

I do love it when apologists pretend to be experts on information sources, as Eric Metaxas did in a recent Christian Post article.  For the record, it's unclear whether Metaxas is an expert in anything, since the bio page on his website fails to mention his degree.

In his article, Metaxas meekly tries to provide support for the idea that the Gospels are reliable sources.  His whole piece is based on a false premise, and he offers exactly two arguments to back himself up:

"But what if the Gospels are indeed what they claim to be? Eyewitness accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?"
False premise.  They never claim to be that.  They aren't written in the first person, and even if you believe every word of them, they describe numerous events that the author could not have been present for, like the temptation of Jesus in the desert, as well as the resurrection itself.  So Metaxas is defending the idea that they are something that they aren't, even with the most literal reading.

Here is the entirety of his support:
"If the young church wanted to make up a rosy propaganda piece about its leaders, they would not have painted the picture of Peter as a coward and the other disciples as consistently clueless!"
False dichotomy.  He's saying that if they aren't propaganda, then they're true.  And the best he can do to argue against their being propaganda is to suggest that he'd have written them differently if they were?

"Or take the role of women in the Gospel of Mark. They were the first to discover the empty tomb. But in the Jewish and Roman worlds, women couldn't serve as witnesses in court! So there's no way Mark or any of the gospels would rely on their testimony-unless, of course, the women really were eyewitnesses and what they said really happened."
But if the Gospel authors wouldn't have relied on their testimony, then it wouldn't matter whether that testimony was true or not!

Apologists everywhere are going to have to do a lot better than that if they want to convince those of who really are experts on the reliability of sources.

Thoughts For Young Men is Banned

The conversations with Thoughts For Young Men, on this blog and on American Vision, have been very stimulating for me; they’ve been at times fun, at times challenging.  They’ve even compelled me to revise my views on some issues, and for that, I give him credit.

So it’s profoundly disappointing to see him take everything that he’s learned about my views and lie about it to pretty much anyone who will listen.  The comments on this blog and on American Vision contain lots of examples, and I try to point them out when I see them.  But this was the last straw for me:

Thoughts For Young Men had, ironically, brought up Hitler in a conversation about the supposed moral weaknesses of non-religious people.  I had stated categorically my belief that what Hitler did was morally wrong.  I further stated that I believe people who think Hitler’s actions are morally right are wrong as well.  And this is how he restated that for the readers of American Vision:

“Don’t get me started again about how you think that what Hitler did was okay”

That really is about the most blatant, offensive lie someone could tell about my view of morality.

Thoughts For Young Men apparently believes that American Vision is a safe place to slander me in such a way.  So he can just stay there.

No further comments from Thoughts For Young Men will be approved on this blog.

If you’re interested in more of what Thoughts For Young Men has to say, he has two websites; I don’t know what’s on them, since I’m not:

http://thoughtsforyoungmen.com/
http://www.theinconsistentatheist.com/

So long, Thoughts For Young Men; it’s been good to know ‘ya.

Shame on Me

...for not spotting the glaring flaw in this whole Bible-as-evidence argument sooner.  Think of the time and energy I could have saved.

The argument hinges on one of three premises:
1) If something in the Bible can't be disproven, it must be true.
or
2) Since the Bible says a few things that can be shown to be true, the whole thing must be.
or, a combination of the two:
3) If something in the Bible can't be disproven, then it's possible.  Since the Bible says a few things that are true, anything it says that is possible must also be true.

The trouble is, all of these are false premises.

Whether or not something cannot be disproven is irrelevant to its veracity.  Consider the following claims:
a) My first name is Billy.
b) My first name is Bob.

Since I don't reveal my true identity, you cannot disprove either claim.  However, either one could be true.  It's possible that neither are true.  It's possible that both are true, if my name is Billy Bob.

So who cares if a claim can't be disproven?  The fact that something is possible doesn't make it true.

As for both of the other premises, the fact that Bible might get one thing right doesn't mean that it's right on anything else. Jerusalem exists, but that doesn't mean that God does.  Athens exists, but that doesn't mean that Zeus does (even though Homer mentions both).

The fact remains that in all of the above cases, there's still no positive support provided for any claims.

So you know what, I'll play along...  I concede that it's possible that every single thing the Bible says is true.  I'll even go further:  I concede that it's possible that every single story ever told about all of the gods humanity has ever believed in (over two thousand in all) is true.

But the fact that something is possible doesn't make it true.

So, with that in mind, when someone can show me why I should believe anything in the Bible is true (and not just possible), I'll be happy to do so.

CARM Questions for Atheists

Thought I'd have a shot at Matt Slick's questions for atheists on the CARM website:

"How would you define atheism?"
The belief that no gods exist.

"Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)?"
False premise; I act according to what I believe, but I believe many more things than just "there is no God."

"Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist?"
False premise.  God has no existence to work against.

"How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?"
"How sure are you that your atheism is correct?"
Same answer to both: I am thoroughly convinced.

"How would you define what truth is?"
That which can be demonstrated to be accurate in the real world is true.

"Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?"
Because no one claiming any gods exist have been able to support that claim with evidence.

"Are you a materialist, or a physicalist, or what?"
I would not use either term to describe myself.

"Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview?  Why or why not?"
It is only a worldview to the extent that it is a belief that people share.

"Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity, but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?"
I am only antagonistic to Christians who work for special treatment under the law for their religion.

"If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?"
I never believed in the Christian god.

"Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?"
"Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?"
"Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?"
Same answer to all three: Not necessarily.

"Must God be known through the scientific method?"
As opposed to what?

"If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?"
If this immaterial god had any interaction with the material world, there would be material evidence for that.

"Do we have any purpose as human beings?"
"If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?"
We only have that purpose which we choose to undertake.

"Where does morality come from?"
The need to live together in societies.

"Are there moral absolutes?"
"If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?"
I do not believe there are moral absolutes.

"Do you believe there is such a thing as evil?  If so, what is it?"
I use the word evil merely as an adjective to describe very bad actions.

"If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?"
My conscience.

"What would it take for you to believe in God?"
Compelling evidence.

"What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?"
I'm not sure, but an all-knowing god would know.

"Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc. or what?"
By definition of the word evidence, it would need to be verifiable.

"Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer?  Why?"
Not enough information to answer the question.  Safety of a society is not determined solely by religious beliefs.

"Do you believe in free will?  (free will being the ability to make choices without coersion)."
Yes.

"If you believe in free will do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?"
No.

"If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal, and thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time?  If not, why not?"
"If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?"
I recognize that evolution is a fact, but we do not currently have enough information to know if the universe will expand forever, or if the outcome you're asking about is possible.